23 CFR 635.110 - Licensing and qualification of contractors

Cite as23 CFR 635.110
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
8 practice notes
  • City of Cleveland v. Ohio, No. 06-3611.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 21, 2007
    ...by authorizing geographically-based discrimination. The lower court also held that the ordinance's enforcement mechanism violated 23 C.F.R. § 635.110(b) because the Lewis Law's bond penalty for noncompliance could restrict competition by deterring some contractors from bidding on City const......
  • Construction Manager/General Contractor Contracting
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 29, 2015
    • June 29, 2015
    ...condition clauses would also apply to construction services agreements of CM/GC projects. Section 635.110 The FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR 635.110 to clarify that STAs may use their own bonding, insurance, licensing, qualification or prequalification procedure for any phase of design-build......
  • Construction Manager/General Contractor Contracting
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 02, 2016
    • December 2, 2016
    ...qualification, or licensing of contractors on Federal-aid projects as long as those procedures do not restrict competition (23 CFR 635.110(b)). The revision to this section simply clarifies that this general requirement applies to CM/GC contracting. In general, the provisions of 2 CFR part ......
  • Dortch, Figures & Sons, Inc. v. City of Mobile, CIVIL ACTION 1:18-00213-KD-C
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Southern District of Alabama
    • October 22, 2019
    ...the City and the documents in support (Doc. 28-1) reference it as 2016-202-22A/B. The latter appears to be correct. 5. Dortch cites 23 C.F.R. § 635.110(c) and 23 C.F.R. § 635.112(d) claiming: ALDOT and federal regulations prohibit a municipality from refusing to accept a bid, requiring only......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 cases
  • City of Cleveland v. Ohio, No. 06-3611.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 21, 2007
    ...by authorizing geographically-based discrimination. The lower court also held that the ordinance's enforcement mechanism violated 23 C.F.R. § 635.110(b) because the Lewis Law's bond penalty for noncompliance could restrict competition by deterring some contractors from bidding on City const......
  • Dortch, Figures & Sons, Inc. v. City of Mobile, CIVIL ACTION 1:18-00213-KD-C
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Southern District of Alabama
    • October 22, 2019
    ...the City and the documents in support (Doc. 28-1) reference it as 2016-202-22A/B. The latter appears to be correct. 5. Dortch cites 23 C.F.R. § 635.110(c) and 23 C.F.R. § 635.112(d) claiming: ALDOT and federal regulations prohibit a municipality from refusing to accept a bid, requiring only......
  • Competitive Bidding Requirements Under The Federal-Aid Highway Program, 13-4
    • United States
    • Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice
    • August 23, 2013
    ...the responsible agency head or delegee to disallow state or local procedures or requirements that restrict competition. See, e.g., 23 C.F.R. § 635.110(b) (2012) (“No procedure or requirement for bonding, insurance, prequalification, qualification, or licensing of contractors shall be approv......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT