Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Limitations on Tiered Evaluation of Offers (DFARS Case 2006-D009), 42313-42315 [E7-14906]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
(1) The name, address, telephone
number, and facsimile telephone
number of the person submitting the
instrument by facsimile;
(2) The number of pages submitted by
facsimile; and
(3) The name of the vessel, official
number or hull identification number of
the vessel(s), and the name(s) of the
owner(s) of the vessel(s) to which the
instrument relates.
(d) The filing of any instrument
submitted by facsimile is terminated
and the instrument will be returned to
the submitter if the instrument is subject
to termination for any cause under
§ 67.217(a).
§ 67.540
I
[Removed]
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202 and
204
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 202 and 204
are amended as follows:
I
PART 202—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS
AND TERMS
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
Parts 202 and 204 continues to read as
follows:
[Amended]
6. Amend § 67.550 by removing from
Table 67.550–Fees, the entry reading:
‘‘Facsimile submission handling
Subpart O 2.00 1.’’
I
Dated: July 26, 2007.
J.G. Lantz,
Acting Assistant Commandant For
Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E7–14938 Filed 8–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR
Chapter 1.
2. Section 202.101 is amended in the
definition of ‘‘Contracting activity’’ as
follows:
I a. By revising the list with the heading
‘‘ARMY’’; and
I b. Under the heading ‘‘DEFENSE
LOGISTICS AGENCY’’, by removing
‘‘Office of the Deputy Director, Logistics
Operations’’ and adding in its place
‘‘Acquisition Management Directorate’’.
The revised list reads as follows:
I
202.101
Definitions.
*
48 CFR Parts 202 and 204
Headquarters, U.S. Army Contracting
Agency Joint Contracting Command—
Iraq/Afghanistan
National Guard Bureau
Program Executive Office for
Simulation, Training, and
Instrumentation
U.S. Army Aviation and Missile
Command
U.S. Army Communications-Electronics
Command
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security
Command
U.S. Army Joint Munitions and
Lethality Life Cycle Management
Command
U.S. Army Materiel Command, Office of
Command Contracting
U.S. Army Medical Command
U.S. Army Medical Research and
Materiel Command
U.S. Army Military Surface Deployment
and Distribution Command
U.S. Army Research, Development, and
Engineering Command
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense
Command
U.S. Army Sustainment Command
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: DoD is making technical
amendments to the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to update organization names,
office symbols, and an Internet address.
DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Michele Peterson, Defense Acquisition
Regulations System,
OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3C132,
3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0311;
facsimile (703) 602–7887.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
rule amends DFARS text as follows:
• Section 202.101. Updates the lists
of Army and Defense Logistics Agency
contracting activities.
16:10 Aug 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
*
*
Army
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Technical
Amendments
VerDate Aug<31>2005
*
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
PART 204—ADMINISTRATIVE
MATTERS
§ 204.7005
[Amended]
3. Section 204.7005 is amended as
follows:
I a. In paragraph (c), by removing ‘‘Air
Force: SAF/AQCX’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘Air Force: SAF/AQCI’’; and
I b. In paragraph (d) by removing
‘‘https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dfars/
ordercode.htm’’ and adding in its place
‘‘https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/
ordercodes/index.htm’’.
[FR Doc. E7–14897 Filed 8–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 202, 210, 213, 215, and
219
RIN 0750–AF36
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Limitations on
Tiered Evaluation of Offers (DFARS
Case 2006–D009)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
*
U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and
Armaments Command
*
*
*
*
*
I
I
5. Remove § 67.540.
§ 67.550
• Section 204.7005. Updates the
Internet address for DoD order code
assignment listings, and updates the
office symbol for the Air Force order
code monitor.
42313
SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final,
with changes, an interim rule amending
the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to
implement Section 816 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006. Section 816 requires DoD to
prescribe guidance on the use of tiered
evaluation of offers for contracts and for
task or delivery orders under contracts.
DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Tronic, Defense Acquisition
Regulations System,
OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3C132,
3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0289;
facsimile (703) 602–7887. Please cite
DFARS Case 2006–D009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
DoD published an interim rule at 71
FR 53042 on September 8, 2006, to
implement Section 816 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109–163). Section
E:\FR\FM\02AUR1.SGM
02AUR1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
42314
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
816 requires DoD to prescribe guidance
on the use of tiered evaluation of offers
for contracts and for task or delivery
orders under contracts. The guidance
must include a prohibition on the use of
tiered evaluation of offers unless the
contracting officer (1) has conducted
market research in accordance with Part
10 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR); (2) is unable, after conducting
market research, to determine whether
or not a sufficient number of qualified
small businesses are available to justify
limiting competition for the contract or
order; and (3) includes in the contract
file a written explanation of why the
contracting officer was unable to make
the determination.
Four sources submitted comments on
the interim rule. A discussion of the
comments is provided below. In
addition to the changes addressed in the
DoD response to Comment 1, the final
rule revises section 213.106–1–70 to
provide a cross-reference to section
215.203–70, instead of duplicating the
text found in that section.
1. Comment: The rule failed to
include an explicit prohibition.
DoD Response: While DoD believes
that stating the actions that the
contracting officer must take before
using tiered evaluation is an implied
prohibition, the final rule contains
amendments at 215.203–70 to explicitly
prohibit the contracting officer from
using tiered evaluation unless those
actions have been taken.
2. Comment: Defining the technique
of tiered evaluation in the DFARS
legitimizes the use of tiered evaluation.
DoD Response: The statute does not
completely prohibit the use of tiered
evaluation; it requires that certain
actions be taken before this technique
may be used. To permit an
understanding of the statutory
requirements, the technique must first
be defined.
3. Comment: FAR Part 10 already
requires the market research required by
the statute, and no additional research
is necessary.
DoD Response: DoD agrees that the
FAR already requires agencies to
conduct market research appropriate to
the circumstances before soliciting
offers for acquisitions in excess of the
simplified acquisition threshold and,
when necessary and cost-effective,
below the simplified acquisition
threshold. However, DoD believes the
additional language in DFARS Part 210
is appropriate to reinforce the statutory
requirement for market research before
conducting a tiered evaluation of offers.
4. Comment: The phrase ‘‘appropriate
to the circumstances’’ at DFARS
210.001(a)(i), with regard to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Aug 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
requirements for conducting market
research, should be deleted. Although
the phrase is consistent with the FAR,
it is not in the statute being
implemented and creates ambiguity.
DoD Response: The text at DFARS
210.001 is consistent with both the
statute and FAR Part 10. The statute
prohibits the use of tiered evaluation of
offers unless, among other things, the
contracting officer has conducted
market research in accordance with Part
10 of the FAR. The implementing
DFARS language reflects the policy in
FAR Part 10, requiring the conduct of
market research ‘‘appropriate to the
circumstances.’’ The DFARS language
recognizes that there are many ways to
conduct market research, and that the
methods employed should be those that
will be effective for the particular
acquisition.
5. Comment: The rule states that the
tiered evaluation of offers order of
precedence shall be consistent with
FAR Part 19. However, FAR Part 19
does not provide an ‘‘order of
precedence’’ among the various small
business goals.
DoD Response: FAR Part 19 does not
specifically state an order of
precedence. However, it does provide
direction on the circumstances under
which acquisitions may or must be set
aside for various categories of small
businesses. For example, FAR 19.1305
states that the contracting officer must
consider HUBZone set-asides for
acquisitions at a certain dollar level
before considering small business setasides. DoD believes that, in
establishing an order of precedence in a
tiered evaluation of offers, that order of
precedence must be consistent with the
direction in FAR Part 19.
