Nontraditional Defense Contractor, 21301-21302 [E8-8484]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 77 / Monday, April 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
To reassess the impact of the
proposed regulation on health centers,
HRSA analyzed the most recent data
from health center grantees who
reported in calendar year 2006 to the
Uniform Data System (UDS) and HRSA
applied the methodologies in the
proposed rule using nationally available
data. Based on this analysis, at most,
only 16 out of 1,001 health center
grantees (1.6 percent) would have to
include State or local data to seek to
maintain their current designation
status. This analysis was conducted at
the grantee level consistent with
HRSA’s health center policy that states:
‘‘The statutory obligations of serving an
MUA or MUP is an organizational level
obligation, not a site specific
requirement.’’ (https://answers.hrsa.gov/,
Answer ID 1216). The proposed rule
does not change this health center
policy.
In order to facilitate a better
understanding of the proposed rule,
HRSA provided State Primary Care
Offices (PCO) with a calculator that
applies the formulas proposed in the
rule to determine designation, with data
files, as well as with technical
assistance in using the calculator. We
encourage interested parties to contact
and work with their PCOs (https://
nhsc.bhpr.hrsa.gov/resources/info/
pco.asp) to review data and understand
the implications of the proposed rule.
To allay concerns of some
commenters, this notice seeks to draw
attention to and elicit comments on the
following matters:
Eligibility for Federal Resources
In the preamble, a statement in
section IV. B. Methodology (last
paragraph before subsection C at 73 FR
11247) inaccurately reflects our intent
and the potential effect regarding
eligibility for organizations designated
through Tier 1 or Tier 2. It suggests that
Tier 2 designations will not be eligible
for additional Federal resources. That is
not the case. No provision in the
proposed rule imposes any such
limitation and it is not our intent to do
so. Under the proposed rule, whether
designated via Tier 1, Tier 2, or Safety
Net Facility all entities will be equally
eligible to compete for new or expanded
health center funding. Similarly, all
entities designated through Tier 1, Tier
2, or Safety Net Facility will be equally
eligible to compete for National Health
Service Corps (NHSC) placements. In
contrast to the health center policy
described above, NHSC placements are
site specific pursuant to section 333(a)
of the Public Health Service Act. For
example, while a health center grantee
may be eligible for health center funding
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Apr 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
for all of its sites, only some of its sites
may be eligible under law for NHSC
placements. For further information on
NHSC placements, please contact your
State PCO.
Scoring for Relative Need
Scores are a numerical expression of
relative need derived from available
data about demography, economics,
population density, health status and
available primary care providers. Scores
are designed to be used by the NHSC for
provider placement and may be used by
other programs. While the proposed rule
does not include a specific methodology
for scoring those organizations that
receive a designation for serving highneed populations (Safety Net Facility), a
scoring methodology will have to be
established. To determine a Safety Net
Facility designation, HRSA will need
data on the proportions of the applicant
organization’s patient population that
are low-income uninsured as well as
Medicaid-eligible (see 73 FR 11251 of
the proposed rule). We seek comments
on how to score these Safety Net
Facility designations so that their need
is ranked equitably with the
designations scored in the other
methods outlined in the proposed rule,
that is, Tier 1 and Tier 2.
We invite comments on these issues,
as well as any other provisions of the
proposed rule. We will respond to all
comments when we publish the final
rule.
Dated: April 17, 2008.
Elizabeth M. Duke,
Administrator, Health Resources and Services
Administration.
[FR Doc. 08–1167 Filed 4–17–08; 11:32 am]
BILLING CODE 4152–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Chapter 2
Nontraditional Defense Contractor
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Request for public input.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: DoD is interested in creating
new and/or expanding existing
pathways for nontraditional contractor
participation in defense procurements.
In order to gauge the Department’s
success with respect to this endeavor,
DoD is specifically interested in first
establishing a standard Departmentwide definition for ‘‘nontraditional
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
21301
defense contractor’’ that would be
applied in defense procurements
conducted pursuant to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the
Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS). In
support of this initiative, DoD is seeking
industry input with regard to the
standards that should be utilized in
defining what constitutes a
nontraditional defense contractor and in
developing an appropriate definition for
use on a permanent basis.
DATES: Submit written comments to the
address shown below on or before June
20, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Office
of the Director, Defense Procurement
and Acquisition Policy, ATTN: OUSD
(AT&L) DPAP (CPIC), 3060 Defense
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060.
Comments also may be submitted by email to Anthony.Cicala@osd.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Anthony E. Cicala, by telephone at 703–
693–7062, or by e-mail at
Anthony.Cicala@osd.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since the
1970s, DoD has encouraged its
acquisition team to leverage, to the
maximum extent possible, the
commercial marketplace to acquire the
Department’s products and services. In
response to special commissions,
panels, and legislation, in January 2001,
DoD required the development of
implementation plans with the goal of
increasing the acquisition of commercial
items using the procedures at FAR Part
12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. In
addition, legislative changes to FAR Part
12, and FAR Part 13—Simplified
Acquisition Procedures, were enacted in
an attempt to streamline the process and
create a more commercial-like
contracting environment. DoD expected
increased use of the flexibility afforded
by FAR Part 12 and FAR Part 13
procedures to provide DoD greater
access to the commercial markets
(products and services types) which
would lead to increased competition,
better prices, and access to new market
entrants and/or technologies. DoD is
interested in determining how
successful it has been, and is now
examining ways to collect information
on the number of nontraditional defense
contractors the Department reaches
through its acquisitions to evaluate the
extent of increased access to commercial
markets, potential cost savings,
increased quality, and/or technological
innovation.
