Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Presumption of Development at Private Expense, 25161-25165 [2010-10764]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
rule does not impose additional
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 211 and
252
Government procurement.
Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48
CFR parts 211 and 252 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
parts 211 and 252 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR
Chapter 1.
PART 211—DESCRIBING AGENCY
NEEDS
211.274–5
[Redesignated as 211.274–6]
2. Redesignate section 211.274–5 as
211.274–6.
3. Add section 211.274–5 to read as
follows:
211.274–5 Policy for tagging, labeling, or
marking of Government-furnished property.
(a) It is DoD policy that the
appropriate tagging, labeling, or
permanent marking of Governmentfurnished property, based on DoD
marking standards (MIL Standard 130)
or other standards, be required for
Government-furnished property items
where the requiring activity determines
that such items are subject to serialized
item management (serially-managed
items).
(b) Exceptions. The contractor will
not be required to tag, label, or mark
Government-furnished property if such
items were previously tagged, labeled,
or marked.
3. In newly redesignated 211.274–6,
add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
211.274–6
Contract clauses.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Use the clause at 252.211–70YY,
Tagging, Labeling, and Marking of
Government-furnished Property, in
solicitations and contracts that contain
the clause at—
(1) FAR 52.245–1, Government
Property; or
(2) FAR 52.245–2, Government
Property Installation Operation
Services.
252.211–70YY Tagging, Labeling, and
Marking of Government-furnished Property.
As prescribed in 211.274–6(c), use the
following clause:
TAGGING, LABELING, AND MARKING OF
GOVERNMENT–FURNISHED PROPERTY
(DATE)
(a) Definitions. As used in this clause—
Government-furnished property means
property in the possession of, or directly
acquired by, the Government and
subsequently furnished to the contractor for
performance of a contract, including
performance by subcontractors and at Prime
Contractor Alternate locations. Governmentfurnished property includes reparables, e.g.,
spares and property furnished for repair,
maintenance, overhaul, or modification; and
Government-furnished material that is
requisitioned from Government supply
sources without reimbursement by the
contractor.
Serially-managed item means an item
designated by DoD to be uniquely tracked,
controlled, or managed in maintenance,
repair, and/or supply systems by means of its
serial number.
(b) The Contractor shall tag, label, or mark
Government-furnished property items
identified in the contract when the requiring
activity determines that such items are
subject to serialized item management
(serially-managed items).
(c) Exceptions. Paragraph (b) of this clause
does not apply to—
(1) Government-furnished property that
was previously marked;
(2) Contractor-acquired property;
(3) Property under any statutory leasing
authority;
(4) Property to which the Government has
acquired a lien or title solely because of
partial, advance, progress, or performancebased payments;
(5) Intellectual property or software; or
(6) Real property.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2010–10763 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
[DFARS Case 2007–D003]
48 CFR Parts 212, 227, and 252
RIN 0750–AF84
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Presumption
of Development at Private Expense
PART 252—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for
comments.
4. Add section 252.211–70YY to read
as follows:
SUMMARY: DoD proposes to amend the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25161
Supplement (DFARS) to implement
section 802(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2007 and section 815(a)(2) of
the NDAA for FY 2008. This proposed
rule implements special requirements
and procedures related to the validation
of a contractor’s or subcontractor’s
asserted restrictions on technical data
and computer software.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
should be submitted to the address
shown below on or before July 6, 2010,
to be considered in the formulation of
the final rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by DFARS Case 2007–D003,
using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include
DFARS Case 2007–D003 in the subject
line of the message.
• Fax: 703–602–0350.
• Mail: Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy
Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS),
3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B855,
Washington, DC 20301–3060.
All comments received will be posted
generally without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms.
Amy Williams, 703–602–0328.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 802(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2007 (Pub. L. 109–364)
modified 10 U.S.C. 2321(f) with regard
to the presumption of development at
private expense for major systems; and
section 815(a)(2) of the NDAA for FY
2008 (Pub. L. 110–181) revised 10
U.S.C. 2321(f)(2) to exempt
commercially available off-the-shelf
items from the requirements that section
802(b) had established for major
systems. This proposed rule implements
special requirements and procedures
related to the validation of a contractor’s
or subcontractor’s asserted restrictions
on technical data and computer
software. More specifically, the
proposed rule affects these validation
procedures in the context of two special
categories of items: Commercial items,
(including commercially available offthe-shelf items); and major systems
(including subsystems and components
of major systems).