6. Comment: Guidance to the
contracting officer can be addressed in
the Procedures, Guidance, and
Information (PGI), consistent with the
law.
DoD Response: PGI guidance to
supplement this rule is considered
unnecessary at this time.
7. Comment: The rule should include
coverage stating that a large business
involved in an 8(a) mentor-protege
agreement shall not offer itself as a large
business in competition against the 8(a)
mentor-protege agreement. In a recent
cascading set-aside, a large business
offered itself as a large entity, as a
subcontractor to a small business, and
as a mentor in an 8(a) mentor-protege
joint venture.
DoD Response: The issue of a mentor
firm competing against a protege firm is
not specific to tiered evaluation of
offers. Therefore, the final rule contains
no change relating to this comment.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This rule was not subject to Office of
Management and Budget review under
Executive Order 12866, dated
September 30, 1993.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DoD certifies that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,
because the rule relates to market
research and documentation
requirements performed by the
Government.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply, because the rule does not
impose any information collection
requirements that require the approval
of the Office of Management and Budget
under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202,
210, 213, 215, and 219
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 48 CFR parts 202, 210, 213,
215, and 219, which was published at
71 FR 53042 on September 8, 2006, is
adopted as a final rule with the
following changes:
I 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
parts 202, 210, 213, 215, and 219
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR
Chapter 1.
PART 213—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION
PROCEDURES
2. Section 213.106–1–70 is revised to
read as follows:
I
213.106–1–70 Soliciting competition—
tiered evaluation of offers.
See limitations on the use of tiered
evaluation of offers at 215.203–70.
PART 215—CONTRACTING BY
NEGOTIATION
3. Section 215.203–70 is amended by
revising paragraph (c) introductory text,
paragraph (c)(1) introductory text, and
paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
I
215.203–70 Requests for proposals—
tiered evaluation of offers.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The contracting officer is
prohibited from issuing a solicitation
with a tiered evaluation of offers
unless—
(1) The contracting officer conducts
market research, in accordance with
E:\FR\FM\02AUR1.SGM
02AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 148 / Thursday, August 2, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
FAR Part 10 and Part 210, to
determine—
*
*
*
*
*
(2) If the contracting officer cannot
determine whether the criteria in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section are met,
the contracting officer includes a
written explanation in the contract file
as to why such a determination could
not be made (Section 816 of Public Law
109–163).
[FR Doc. E7–14906 Filed 8–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 205 and 225
RIN 0750–AF33
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Berry
Amendment Notification Requirement
(DFARS Case 2006–D006)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final,
without change, an interim rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to implement Section 833(a) of
the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006. Section 833(a)
requires the posting of a notice on the
FedBizOpps Internet site, when certain
exceptions to domestic source
requirements apply to an acquisition.
DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition
Regulations System,
OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3C132,
3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0328;
facsimile (703) 602–7887. Please cite
DFARS Case 2006–D006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
DoD published an interim rule at 71
FR 58536 on October 4, 2006, to
implement Section 833(a) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109–163).
Section 833(a) amended 10 U.S.C. 2533a
to add a requirement for the posting of
a notice on the FedBizOpps Internet
site, within 7 days after award of a
contract exceeding the simplified
acquisition threshold, for the
acquisition of (1) certain clothing, fiber,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Aug 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
yarn, or fabric items, when DoD has
determined that adequate domestic
items are not available; or (2) chemical
warfare protective clothing, when an
exception to domestic source
requirements applies because the
acquisition furthers an agreement with a
qualifying country.
One source submitted comments on
the interim rule, as discussed below.
Comments: The respondent strongly
supported the initiative to insert
transparency into the process of waiving
domestic source requirements. Although
the law allows posting within 7 days
after contract award, the respondent
encouraged a more immediate notice to
industry, preferably before contract
award. The respondent also suggested
that there should be a permanent
posting of current domestic
nonavailability determinations, so that
industry (especially a company just
entering the contracting arena) would
have information regarding the
materials or components for which a
waiver has been granted. The
respondent recommended that this
information be available in an easily
accessible and permanent location to
permit better compliance with domestic
source requirements.
DoD Response: When drafting the
interim rule, DoD determined that the
least burdensome approach for posting
the notice would be to make it part of
the synopsis that is published after
contract award in accordance with FAR
5.301. Therefore, the final rule
continues to provide for posting of the
notice within 7 days after contract
award, consistent with the statutory
provisions. A listing of current domestic
nonavailability determinations is
available on the Defense Procurement
and Acquisition Policy Web site, at
https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/paic/
dnad.htm.
This rule was not subject to Office of
Management and Budget review under
Executive Order 12866, dated
September 30, 1993.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DoD certifies that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,
because the rule relates to a notification
requirement that is performed by the
Government.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply, because the rule does not
impose any information collection
requirements that require the approval
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42315
of the Office of Management and Budget
under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 205 and
225
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without
Change
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 48 CFR Parts 205 and 225,
which was published at 71 FR 58536 on
October 4, 2006, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
I
[FR Doc. E7–14904 Filed 8–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 225 and 252
RIN 0750–AF54
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Berry
Amendment Restrictions—Clothing
Materials and Components Covered
(DFARS Case 2006–D031)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final,
without change, an interim rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to implement Section 833(b) of
the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006. Section 833(b)
expands the foreign source restrictions
applicable to the acquisition of clothing
to also include clothing materials and
components, other than sensors,
electronics, or other items added to, and
not normally associated with, clothing
and the materials and components
thereof.
DATES:
Effective Date: August 2, 2007.
Ms.
Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition
Regulations System,
OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3C132,
3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0328;
facsimile (703) 602–7887. Please cite
DFARS Case 2006–D031.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\02AUR1.SGM
02AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 148 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42313-42315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14906]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
48 CFR Parts 202, 210, 213, 215, and 219
RIN 0750-AF36
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Limitations on
Tiered Evaluation of Offers (DFARS Case 2006-D009)
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, with changes, an interim rule
amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)
to implement Section 816 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006. Section 816 requires DoD to prescribe guidance on the
use of tiered evaluation of offers for contracts and for task or
delivery orders under contracts.
DATES: Effective Date: August 2, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Tronic, Defense
Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0289;
facsimile (703) 602-7887. Please cite DFARS Case 2006-D009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
DoD published an interim rule at 71 FR 53042 on September 8, 2006,
to implement Section 816 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163). Section
[[Page 42314]]
816 requires DoD to prescribe guidance on the use of tiered evaluation
of offers for contracts and for task or delivery orders under
contracts. The guidance must include a prohibition on the use of tiered
evaluation of offers unless the contracting officer (1) has conducted
market research in accordance with Part 10 of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR); (2) is unable, after conducting market research, to
determine whether or not a sufficient number of qualified small
businesses are available to justify limiting competition for the
contract or order; and (3) includes in the contract file a written
explanation of why the contracting officer was unable to make the
determination.
Four sources submitted comments on the interim rule. A discussion
of the comments is provided below. In addition to the changes addressed
in the DoD response to Comment 1, the final rule revises section
213.106-1-70 to provide a cross-reference to section 215.203-70,
instead of duplicating the text found in that section.
1. Comment: The rule failed to include an explicit prohibition.
DoD Response: While DoD believes that stating the actions that the
contracting officer must take before using tiered evaluation is an
implied prohibition, the final rule contains amendments at 215.203-70
to explicitly prohibit the contracting officer from using tiered
evaluation unless those actions have been taken.
2. Comment: Defining the technique of tiered evaluation in the
DFARS legitimizes the use of tiered evaluation.
DoD Response: The statute does not completely prohibit the use of
tiered evaluation; it requires that certain actions be taken before
this technique may be used. To permit an understanding of the statutory
requirements, the technique must first be defined.
