This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
4 The Court rejected the government’s contention that because OTs are not procurementcontracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), they are necessarily removed from the Court’s bid protest jurisdiction. Examining the text and legislative history of the OT statutes at issue (i.e., 1491(b)(1) (emphasis added).
for tortious interference with a contract), etc. Procurement Remedies Starting with a procurementcontract, there are multiple recourses to Government non-payment. if a specific payment date is not established by contract. [2] if a specific payment date is not established by contract. [4] 2d 151, 164 (D.
4 The Court rejected the government’s contention that because OTs are not procurementcontracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), they are necessarily removed from the Court’s bid protest jurisdiction. Examining the text and legislative history of the OT statutes at issue (i.e., 1491(b)(1) (emphasis added).
4 The Court rejected the government’s contention that because OTs are not procurementcontracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), they are necessarily removed from the Court’s bid protest jurisdiction. Examining the text and legislative history of the OT statutes at issue (i.e., 1491(b)(1) (emphasis added).
4 The Court rejected the government’s contention that because OTs are not procurementcontracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), they are necessarily removed from the Court’s bid protest jurisdiction. Examining the text and legislative history of the OT statutes at issue (i.e., 1491(b)(1) (emphasis added).
15] Despite the broad description, in the context of a procurementcontract or a real property lease, the GovCon Order only applies to the following types of contracts. “(i) 6701 et seq.; (iii) However, the Supreme Court has established that a company cannot be a Bivens defendant, only an individual. See Constitutional Servs.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content