Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2008-027, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, 14059-14067 [2010-6329]

Agencies

• General Services Administration
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 23, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14059-14067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6329]



[[Page 14059]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 2, 9, 12, 42, and 52

[FAC 2005-40; FAR Case 2008-027; Docket 2009-030, Sequence 1]
RIN 9000-AL38


Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2008-027, Federal 
Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense 
Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are issuing a final rule 
amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement the 
Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 
as required by section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. FAPIIS is designed to improve 
the Government's ability to evaluate the business ethics and expected 
performance quality of prospective contractors and protect the 
Government from awarding contracts to contractors that are not 
responsible sources.

DATES: Effective Date: April 22, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact 
Ms. Millisa Gary, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-0699. For 
information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the 
Regulatory Secretariat at (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-40, FAR 
case 2008-027.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background and Overview of Final Rule

    DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register at 74 FR 45579, September, 3, 2009. This final rule adopts the 
proposed rule with a number of clarifying and technical changes.
    This rule amends the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 
implement the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information 
System (FAPIIS). FAPIIS is designed to significantly enhance the 
Government's ability to evaluate the business ethics and quality of 
prospective contractors competing for Federal contracts and to protect 
taxpayers from doing business with contractors that are not responsible 
sources.
    This rulemaking and the associated launch of FAPIIS are part of an 
ongoing initiative by the Administration to increase consideration of 
contractor integrity and the quality of a contractor's performance in 
awarding Federal contracts. These actions also address requirements set 
forth in section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. 110-417, for a system 
containing specific information on the integrity and performance of 
covered Federal agency contractors. (Consistent with the requirements 
of section 872, the Office of Management and Budget recently issued 
proposed guidance on the use of FAPIIS for grants. See 75 FR 7316, 
February 18, 2010).
    Access to readily available Governmentwide information that a 
contracting officer would routinely consider when making a 
responsibility determination historically has been limited to debarment 
and suspension actions, which are maintained in the Excluded Parties 
List System (EPLS). Since this past summer, agencies have been required 
to submit electronic records of contractor performance into a single 
Governmentwide repository, the Past Performance Information Retrieval 
System (PPIRS), so that the information may be reviewed and considered 
by contracting officers across the Government. See 74 FR 31557, July 1, 
2009. Improved inter-agency access to these assessments will motivate 
better performance and reduce the likelihood that taxpayer resources 
will go to contractors with poor track records in meeting the 
Government's requirements in an efficient and effective manner.
    FAPIIS is intended to significantly enhance the scope of 
information available to contracting officers as they evaluate the 
integrity and performance of prospective contractors. In addition to 
providing one-stop access to EPLS and PPIRS, FAPIIS will also include 
contracting officers' non-responsibility determinations (i.e., agency 
assessments that prospective contractors do not meet requisite 
responsibility standards to perform for the Government), contract 
terminations for default or cause, agency defective pricing 
determinations, administrative agreements entered into by suspension 
and debarment officials to resolve a suspension or debarment, and 
contractor self-reporting of criminal convictions, civil liability, and 
adverse administrative actions. The system will collect this 
information, on an ongoing basis, from existing systems within the 
Government (i.e., EPLS and PPIRS), contracting officers (for 
determinations of non-responsibility and contract terminations), 
suspension and debarment officials (for information on administrative 
agreements), and contractors (for information related to criminal, 
civil, and administrative proceedings).
     Pursuant to this final rule:
     Contracting officers will be required to (i) review the 
information in FAPIIS in connection with contracts over the simplified 
acquisition threshold for the purpose of making a responsibility 
determination, (ii) document the contract file to explain how the 
information in FAPIIS was considered in any responsibility 
determination--as well as the action that was taken as a result of the 
information, and (iii) notify, prior to proceeding with award, the 
agency official responsible for initiating debarment or suspension, if 
information is identified in FAPIIS that appears appropriate for that 
official's consideration.
     Contracting officers must give offerors the opportunity to 
provide additional information that demonstrates their responsibility 
before the contracting officer makes a non-responsibility determination 
based on relevant information from FAPIIS if such information regards 
the following: criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings in 
connection with the award of a Government contract, terminations for 
default or cause, or determinations of non-responsibility because the 
contractor does not have a satisfactory performance record or a 
satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics, or comparable 
information relating to a grant.
     Vendors submitting a proposal on a Federal contract over 
$500,000 and having more than $10 million in active contracts and 
grants as of the time of proposal submission, must report in FAPIIS 
information pertaining to criminal, civil and administrative 
proceedings through which a requisite determination of fault was made. 
Under the resultant contract, the information must be updated in FAPIIS 
by the contractor on a semi-annual basis, through the life of the 
contract. The FAPIIS system will provide contractors with notification 
whenever the Government posts new information to the contractor's 
record. The contractor will have an opportunity to post comments 
regarding information that has been posted by the Government, including 
non-responsibility determinations, and such comments will be retained 
as long as the associated

[[Page 14060]]

information is retained (for a total period of six years) and remain 
part of the record unless the contractor revises them.
    Although FAPIIS is designed to be a ``one-stop'' resource, the rule 
does not alter contracting officers' obligation, as set forth in FAR 
9.105-1, to possess or obtain information sufficient to determine that 
a prospective contractor meets the applicable standards for 
establishing responsibility. The Councils will continue to look for 
additional appropriate sources of information, including relevant 
Government databases, to support contracting officers in evaluating the 
integrity of prospective contractors, as well as ways in which to 
further facilitate the analysis and validation of information 
collected.
    The Councils intend to collect State-level information in 
connection with the award or performance of a contract or grant with a 
State government, as anticipated in section 872(c)(7). However, 
collection of this information has been deferred until a subsequent 
phase of FAPIIS. The Councils had concerns that the challenges of 
collecting State government information, such as establishing a 
reporting format that is consistent across State governments, could not 
be resolved without delaying this rulemaking. In addition to working 
out an appropriate plan for collecting State information, the Councils 
will explore the feasibility of collecting local government 
information. Further, the Councils and OMB are carefully considering 
the issuance of a proposed rule to further enhance the utility of 
FAPIIS by both (1) lowering the threshold for covered actions that 
trigger FAPIIS reporting from $500,000 to the simplified acquisition 
threshold, and (2) expanding the current scope of reporting to include 
other violations of laws, as opposed to violations only in the context 
of Federal contracts and grants. The public would be provided an 
opportunity to comment before any proposed changes are finalized.