3. Comment: FAR Part 10 already requires the market research
required by the statute, and no additional research is necessary.
DoD Response: DoD agrees that the FAR already requires agencies to
conduct market research appropriate to the circumstances before
soliciting offers for acquisitions in excess of the simplified
acquisition threshold and, when necessary and cost-effective, below the
simplified acquisition threshold. However, DoD believes the additional
language in DFARS Part 210 is appropriate to reinforce the statutory
requirement for market research before conducting a tiered evaluation
of offers.
4. Comment: The phrase ``appropriate to the circumstances'' at
DFARS 210.001(a)(i), with regard to requirements for conducting market
research, should be deleted. Although the phrase is consistent with the
FAR, it is not in the statute being implemented and creates ambiguity.
DoD Response: The text at DFARS 210.001 is consistent with both the
statute and FAR Part 10. The statute prohibits the use of tiered
evaluation of offers unless, among other things, the contracting
officer has conducted market research in accordance with Part 10 of the
FAR. The implementing DFARS language reflects the policy in FAR Part
10, requiring the conduct of market research ``appropriate to the
circumstances.'' The DFARS language recognizes that there are many ways
to conduct market research, and that the methods employed should be
those that will be effective for the particular acquisition.
5. Comment: The rule states that the tiered evaluation of offers
order of precedence shall be consistent with FAR Part 19. However, FAR
Part 19 does not provide an ``order of precedence'' among the various
small business goals.
DoD Response: FAR Part 19 does not specifically state an order of
precedence. However, it does provide direction on the circumstances
under which acquisitions may or must be set aside for various
categories of small businesses. For example, FAR 19.1305 states that
the contracting officer must consider HUBZone set-asides for
acquisitions at a certain dollar level before considering small
business set-asides. DoD believes that, in establishing an order of
precedence in a tiered evaluation of offers, that order of precedence
must be consistent with the direction in FAR Part 19.
6. Comment: Guidance to the contracting officer can be addressed in
the Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI), consistent with the
law.
DoD Response: PGI guidance to supplement this rule is considered
unnecessary at this time.
7. Comment: The rule should include coverage stating that a large
business involved in an 8(a) mentor-protege agreement shall not offer
itself as a large business in competition against the 8(a) mentor-
protege agreement. In a recent cascading set-aside, a large business
offered itself as a large entity, as a subcontractor to a small
business, and as a mentor in an 8(a) mentor-protege joint venture.
DoD Response: The issue of a mentor firm competing against a
protege firm is not specific to tiered evaluation of offers. Therefore,
the final rule contains no change relating to this comment.
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,
because the rule relates to market research and documentation
requirements performed by the Government.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does
not impose any information collection requirements that require the
approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
et seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202, 210, 213, 215, and 219
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 202, 210, 213, 215,
and 219, which was published at 71 FR 53042 on September 8, 2006, is
adopted as a final rule with the following changes:
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 202, 210, 213, 215, and 219
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
PART 213--SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
0
2. Section 213.106-1-70 is revised to read as follows:
213.106-1-70 Soliciting competition--tiered evaluation of offers.
See limitations on the use of tiered evaluation of offers at
215.203-70.
PART 215--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
0
3. Section 215.203-70 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text, paragraph (c)(1) introductory text, and paragraph (c)(2) to read
as follows:
215.203-70 Requests for proposals--tiered evaluation of offers.
* * * * *
(c) The contracting officer is prohibited from issuing a
solicitation with a tiered evaluation of offers unless--
(1) The contracting officer conducts market research, in accordance
with
[[Page 42315]]
FAR Part 10 and Part 210, to determine--
* * * * *
(2) If the contracting officer cannot determine whether the
criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section are met, the contracting
officer includes a written explanation in the contract file as to why
such a determination could not be made (Section 816 of Public Law 109-
163).
[FR Doc. E7-14906 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P
