41 U.S.C. § 3105

New contracts and grants and merit-based selection procedures

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 41 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Congressional Policy.—It is the policy of Congress that—(1) an executive agency should not be required by legislation to award—(A) a new contract to a specific non-Federal Government entity; or(B) a new grant for research, development, test, or evaluation to a non-Federal Government entity; and(2) a program, project, or technology identified in legislation be procured or awarded through merit-based selection procedures.(b)New Contract and New Grant Described.—For purposes of this section—(1) a contract is a new contract unless the work provided for in the contract is a continuation of the work performed by the specified entity under a prior contract; and(2) a grant is a new grant unless the work provided for in the grant is a continuation of the work performed by the specified entity under a prior grant.(c)Requirements for Awarding New Contract or New Grant.—A provision of law may not be construed as requiring a new contract or a new grant to be awarded to a specified non-Federal Government entity unless the provision of law specifically—(1) refers to this section;(2) identifies the particular non-Federal Government entity involved; and(3) states that the award to that entity is required by the provision of law in contravention of the policy set forth in subsection (a).(d)Exception.—This section does not apply to a contract or grant that calls on the National Academy of Sciences to investigate, examine, or experiment on a subject of science or art of significance to an executive agency and to report on those matters to Congress or an agency of the Federal Government.(Pub. L. 111–350, § 3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3744.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
3105(a)	41:253(i)(1).	June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, § 303(i), as added Pub. L. 103–355, title VII, § 7203(b)(1)(B), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3380; Pub. L. 104–106, title XLI, § 4101(b)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 642.
	41:266(a).	June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, § 316, as added Pub. L. 103–355, title VII, § 7203(b)(2), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3381; Pub. L. 104–106, title XLIII, § 4321(e)(9), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 675.
3105(b)	41:253(i)(3).
	41:266(c).
3105(c)	41:253(i)(2).
	41:266(b).
3105(d)	41:253(i)(4).
	41:266(d).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2011–2013 · leading case: Gonzales-McCaulley Inv. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 623 (Fed. Cl. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gonzales-McCaulley Inv. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 623 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “§ 253 (current version at 41 U.S.C. §§ 3105 , 3301-3305), and the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), 41 U.”

McAfee, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 696 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “2008); see also 41 U.S.C. § 3105 (b)(1) (“[A] contract is a new contract unless the work provided for in the contract is a continuation of the work performed by the specified entity under a prior contract.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.