B. Response to Comments Received on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register at 74 FR 45579, September 3, 2009, with a public comment 
period ending October 5, 2009. On October 5, 2009, the comment period 
was extended to November 5, 2009 (74 FR 51112). The Councils received 
public comments from 16 respondents on the proposed rule. Copies of the 
comments received by the Councils in response to the Federal Register 
notice are available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments 
largely focused on (1) the scope and quality of information to be 
collected in FAPIIS, (2) use of the database, (3) access to the 
database, (4) application of the rule to acquisitions for commercial 
items and commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) items, and (5) the potential 
need for obtaining additional public comment. Based on the comments and 
additional deliberations, the Councils have made a number of 
refinements and technical changes to the rule. A summary description of 
the comments and the Councils' responses and changes adopted in the 
final rule are set forth below.
    1. Information in FAPIIS
    Many commenters raised issues related to the planned content of 
FAPIIS. A number of commenters focused on scope questions. Some of 
these commenters stated that the information collected in FAPIIS should 
be broadened beyond that stated in the proposed rule while others 
raised certain concerns with the scope of the proposed rule. Several 
commenters addressed data quality issues and made recommendations to 
ensure the accuracy and timeliness of FAPIIS data.
    a. Comments related to broadening the content in FAPIIS. Examples 
of recommended expansions included lowering the threshold of covered 
contracts from $500,000 to all contracts that exceed the simplified 
acquisition threshold (presently $100,000), and augmenting the type of 
information collected to include: (i) violations of laws in the 
performance of any contract, as opposed to just Federal contracts; (ii) 
violations of labor and employment laws, regardless of whether the 
reimbursement, restitution, or damages meet the $100,000 threshold 
identified in section 872(c)(1); (iii) complaints and administrative 
settlements, including settlements without admission of fault, in order 
to ascertain information about contractors' performance patterns; (iv) 
information on debarments and suspensions carried out at the State 
level; (v) information on all proceedings entered into at any level of 
government, regardless of outcome; (vi) audit reports from cognizant 
Federal audit offices, such as the Government Accountability Office or 
the Defense Contract Audit Agency; and (vii) all information covered in 
the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA). In 
addition, one respondent recommended that the archival period for 
information in FAPIIS be extended so that contracting officers have at 
their disposal as comprehensive a picture as possible.
    Response: The Councils seek to ensure that FAPIIS provides 
contracting officers with efficient and effective access to the 
information they need to evaluate the business ethics and quality of 
prospective contractors competing for Federal contracts. To achieve 
this goal, the Councils have taken a phased approach to the 
implementation of FAPIIS, focusing first on the information 
specifically identified by Congress in section 872(c) of the FY 2009 
NDAA. This approach has allowed the Councils to collaborate closely 
with the FAPIIS Program Manager, who is responsible for the 
architecture and technological requirements of the system. This 
approach also is providing an opportunity for agencies to become 
acclimated with the system and train their contracting officers. Going 
forward, this approach will allow the Councils to carefully consider 
policy and procedural issues as new sources of information are 
identified pursuant to section 872(b) and (c)(6).
    For the next phase of FAPIIS, the Councils and OMB are carefully 
considering a proposed rule that would build on several suggestions 
made by the public and augment reporting by: (1) lowering the threshold 
for covered actions that trigger FAPIIS reporting from $500,000 to the 
simplified acquisition threshold and (2) expanding the current scope of 
reporting to include other violations of laws, as opposed to violations 
only in the context of Federal contracts. This information can further 
enhance the utility of FAPIIS and give contracting officers a fuller 
picture of a contractor's history of compliance.
    However, a number of the other above-described suggestions for 
expansion raised concerns for the Councils. For example:
     Requiring the collection of information on all 
proceedings, regardless of outcome, could potentially create instances 
where negative judgments on contractors' responsibility are made 
regardless of the outcome of the referenced proceedings. If information 
regarding yet-to-be-concluded proceedings were allowed, negative 
perceptions could unfairly influence contracting officers to find a 
contractor non-responsible, even in situations that later end with the 
contractor being exonerated. The Councils are strongly committed to 
helping contracting officials avoid these types of situations.
     Incorporating all the information from ORCA is 
inappropriate. Much of the information in this system is not designed 
to support contracting officers in making responsibility 
determinations.

[[Page 14061]]

