41 U.S.C. § 3703

Competitive proposals

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

(a)Evaluation and Award.—An executive agency shall evaluate competitive proposals in accordance with section 3701(a) of this title and may award a contract—(1) after discussions with the offerors, provided that written or oral discussions have been conducted with all responsible offerors who submit proposals within the competitive range; or(2) based on the proposals received and without discussions with the offerors (other than discussions conducted for the purpose of minor clarification), if, as required by section 3306(b)(2)(B)(i) of this title, the solicitation included a statement that proposals are intended to be evaluated, and award made, without discussions unless discussions are determined to be necessary.(b)Limit on Number of Proposals.—If the contracting officer determines that the number of offerors that would otherwise be included in the competitive range under subsection (a)(1) exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range, in accordance with the criteria specified in the solicitation, to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the offerors rated most highly in accordance with those criteria.(c)Criteria for Awarding Contract.—Except as otherwise provided in section 3701(b) of this title, the executive agency shall award a contract with reasonable promptness to the responsible source whose proposal is most advantageous to the Federal Government, considering only cost or price and the other factors included in the solicitation.(d)Notice of Award.—The executive agency shall award the contract by transmitting, in writing or by electronic means, notice of the award to that source and, within 3 days after the date of contract award, shall notify, in writing or by electronic means, all other offerors of the rejection of their proposals.(Pub. L. 111–350, § 3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3771.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
3703(a)	41:253b(d)(1).	June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, § 303B(d), as added Pub. L. 98–369, title VII, § 2711(a)(2), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1180; Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §§ 1061(c)(3), 1063(b), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3267, 3268; Pub. L. 104–106, title XLI, § 4103(b), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 644.
3703(b)	41:253b(d)(2).
3703(c)	41:253b(d)(3) (1st sentence).
3703(d)	41:253b(d)(3) (last sentence).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2011–2024 · 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). “§ 253b(d) (2006) (current version at 41 U.S.C. § 3703 ). Id. ¶¶ 10-11 . Moreover, GMIG added that the totality of its email exchanges with HHS University *628 indicated HHS University’s contract award and GMIG’s acceptance.”

Clinicomp Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 722 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “the *745 solicitation included a statement that proposals are intended to be evaluated, and award made, without discussions unless discussions are determined to be necessary”); FAR 15.”

Wavelink, Inc v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “To the extent that this language is relevant, WaveLink likely should have cited 41 U.S.C. § 3703 (c), which similarly provides that an “executive agency shall award a contract with reasonable promptness to the responsible source whose proposal is most advantageous to the Federal…”

Oak Grove Tech., LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “§ 2305 (b)(4)(A)(ii), and 41 U.S.C. § 3703 (a)(2)). Even more troubling still, the SSAC Memorandum for Record, dated December 9, 2019 – provided to the Court for the first time pursuant to the Court’s May 20, 2021 order – does not even mention the discussions issue, despite the…”

Peggy Chu v. Dep't of Com. (MSPB 2024). “41 U.S.C. § 3703 (c). Under FAR §§ 9.104-1(c) and 9.”

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.