Currently, a definition for
nontraditional defense contractor is
promulgated at DFARS Subpart 212.70,
but the application of that definition is
limited to follow-on efforts to Other
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
21302
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 77 / Monday, April 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Transaction (OT) for Prototype awards
made by DoD pursuant to the authority
of 10 U.S.C. 2371 and Section 845 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160),
as amended. Given that this definition
tends to be narrow in scope in that it has
its genesis in Research and
Development (R&D) projects that
involve experimentation, test,
demonstration, and developments
related to weapons systems, the
application of the current definition
may not be entirely appropriate with
respect to the various types of defense
procurements that are possible under
existing regulations.
With respect to this request for
information from interested parties,
consideration should include, but is not
necessarily limited to, the following:
Æ Should consideration be given to
the percentage of a company’s business
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 Apr 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
that is devoted to defense specific award
actions versus non-defense specific
award actions in determining its status
as a traditional vice nontraditional
defense contractor? (e.g., If a company’s
sales revenue is based on 90 percent
commercial sector versus 10 percent
defense sector, should that be taken into
consideration? Are there other
benchmarks that should be used in
classifying a contractor as a
nontraditional defense contractor and, if
so, what are they and why are they
appropriate?)
Æ Should the definition stay the same
for all of the various types of
acquisitions, or should the definition
change depending upon products or
services acquired? (e.g., Service, Supply,
Construction, R&D)
Æ Should contractors be required to
self-certify their status as a
nontraditional defense contractor via
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
registration in the Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) database, Online
Representations and Certifications
Application (ORCA), or some other selfcertification mechanism, based on an
established definition for nontraditional
defense contractor, so that individual
contracting officers are not required to
make these independent judgment calls
for every single contract action
contemplated? If not, how should DoD
otherwise capture nontraditional
defense contractor status?
DoD requests your considered input
for all other aspects of what constitutes
a nontraditional defense contractor in
DoD procurements.
Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
[FR Doc. E8–8484 Filed 4–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
E:\FR\FM\21APP1.SGM
21APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 77 (Monday, April 21, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21301-21302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8484]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
48 CFR Chapter 2
Nontraditional Defense Contractor
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Request for public input.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD is interested in creating new and/or expanding existing
pathways for nontraditional contractor participation in defense
procurements. In order to gauge the Department's success with respect
to this endeavor, DoD is specifically interested in first establishing
a standard Department-wide definition for ``nontraditional defense
contractor'' that would be applied in defense procurements conducted
pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Defense
FAR Supplement (DFARS). In support of this initiative, DoD is seeking
industry input with regard to the standards that should be utilized in
defining what constitutes a nontraditional defense contractor and in
developing an appropriate definition for use on a permanent basis.
DATES: Submit written comments to the address shown below on or before
June 20, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Office of the Director, Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, ATTN: OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (CPIC), 3060
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Comments also may be
submitted by e-mail to Anthony.Cicala@osd.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony E. Cicala, by telephone at
703-693-7062, or by e-mail at Anthony.Cicala@osd.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since the 1970s, DoD has encouraged its
acquisition team to leverage, to the maximum extent possible, the
commercial marketplace to acquire the Department's products and
services. In response to special commissions, panels, and legislation,
in January 2001, DoD required the development of implementation plans
with the goal of increasing the acquisition of commercial items using
the procedures at FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. In
addition, legislative changes to FAR Part 12, and FAR Part 13--
Simplified Acquisition Procedures, were enacted in an attempt to
streamline the process and create a more commercial-like contracting
environment. DoD expected increased use of the flexibility afforded by
FAR Part 12 and FAR Part 13 procedures to provide DoD greater access to
the commercial markets (products and services types) which would lead
to increased competition, better prices, and access to new market
entrants and/or technologies. DoD is interested in determining how
successful it has been, and is now examining ways to collect
information on the number of nontraditional defense contractors the
Department reaches through its acquisitions to evaluate the extent of
increased access to commercial markets, potential cost savings,
increased quality, and/or technological innovation.
Currently, a definition for nontraditional defense contractor is
promulgated at DFARS Subpart 212.70, but the application of that
definition is limited to follow-on efforts to Other
[[Page 21302]]
Transaction (OT) for Prototype awards made by DoD pursuant to the
authority of 10 U.S.C. 2371 and Section 845 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160), as
amended. Given that this definition tends to be narrow in scope in that
it has its genesis in Research and Development (R&D) projects that
involve experimentation, test, demonstration, and developments related
to weapons systems, the application of the current definition may not
be entirely appropriate with respect to the various types of defense
procurements that are possible under existing regulations.
With respect to this request for information from interested
parties, consideration should include, but is not necessarily limited
to, the following:
[cir] Should consideration be given to the percentage of a
company's business that is devoted to defense specific award actions
versus non-defense specific award actions in determining its status as
a traditional vice nontraditional defense contractor? (e.g., If a
company's sales revenue is based on 90 percent commercial sector versus
10 percent defense sector, should that be taken into consideration? Are
there other benchmarks that should be used in classifying a contractor
as a nontraditional defense contractor and, if so, what are they and
why are they appropriate?)
[cir] Should the definition stay the same for all of the various
types of acquisitions, or should the definition change depending upon
products or services acquired? (e.g., Service, Supply, Construction,
R&D)
[cir] Should contractors be required to self-certify their status
as a nontraditional defense contractor via registration in the Central
Contractor Registration (CCR) database, Online Representations and
Certifications Application (ORCA), or some other self-certification
mechanism, based on an established definition for nontraditional
defense contractor, so that individual contracting officers are not
required to make these independent judgment calls for every single
contract action contemplated? If not, how should DoD otherwise capture
nontraditional defense contractor status?
DoD requests your considered input for all other aspects of what
constitutes a nontraditional defense contractor in DoD procurements.
Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. E8-8484 Filed 4-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P