     Extending the archival period (for retaining information 
beyond five years) is also inappropriate as this period was created for 
auditing purposes, not for use by contracting officers in making 
responsibility determinations.
    b. Comments related to refining the proposed content in FAPIIS. 
Examples of concerns voiced with the proposed collection of information 
included that (i) the collecting of information on administration 
agreements entered into to resolve a suspension or debarment increases 
the likelihood of a de facto debarment; and (ii) the definition of 
``covered person'' to include principals is overbroad.
    Response: The Councils appreciate the need to ensure that 
information included in FAPIIS will contribute to the stated purpose of 
the database and that appropriate training is provided to help 
contracting officers in their use of this information. The Councils did 
not agree, however, that significant revisions were warranted based on 
the requested refinements. In particular, the collection of information 
on administrative agreements entered into to resolve a suspension or 
debarment is required by section 872, so it must be included in the 
system. Regarding the concern raised with the definition of ``covered 
person,'' the existing requirement at FAR 52.209-5 includes 
certification regarding both the offeror and the principals. 
Additionally, since the FAPIIS requirement for information does not 
relate to all offenses by the principals, but only to those that relate 
to the performance of a Federal contract or grant, this information 
should be available to the offeror.
    As further clarification, the Councils have removed an 
inconsistency within the definition of ``principal'' between the stated 
meaning (person within the business entity) and one of the examples 
(head of a subsidiary). A subsidiary is not generally within the 
business entity, but is a separate and distinct legal entity. 
Therefore, the Councils have removed ``head of a subsidiary'' from the 
list of examples in the definitions of ``principal'' throughout the 
FAR, because it can imply a meaning broader than the stated definition. 
Deletion of this example should not result in any change of meaning, 
since this is just an example, and the definition clearly states that 
principals are persons within the business entity.
    c. Comments addressing the accuracy and timeliness of FAPIIS data. 
Several commenters cited to recent Government audits that have revealed 
inaccurate, untimely or missing data associated with several existing 
databases that contracting officials are required to consult. Reliance 
on these databases has lead to recurring awards to suspended or 
debarred individuals and companies, or companies with questionable 
ethics. The commenters recommend better training of the acquisition 
workforce as a means to ensure entry of better data into FAPIIS. 
Another commenter requested enforceable guidelines for submission of 
accurate and timely data by contracting officers and suspension and 
debarment officials (SDOs), as well as contractors, with sanctions 
associated with non-compliance with FAPIIS reporting requirements. This 
commenter recommended that a single entity should have accountability 
and authority to ensure that the information submitted to the database 
is timely, accurate, and complete, and that the database is used 
effectively.
    Response: Pursuant to section 872(d), the Administrator of GSA 
shall develop policies to require the timely and accurate input of 
information into the database. To this end, the Councils will work with 
the FAPIIS Program Manager, the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI), 
and the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) to develop guidance for 
contracting officials and SDOs on proper input, accuracy, and 
timeliness of data into FAPIIS. In addition, the Councils have added a 
requirement to the rule similar to that at FAR 4.604 for data entry 
into the Federal Procurement Data System, stating that the contracting 
officers and SDOs are responsible for the timely submission and 
sufficiency of the data. There is no single entity that can be held 
accountable because the information in FAPIIS comes from various 
sources. However, each system to which FAPIIS connects has its own 
guidelines for timeliness and accountability and separate initiatives 
are being pursued to strengthen these systems. For example, OFPP's 
memorandum of July 29, 2009, Improving the Use of Contractor 
Performance Information, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 
assets/procurement/ improving_use_of_contractor _perf_info.pdf, 
requires the submission of report cards to the Past Performance 
Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). PPIRS has a standard format for 
supplying all the report card information collected from the Federal 
agencies to authorized Government users for use in source selection 
decisions, and the Government is working to improve compliance by 
Federal agencies in reporting this data and the quality of the 
information entered into PPIRS. In improving the compliance and quality 
of the data, over time, the accuracy of the data should improve. In the 
meantime, the Councils have added a requirement for timeliness and 
accountability for the Government personnel who will be entering data 
directly into the database. With respect to contractors, there are a 
range of penalties available to the Government for non-compliance with 
the requirements of a contract, such as determination of non-
responsibility, termination for default, or suspension or debarment.
    d. Other comments related to information in FAPIIS. One commenter 
sought clarification regarding whether FAPIIS will always display 
information on active debarments and suspensions and whether FAPIIS 
will provide access to information on expired debarments and 
suspensions. Another commenter recommended that the $10,000,000 
threshold of open contracts triggering the requirement to submit 
information to FAPIIS be clarified to include all priced options and 
modifications.
    Response: Regarding debarment and suspension, FAPIIS will provide 
access to data on active suspensions and debarments, even if the 
suspension or debarment was imposed more than five years ago. FAPIIS 
will also provide access to data on expired suspensions and debarments 
for five years after the expiration date. To access records after this 
period, agencies would need to utilize the Excluded Parties List 
System's archives. With respect to the $10 million threshold, the 
Councils concur that additional clarification is needed to capture the 
value of modifications when calculating the total value of all current, 
active contracts and grants. The language in the final rule has been 
refined to clarify that offerors must consider the total value of the 
contracts and grants including all priced options and modifications.
    2. Use of FAPIIS
    A number of commenters raised issues related to how information in 
FAPIIS will be used--especially in connection with responsibility 
determinations. Comments largely addressed the need for additional 
guidance and training and making sure contracting officers understand 
what information is relevant to their analysis. One comment also raised 
concern regarding the SDO notification process.
    a. Comments addressing the need for additional guidance and 
training. Several commenters recommended that contracting officers be 
provided with guidance and training on (1) how to use the information 
in FAPIIS relative to past performance evaluations and non-
responsibility determinations, and (2) the type and level of 
information to be

[[Page 14062]]

