Remove 2001 Remove Price Remove Thresholds
article thumbnail

Friday Flash 08/16/2024

The Coalition for Government Procurement

2001), which concluded that the COFC has bid protest jurisdiction over United States Postal Service procurements despite that the Postal Service being exempt from the FAR). The new prices will be effective Jan 1, 2026. The proposed changes to the DFARS are primarily to: Add references to the CMMC 2.0 1491(b)(1) (emphasis added).

article thumbnail

A Bridge (Not) Too Far: Prohibition on Dividing up Contracts to get Under 8(a) Sole Source Dollar Limit Doesn’t Apply to Bridge Contracts

SmallGovCon

124.506 , if an 8(a) contract price would exceed a certain threshold ($7 million for manufacturing contracts, $4.5 What happens when an agency decides that instead of competing a five-year contract to 8(a) companies, it will just sole source five one-year contracts at the sole source dollar threshold to an 8(a) company?

professionals

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Government Contracts Issues for a Recession

Procurement Notes

3] The last eight recessions include the 2020 COVID-19 recession, the 2007-2009 Great Recession, the 2001 dot-com recession, the 1990-1991 savings & loan crisis recession, the 1981-1982 second double dip recession, the 1980 first double dip recession, 1973-1975 oil crisis recession, and the 1969-1970 guns and butter recession. [4]

article thumbnail

GAO Bid Protests: Required Debriefings

Procurement Notes

B-286663 , 2001 CPD ¶ 35, at 3 (Jan. 31, 2001). [6] 14, 1996) (“We find that the record here supports the agency’s determination to use negotiated procedures rather than sealed bidding on the ground that the award will not be based on price alone.”); FAR 6.401. [23] B-419701 , 2021 CPD ¶ 201, at 2 (May 12, 2001). [31]

Bidding 40
article thumbnail

The COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Legal Donnybrook Has Arrived

Procurement Notes

Price , the Supreme Court stated that “[p]rivate persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited action, are acting ‘under color’ of law. Price, 383 U.S. 17] Further, since the GovCon Order was issued pursuant to FPASA, if a contract does not fall within the ambit of FPASA (e.g., 51] In United States v. 49] See id.