reported to agency SDOs. Some commenters specifically recommended that 
the FAR provide more specific parameters on how to evaluate and utilize 
the information in FAPIIS and when a referral to the SDO would be 
appropriate.
    Response: The Councils appreciate the importance of helping 
contracting officials obtain the skill and aptitude necessary to 
discern the relevance and weight to be given the information reviewed. 
The Councils believe that training, rather than more specific standards 
in the regulations, is a better way to achieve this goal. The Councils 
will work with FAI and DAU to develop guidance and training for 
contracting officials on the proper use of the information contained in 
FAPIIS, and the type of information that would warrant submission to 
agency SDOs.
    b. Comments addressing cautions given to contracting officers on 
the relevance of information in FAPIIS. Commenters raised concerns 
regarding the language proposed for FAR 9.104-6(b), which instructs 
contracting officers to ``consider all the information in FAPIIS'' but 
adds a caveat that ``some of the information in FAPIIS may not be 
relevant to a determination of present responsibility'' because 
``FAPIIS may contain information covering a five year period.'' The 
provision gives as an example of information that may not be relevant 
to a determination of present responsibility, a prior administrative 
action such as a debarment or suspension that has expired or otherwise 
been resolved. One commenter stated that the caution was confusing 
because it instructed award officials to consider information but then 
advised them that it may not be relevant. Another commenter was 
concerned that the caution imposed an unnecessary restriction on 
contracting officers' review of responsibility information. A third 
commenter supported the caution but recommended that it be expanded to 
also cover past performance.
    Response: Section 872 requires retention of the data on suspension 
and debarment for five years and it requires consideration of all the 
data in the database. The Councils recognize that some of the data in 
the database may not be relevant when determining present 
responsibility and are committed to avoiding situations of unjustified 
determinations of non-responsibility. Without the language, contracting 
officers may think they are required to utilize outdated information 
that has no bearing on a contractor's present responsibility. The 
statement does not, as one commenter suggested, limit a contracting 
officer from considering any information that can be appropriately 
considered and that is relevant. In light of the comments, the Councils 
have clarified the explanation for the caution by stating that FAPIIS 
may contain information on any of the offeror's previous contracts and 
therefore may contain information relating to contractors for products 
or services that are completely different from those being acquired. 
The Councils have also added cross references to FAR 15.305(a)(2) as a 
reminder of relevance requirements in the consideration of past 
performance.
    c. Comment addressing the need to separate discussion of 
responsibility determinations and past performance evaluations. One 
commenter noted that the proposed rule inappropriately mixes the 
discussion and handling of past performance evaluations and 
responsibility determinations.
    Response: The Councils concur and have separated these two 
concepts. In the final rule, FAR section 9.104-6 focuses just on 
responsibility determinations. For past performance evaluations, the 
contracting officer is referred to FAR section 15.305(a)(2), which 
addresses how to evaluate the relevance of data and clearly states that 
this evaluation is separate from the responsibility determination 
required under subpart 9.1. The final rule also incorporates use of 
FAPIIS into the procedures addressing agency evaluations of contractor 
performance in FAR 42.1503 since there may be information in FAPIIS, 
such as terminations for default or cause and defective pricing 
assessments, that is not in PPIRS but still may be appropriately used, 
along with the information in PPIRS to evaluate an offeror's 
performance.
    d. Comment pertaining to the requirement for notifying SDOs. One 
commenter was concerned that the requirement to notify the SDO may 
cause needless delay and recommended strengthening the authority of the 
contracting officer to make a decision that no additional information 
is necessary. The commenter also expressed concern about due process.
    Response: The proposed language, which has been retained without 
change in the final rule, requires contracting officers to notify, 
prior to proceeding with award, the agency official responsible for 
initiating debarment or suspension action in accordance with agency 
procedures. This notification process closely tracks that already 
established in FAR 9.104-5 for situations where an offeror provides an 
affirmative response on its responsibility certification and therefore 
should not create undue additional delay. In addition, no changes have 
been made to procedures currently used to ensure an opportunity for the 
offeror to provide its input where responsibility is in question. The 
final rule follows the current practice for providing offerors with an 
opportunity to explain their responsibility if the contracting officer 
obtains relevant information from FAPIIS that could lead to a non-
responsibility determination. Similarly, the rule makes no changes to 
the due process obligations associated with suspension or debarment 
actions.
    3. Access to FAPIIS
    Many commenters recommended that the rule authorize public access 
to FAPIIS, while other commenters voiced concerns over the security 
controls in place to protect awardee information.
    a. Comments related to public access. Commenters favoring public 
access to FAPIIS stated that taxpayers have a right to know about the 
responsibility of contractors and that such access is ``essential to 
efficient and effective implementation and oversight of Federal 
contracting.'' One commenter noted that by providing this access, the 
public could help oversee compliance in those instances where 
information is not fully disclosed, since contracting officers will not 
have time to check the facts self-reported by contractors. Other 
suggestions included providing access to inspectors general and Federal 
law enforcement agencies, and State governments. Comments were split on 
whether FAPIIS information should be available to the public under the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
    Response: Section 872(e)(1) provides that the Administrator of GSA 
shall ensure that the information in the database is available to 
appropriate acquisition officials of Federal agencies, to such other 
Government officials as the Administrator determines appropriate, and, 
upon request, to the Chairman and Ranking Members of the committees of 
Congress having jurisdiction. Therefore, the Councils do not believe 
that Congress intended for this database to be accessible by the 
public. However, Inspectors General and Federal law enforcement 
agencies could request access under the provision for access to ``other 
Government officials as the Administrator determines appropriate.'' 
Whether FAPIIS data is releasable or exempt from disclosure under FOIA 
would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Public requests for system 
information will be handled under FOIA.

[[Page 14063]]

    b. Comments related to security controls. Several commenters voiced 
concerns over the security controls in place to protect awardee 
information in FAPIIS. Under the final rule, like the proposed rule, 
contracting officials, offerors (pre-award) and contractors (post-
award) will be required to input data into FAPIIS. The commenters are 
concerned that this sensitive information could affect the contractor 
in question if the sensitive information was made public.
    Response: The Councils acknowledge the sensitivity of the 
information collected to future procurement opportunities for 
contractors. The information collected and viewable through FAPIIS will 
be considered source selection sensitive and require Government 
personnel to be given access through their agency focal points on a 
need-to-know basis for source selection decisions. (The FAPIIS database 
includes the same access controls as PPIRS.) Information on criminal, 
civil, and administrative proceedings submitted directly from vendors 
will be provided solely to the FAPIIS database. In addition, vendors 
will only be allowed to access information submitted to FAPIIS for 
their own entity based on their DUNS number and Marketing Partner 
Identification Number that they assign themselves as is done currently 
with access to PPIRS. Restrictions on access are set forth in a new 
contract clause which was added by the final rule and states: ``With 
the exception of the Contractor, only Government personnel and 
authorized users performing business on behalf of the Government will 
be able to view the Contractor's record in the system. Public requests 
for system information will be handled under Freedom of Information Act 
procedures, including, where appropriate, procedures promulgated under 
E.O. 12600.''
    4. Other issues
    a. Comments regarding the application of the rule to commercial 
items and commercial-off-the-shelf items. One commenter favored 
application of the rule to the acquisition of commercial items and COTS 
items. Another opposed such application, stating that firms providing 
such items are least likely to have the systems in place to collect and 
update the requisite information and will be wary and reluctant to 
provide the information--but still acknowledged that such contractors 
may already be covered by the reporting requirements because of awards 
for other than COTS or commercial items.
    Response: The Councils disagree with the arguments set forth to 
oppose application of the rule to commercial item and COTS 
acquisitions. An exemption for commercial item and COTS acquisitions 
would exclude a significant portion of Federal contractors, thereby 
undermining an overarching public policy to achieve greater integrity 
and performance quality in contracting that this law is intended to 
further. There also does not appear to be any unique burden that would 
undermine access to the commercial marketplace. The requirement for 
contractors to submit information into FAPIIS applies to those 
contractors with active Federal contracts and grants totaling more than 
$10 million at the time of proposal submission, and contractors with 
this level of activity generally should be equipped to collect and 
update the information in the system. The commenter even acknowledged 
that there is a reasonable likelihood a contractor offering a 
commercial item or COTS item may already be covered by the reporting 
requirement by virtue of past awards for other than commercial items 
and COTS.
    Prior to making this rule applicable to commercial item 
acquisitions, and pursuant to section 34 of the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy Act (OFPP Act), 41 U.S.C. 430, the FAR Council must 
make a written determination that it would not be in the best interest 
of the Federal Government to exempt this law from contracts for the 
procurement of commercial items. Similarly, prior to making this 
statutory requirement applicable to COTS acquisitions, and pursuant to 
section 35 of the OFPP Act, 41 U.S.C. 431, the Administrator of OFPP 
must make a written determination that it would not be in the best 
interest of the United States to exempt this law from contracts for 
COTS items. The preamble to the proposed rule stated the intention of 
the FAR Council and the Administrator to make the requisite best 
interest determinations for applying this rule to commercial items and 
COTS items respectively. The required determinations have been made 
and, consistent with these determinations, the final rule has been 
promulgated to cover acquisitions of commercial items and COTS.
    b. Comments addressing the business rules for FAPIIS. One 
respondent requested that the business rules discussed in the preamble 
to the proposed rule be incorporated into the regulation. (The preamble 
outlined principles to ensure timely availability of information and 
proper use of the information while also protecting against improper 
disclosure to the public.)
    Response: The Councils have incorporated the business rules that 
impact the contractor into a new clause addressing updates of 
information regarding responsibility matters: (1) The Contractor will 
receive notification when the Government posts new information to the 
Contractor's record. (2) Only Government personnel and authorized users 
conducting business on behalf of the Government can view system 
information, with the exception that a Contractor can view its own 
information. Public requests for information will be handled under the 
Freedom of Information Act procedures including, where appropriate, 
procedures promulgated under E.O. 12600. (3) The Contractor will have 
an opportunity to post comments regarding information that has been 
posted by the Government. The contractor comments will be retained as 
long as the associated information is retained, i.e., for a total 
period of six years. Contractor comments will remain a part of the 
record unless the Contractor revises them.
    c. Comments regarding potential redundancy of FAPIIS to pre-
existing systems. Several respondents indicated concern that FAPIIS is 
duplicative of the current past performance systems (e.g., Past 
Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor 
Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and the Excluded 
Parties List System (EPLS)); and that the Government should provide a 
one-stop shop for performance data.
    Response: FAPIIS will provide a one-stop shop by providing a 
central nexus of access to the information stored in various existing 
systems. FAPIIS has been developed as a module within PPIRS and 
provides links to the other existing sources of relevant information. 
The information that will be entered directly into FAPIIS is not 
duplicated in any of these other sources. The information entered by 
contracting officers (e.g., terminations for default) will be entered 
into FAPIIS via CPARS. Information required of the vendor regarding 
criminal/civil/administrative proceedings through which a requisite 
determination of fault was made will be entered via the Central 
Contractor Registration (CCR) system. Vendor past performance 
information will still be entered into PPIRS, and information regarding 
suspension or debarment will still be entered into EPLS. FAPIIS will 
then bring all of this information together for the authorized user's 
access and review.

[[Page 14064]]

    d. Comments addressing standardization of past performance data. 
Several respondents made comments regarding the standardization of past 
performance data in general-- i.e., that a standardized collection 
format should be developed and applied across the agencies and an 
unrestricted unique identifier for contractors be used. They are 
concerned about the accuracy of overall past performance data 
throughout the Federal procurement enterprise on which FAPIIS will be 
partially relying.
    Response: The Councils acknowledge the concern regarding 
standardization of the collection of all past performance data in 
general. As mentioned above, the Federal Government is making strides 
to improve the collection of past performance information required by 
FAR subpart 42.15. This includes the memorandum issued by the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) on July 29, 2009, which required the 
submission of report cards to the Past Performance Information 
Retrieval System (PPIRS). PPIRS has a standard format for report card 
information, and provides that information to all authorized Government 
users for use in source selection decisions. We are working to improve 
compliance with the requirement to submit data to this system and to 
improve the quality of the data submitted. As these efforts proceed, 
the accuracy of the data should improve.
    e. Comments raising technical issues. A number of commenters 
offered technical corrections to the proposed rule.
     Response: The Councils have made the following changes to the 
proposed rule:
     In response to a concern that language in FAR 9.104-6(d) 
should be modified to ensure consistency with the application of the 
standards to small business, the Councils deleted the coverage at FAR 
9.104-3(d)(1)(ii) as duplicative of the language at FAR 9.105-2(b)(2).
     The cross-reference at FAR 9.105-2(a)(1)(i) has been 
deleted and the cross-reference at FAR 9.105-2(b)(1) has been added. 
These paragraphs were rearranged to correctly differentiate between the 
determination in paragraph (a) and documentation in paragraph (b).
     In response to a concern that the word ``may'' in FAR 
9.105-2(a)(2) suggested that a contracting officer need not necessarily 
accept the SBA's decision to issue a Certificate of Competency, this 
word has been changed to ``shall'' to reflect the conclusive nature of 
the issuance of such a certificate.
     The language in FAR 9.406-3 and FAR 9.407-3 have been 
changed for consistency with the existing definitions at FAR 9.403 by 
changing ``debarment official'' and ``suspension official'' to 
``debarring official'' and ``suspending official,'' respectively.
     In response to a concern that the rule asked offerors to 
account for the accuracy of information submitted by Government 
officials and others, FAR 52.209-7(c) has been revised to read ``. . . 
by submission of this offer, that the information it has entered in the 
Federal Awardee. . .'' in order to limit the certification to 
information the contractor itself provided.
     The introductory text of FAR 52.209-7(c)(1) has been 
reworded to clarify that the provision only applies if the offeror was 
the subject of a proceeding. Before this change, it was unclear 
whether, for example, an offeror involved in litigation wherein a 
different party was found liable would have to report that under this 
clause.
     The phrase ``maximum extent practicable and consistent 
with all applicable laws and regulations. . .'' has been deleted from 
FAR clause 52.209-7(c)(1)(iv).
     Paragraph (d) of FAR provision 52.209-7 required an 
ongoing responsibility to update information on a semi-annual basis in 
FAPIIS. In response to several respondents who pointed out that this is 
a post-award requirement, this paragraph has been removed from the 
solicitation provision and incorporated into a new FAR clause, 52.209-
8.
     In response to a concern that the phrase ``administrative 
proceeding'' could be interpreted to include formal and informal 
actions such as audit reports, the Councils have clarified the rule to 
indicate that ``administrative proceeding'' does not include audit 
reports.
    This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject 
to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major 
rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration certify 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 this rule will only 
impact an offeror that has failed to meet Government performance 
requirements or standards for integrity and business ethics. The FAR 
already contains standards for present responsibility of offerors. This 
information system provides a tool to help contracting officers to 
comply with existing requirements. Further, the final rule only imposes 
an information collection requirement on small businesses that have 
total Government grants and contracts exceeding $10 million, which 
excludes most small businesses. No comments were received on the impact 
on small business.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) applies because the 
final rule contains information collection requirements. Accordingly, 
the Regulatory Secretariat has received approval of the new information 
collection requirement concerning Federal Awardee Performance and 
Integrity Information System from the Office of Management and Budget 
under 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, et seq. OMB Control number 9000-0174, 
Information Regarding Responsibility Matters.
Annual Reporting Burden:
    The final rule requires that for each solicitation of $500,000 or 
more, the offeror responds as to whether it has, or has not, current 
contracts and grants that total greater than $10,000,000. Only if the 
offeror responds affirmatively is there any further information 
collection requirement. Given that the amount of current Federal 
contracts and grants is basic knowledge for any firm, the estimated 
number of hours for this initial response is 0.1 hours. Using data from 
the Federal Procurement Data System--Next Generation (FPDS-NG), it is 
estimated that there will be approximately 12,000 - 14,000 contracts 
over $500,000 each year. Estimating between five and six responses to 
each solicitation, there will be 80,000 responses annually to the 
question regarding contracts/grants exceeding $10 million.
    Contractors awarded more than one contract will still only have to 
input the data two times per year. It is estimated that 5,000 
contractors will answer the first question affirmatively and then will 
have to enter data into the website. We have used an average burden 
estimate of 0.5 hours to enter the company's data into the website and 
to do the semi-annual updates. This time estimate does not include the 
time necessary to maintain the company's information internally. Most 
large businesses and some small businesses probably have established 
systems to track compliance. At this time, all or most Government 
contractors have entered relevant company data in the Central 
Contractor

[[Page 14065]]

Registration (CCR) in accordance with another information collection 
requirement. Therefore, the estimate includes an average of 100 hours 
per year for recordkeeping for each of the 5,000 respondents that will 
be required to provide additional information, for a total of 500,000 
annual recordkeeping hours. The total annual reporting burden is 
estimated as follows:
    Public reporting burden for this collection of information is 
estimated to average 0.15 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    The annual reporting burden is estimated as follows:
    Respondents: 8,000.
    Responses per respondent: Approximately 11.
    Total annual responses: 90,000.
    Preparation hours per response: Approximately 0.15 hours.
    Response burden hours: 13,000.
    Recordkeeping hours: 500,000.
    Total burden hours: 513,000.
    Comment: The Councils received several comments on the estimates 
for the Information Collection requirements associated with the new 
rule. One respondent considered that the estimate of .15 hours per 
contractor was very low, considering its experience with computer 
system access between the Federal Government and its institution. In 
particular, one respondent thought that the estimates would have to be 
increased because it did not cover the semi-annual updates to the data-
base.
    Response: The estimate of .15 hours per response was a weighted 
average between the respondents that did not have to enter any data 
except a negative response with regard to having total contracts and 
grants greater than $10 million (.1 hours), and those that would need 
to provide further data to FAPIIS (.5 hours).
    The estimates that were published with the proposed rule did cover 
the semi-annual updates. The supporting statement that was submitted to 
OMB specifically stated that two responses per respondent per year were 
calculated for those respondents with contracts and grants greater than 
$10 million, because of the requirement for semi-annual updates.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2, 9, 12, 42, and 52

    Government procurement.

    Dated: March 18, 2010.
Al Matera,
Director, Acquisition Policy Division.

0
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 2, 9, 12, 42, and 52 
as set forth below:

0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2, 9, 12, 42, and 52 
continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 
U.S.C. 2473(c).

PART 2--DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS


2.101  [Amended]

0
2. Amend section 2.101 in the definition ``Principal'' by removing 
``subsidiary, division, or'' and adding ``division or'' in its place.

PART 9--CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

0
3. Amend section 9.101 by revising the section heading and adding, in 
alphabetical order, the definition ``Administrative proceeding'' to 
read as follows:


9.101  Definitions.

    Administrative proceeding means a non-judicial process that is 
adjudicatory in nature in order to make a determination of fault or 
liability (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission Administrative 
Proceedings, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Proceedings, and Armed 
Services Board of Contract Appeals Proceedings). This includes 
administrative proceedings at the Federal and state level but only in 
connections with performance of a Federal contract or grant. It does 
not include agency actions such as contract audits, site visits, 
corrective plans, or inspection of deliverables.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend section 9.104-3 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as 
follows:


9.104-3  Application of standards.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) Small business concerns. Upon making a determination of 
nonresponsibility with regard to a small business concern, the 
contracting officer shall refer the matter to the Small Business 
Administration, which will decide whether to issue a Certificate of 
Competency (see subpart 19.6).
* * * * *

0
5. Redesignate section 9.104-6 as 9.104-7, add new section 9.104-6, and 
revise newly redesignated section 9.104-7 to read as follows:


9.104-6  Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.

    (a) Before awarding a contract in excess of the simplified 
acquisition threshold, the contracting officer shall review the Federal 
Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 
(available at www.ppirs.gov, then select FAPIIS).
    (b) The contracting officer shall consider all the information in 
FAPIIS and other past performance information (see subpart 42.15) when 
making a responsibility determination. For source selection evaluations 
of past performance, see 15.305(a)(2). Contracting officers shall use 
sound judgment in determining the weight and relevance of the 
information contained in FAPIIS and how it relates to the present 
acquisition. Since FAPIIS may contain information on any of the 
offeror's previous contracts and information covering a five-year 
period, some of that information may not be relevant to a determination 
of present responsibility, e.g., a prior administrative action such as 
debarment or suspension that has expired or otherwise been resolved, or 
information relating to contracts for completely different products or 
services.
    (c) If the contracting officer obtains relevant information from 
FAPIIS regarding criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings in 
connection with the award or performance of a Government contract; 
terminations for default or cause; determinations of nonresponsibility 
because the contractor does not have a satisfactory performance record 
or a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics; or 
comparable information relating to a grant, the contracting officer 
shall, unless the contractor has already been debarred or suspended--
    (1) Promptly request such additional information from the offeror 
as the offeror deems necessary in order to demonstrate the offeror's 
responsibility to the contracting officer (but see 9.405); and
    (2) Notify, prior to proceeding with award,in accordance with 
agency procedures (see 9.406-3(a) and 9.407-3(a)), the agency official 
responsible for initiating debarment or suspension action, if the 
information appears appropriate for the official's consideration.
    (d) The contracting officer shall document the contract file for 
each contract in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold to 
indicate how the information in FAPIIS was considered in any 
responsibility determination, as well as the action that

[[Page 14066]]

was taken as a result of the information. A contracting officer who 
makes a nonresponsibility determination is required to document that 
information in FAPIIS in accordance with 9.105-2 (b)(2).


9.104-7  Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

    (a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.209-5, 
Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters, in solicitations where 
the contract value is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition 
threshold.
    (b) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.209-7, 
Information Regarding Responsibility Matters, in solicitations where 
the resultant contract value is expected to exceed $500,000.
    (c) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.209-8, 
Updates of Information Regarding Responsibility Matters--
    (1) In solicitations where the resultant contract value is expected 
to exceed $500,000; and
    (2) In contracts in which the offeror checked ``has'' in paragraph 
(b) of the provision 52.209-7.

0
6. Amend section 9.105-1 by revising the introductory text of paragraph 
(c), removing paragraph (c)(1), and redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) 
through (c)(6) as paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5). The revised text 
reads as follows:


9.105-1  Obtaining information.

* * * * *
    (c) In making the determination of responsibility, the contracting 
officer shall consider information in FAPIIS (see 9.104-6), including 
information that is linked to FAPIIS such as from the Excluded Parties 
List System (EPLS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval 
System (PPIRS), and any other relevant past performance information 
(see 9.104-1(c) and subpart 42.15). In addition, the contracting 
officer should use the following sources of information to support such 
determinations:
* * * * *

0
7. Amend section 9.105-2 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to read 
as follows:


9.105-2  Determinations and documentation.

    (a) * * *
    (2) If the contracting officer determines that a responsive small 
business lacks certain elements of responsibility, the contracting 
officer shall comply with the procedures in subpart 19.6. When a 
Certificate of Competency is issued for a small business concern (see 
subpart 19.6), the contracting officer shall accept the Small Business 
Administration's decision to issue a Certificate of Competency and 
award the contract to the concern.
    (b) Support documentation. (1) Documents and reports supporting a 
determination of responsibility or nonresponsibility, including any 
preaward survey reports, the use of FAPIIS information (see 9.104-6), 
and any applicable Certificate of Competency, must be included in the 
contract file.
    (2)(i) The contracting officer shall document the determination of 
nonresponsibility in FAPIIS (available at www.cpars.csd.disa.mil, then 
select FAPIIS) if--
    (A) The contract is valued at more than the simplified acquisition 
threshold;
    (B) The determination of nonresponsibility is based on lack of 
satisfactory performance record or satisfactory record of integrity and 
business ethics; and
     (C) The Small Business Administration does not issue a Certificate 
of Competency.
    (ii) The contracting officer is responsible for the timely 
submission, within 3 working days, and sufficiency of the documentation 
regarding the nonresponsibility determination.


9.404  [Amended]

0
8. Amend section 9.404 by removing from paragraph (c)(3) ``5 working'' 
and adding ``3 working'' in its place.

0
9. Amend section 9.406-3 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


9.406-3  Procedures.

* * * * *
    (f)(1) If the contractor enters into an administrative agreement 
with the Government in order to resolve a debarment proceeding, the 
debarring official shall access the website (available at 
www.cpars.csd.disa.mil, then select FAPIIS) and enter the requested 
information.
    (2) The debarring official is responsible for the timely 
submission, within 3 working days, and accuracy of the documentation 
regarding the administrative agreement.

0
10. Amend section 9.407-3 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


9.407-3  Procedures.

* * * * *
    (e)(1) If the contractor enters into an administrative agreement 
with the Government in order to resolve a suspension proceeding, the 
suspending official shall access the website (available at 
www.cpars.csd.disa.mil, then select FAPIIS) and enter the requested 
information.
    (2) The suspending official is responsible for the timely 
submission, within 3 working days, and accuracy of the documentation 
regarding the administrative agreement.

PART 12--ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

0
11. Amend section 12.301 in paragraph (d) by adding paragraphs (d)(3) 
and (d)(4) to read as follows:


12.301  Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the 
acquisition of commercial items.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Insert the provision at 52.209-7, Information Regarding 
Responsibility Matters, as prescribed in 9.104-7(b).
    (4) Insert the clause at 52.209-8, Updates of Information Regarding 
Responsibility Matters, as prescribed in 9.104-7(c).
* * * * *

PART 42--CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES


42.1503  [Amended]

0
12. Amend section 42.1503 in paragraph (e) by removing ``order.'' and 
adding ``order, and information contained in the Federal Awardee 
Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) e.g., 
terminations for default or cause.'' in its place.

PART 52--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES


52.203-13  [Amended]

0
13. Amend section 52.203-13 by removing from the clause heading ``(Dec 
2008)'' and adding ``(Apr 2010)'' in its place; and removing from the 
definition ``Principal'' the words ``subsidiary, division, or'' and 
adding ``division or'' in its place.


52.209-5  [Amended]

0
14. Amend section 52.209-5 by--
0
a. Removing from the introductory paragraph ``9.104-6'' and adding 
``9.104-7(a)'' in its place;
0
b. Removing from the clause heading ``(Dec 2008)'' and adding ``(Apr 
2010)'' in its place;
0
c. Removing from paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) ``state'' and adding ``State'' 
in its place, wherever it occurs (twice), and removing ``property;'' 
and adding ``property (if offeror checks ``have'', the offeror shall 
also see 52.209-7, if included in this solicitation);'' in its place; 
and

[[Page 14067]]

0
d. Removing from paragraph (a)(2) ``subsidiary, division, or'' and 
adding ``division or'' in its place.

0
15. Add sections 52.209-7 and 52.209-8 to read as follows:


52.209-7  Information Regarding Responsibility Matters.

    As prescribed at 9.104-7(b), insert the following provision:
    INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (Apr 2010)
    (a) Definitions. As used in this provision--
    Administrative proceeding means a non-judicial process that is 
adjudicatory in nature in order to make a determination of fault or 
liability (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission Administrative 
Proceedings, Civilian Board of Contract Appeals Proceedings, and Armed 
Services Board of Contract Appeals Proceedings). This includes 
administrative proceedings at the Federal and State level but only in 
connection with performance of a Federal contract or grant. It does not 
include agency actions such as contract audits, site visits, corrective 
plans, or inspection of deliverables.
    Federal contracts and grants with total value greater than 
$10,000,000 means--
    (1) The total value of all current, active contracts and grants, 
including all priced options; and
    (2) The total value of all current, active orders including all 
priced options under indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, 8(a), or 
requirements contracts (including task and delivery and multiple-award 
Schedules).
    (b) The offeror [ ] has [ ] does not have current active Federal 
contracts and grants with total value greater than $10,000,000.
    (c) If the offeror checked ``has'' in paragraph (b) of this 
provision, the offeror represents, by submission of this offer, that 
the information it has entered in the Federal Awardee Performance and 
Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) is current, accurate, and 
complete as of the date of submission of this offer with regard to the 
following information:
    (1) Whether the offeror, and/or any of its principals, has or has 
not, within the last five years, in connection with the award to or 
performance by the offeror of a Federal contract or grant, been the 
subject of a proceeding, at the Federal or State level that resulted in 
any of the following dispositions:
    (i) In a criminal proceeding, a conviction.
    (ii) In a civil proceeding, a finding of fault and liability that 
results in the payment of a monetary fine, penalty, reimbursement, 
restitution, or damages of $5,000 or more.
    (iii) In an administrative proceeding, a finding of fault and 
liability that results in--
    (A) The payment of a monetary fine or penalty of $5,000 or more; or
    (B) The payment of a reimbursement, restitution, or damages in 
excess of $100,000.
    (iv) In a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding, a 
disposition of the matter by consent or compromise with an 
acknowledgment of fault by the Contractor if the proceeding could have 
led to any of the outcomes specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i), 
(c)(1)(ii), or (c)(1)(iii) of this provision.
    (2) If the offeror has been involved in the last five years in any 
of the occurrences listed in (c)(1) of this provision, whether the 
offeror has provided the requested information with regard to each 
occurrence.
    (d) The offeror shall enter the information in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 
through (c)(1)(iv) of this provision in FAPIIS as required through 
maintaining an active registration in the Central Contractor 
Registration database at https://www.ccr.gov (see 52.204-7).
    Principal means an officer, director, owner, partner, or a person 
having primary management or supervisory responsibilities within a 
business entity (e.g., general manager; plant manager; head of a 
division or business segment; and similar positions).
    (End of provision)


52.209-8  Updates of Information Regarding Responsibility Matters.

    As prescribed at 9.104-7(c), insert the following clause:
    UPDATES OF INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (Apr 2010)
    (a) The Contractor shall update the information in the Federal 
Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) on a 
semi-annual basis, throughout the life of the contract, by entering the 
required information in the Central Contractor Registration database at 
https://www.ccr.gov (see 52.204-7).
    (b)(1) The Contractor will receive notification when the Government 
posts new information to the Contractor's record.
    (2) The Contractor will have an opportunity to post comments 
regarding information that has been posted by the Government. The 
comments will be retained as long as the associated information is 
retained, i.e., for a total period of 6 years. Contractor comments will 
remain a part of the record unless the Contractor revises them.
    (3) With the exception of the Contractor, only Government personnel 
and authorized users performing business on behalf of the Government 
will be able to view the Contractor's record in the system. Public 
requests for system information will be handled under Freedom of 
Information Act procedures, including, where appropriate, procedures 
promulgated under E.O. 12600.
    (End of clause)


52.212-5  [Amended]

0
16. Amend section 52.212-5 by--
0
a. Removing from the clause heading ``(Feb 2010)'' and adding ``(Apr 
2010)'' in its place;
0
b. Removing from paragraphs (b)(2) and (e)(1)(i) ``(Dec 2008)'' and 
adding ``(Apr 2010)'' in its place;
0
c. Removing from Alternate II ``(Dec 2009)'' and adding ``(Apr 2010)'' 
in its place; and
0
d. Removing from Alternate II paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(A) ``(Dec 2008)'' 
and adding ``(Apr 2010)'' in its place.


52.213-4  [Amended]

0
 17. Amend section 52.213-4 by removing from the clause heading and 
paragraph (a)(2)(vi) ``(Dec 2009)'' and adding ``(Apr 2010)'' in its 
place.


52.244-6  [Amended]

0
 18. Amend section 52.244-6 by removing from the clause heading ``(Dec 
2009)'' and adding ``(Apr 2010)'' in its place; and removing from 
paragraph (c)(1)(i) ``(Dec 2008)'' and adding ``(Apr 2010)'' in its 
place.
[FR Doc. 2010-6329 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S