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25162
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
1. Procedures and Presumptions
Regarding Development at Private
Expense—Technical Data
The validation of asserted restrictions
on technical data is based on statutory
requirements, codified primarily at 10
U.S.C. section 2321. In 1994, the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act (Pub. L.
103–355) revised these requirements to
include specialized presumptions and
procedures for technical data related to
commercial items. For discussion
purposes, these specialized
requirements will be referred to as the
‘‘Commercial Rule’’ (see 10 U.S.C.
2320(b)(1) and 2321(f)).
Under the Commercial Rule, a
contracting officer is required to
presume that a commercial item has
been developed entirely at private
expense, unless shown otherwise in
accordance with the procedures at 10
U.S.C. 2321(f). The detailed procedures
at 10 U.S.C. 2321(f)(1) require the
contracting officer to presume that the
asserted restrictions have been justified
(on the basis that the item was
developed exclusively at private
expense), whether or not the contractor
or subcontractor submits a justification
in response to the challenge notice
issued by the contracting officer. The
contracting officer’s challenge may be
sustained only if information provided
by DoD demonstrates that the item was
not developed exclusively at private
expense.
Section 802(b) of the FY 2007 NDAA
established another set of procedures for
technical data related to major systems
(including subsystems or components
thereof). For discussion purposes, these
specialized requirements will be
referred to as the ‘‘Major Systems Rule.’’
Under the Major Systems Rule, codified
at 10 U.S.C. 2321(f)(2), a contracting
officer’s challenge to asserted
restrictions on technical data relating to
a major system shall be sustained unless
the contractor or subcontractor submits
information demonstrating that the item
was developed exclusively at private
expense. In the initial statutory
implementation of section 802(b), the
Major Systems Rule also covered all
contracts for commercial items (i.e.,
serving as a complete exception to the
otherwise applicable Commercial Rule).
However, section 815(a)(2) of the FY
2008 NDAA altered the relationship
between these two special rules in cases
of overlap—revising the Major Systems
Rule so that it does not apply to
commercially available off-the-shelf
(COTS) items (as defined at 41 U.S.C.
431(c)). Since COTS items are a subtype
of commercial items, this change results
in COTS items being governed by the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
Commercial Rule in all cases, regardless
of whether the COTS items are included
in a major system.
The proposed implementation in the
DFARS of these special rules for
technical data is modeled closely after
this two-pronged statutory scheme. The
detailed requirements for each special
rule, and the relationship between the
two rules, are consolidated in the
regulatory coverage at 227.7103–13(c),
and in the associated clause language at
252.227–7037(b). In each case, the
implementing language combines the
relevant preexisting DFARS coverage
(e.g., for the Commercial Rule, or for
validation procedures generally) with
the additional language necessary to
implement the new Major Systems Rule
and to clarify which rule governs in
cases of overlap.
For example, preexisting DFARS
coverage for the Commercial Rule at
227.7102 is relocated primarily to new
227.7103–13(c)(2), where it is combined
with new language to address the Major
Systems Rule (new paragraph (c)(2)(ii)).
The language at proposed new
227.7103–13(c)(1) is a combination of
preexisting language regarding initiation
of challenges from preexisting 227.7102
and 227.7103–13(c) (the latter is
redesignated as paragraph (d)).
Several other conforming or clarifying
revisions are included. Preexisting
language from 227.7102 is adapted to
serve as proposed new subsection
227.7102–3, which highlights and crossreferences the regulatory coverage for
validation of asserted restrictions on
technical data for commercial items,
which is now consolidated at 227.7103–
13. The prescriptive language at
proposed 227.7102–4 and 227.7103–6(a)
was revised for clarity and consistency.
The language ‘‘other than a failure to
respond under a contract for
commercial items’’ was deleted from
252.227–7037(f) in order to eliminate
confusion as to when a contracting
officer is required to issue a final
decision. The contracting officer must
issue a final decision, even when the
contractor or subcontractor fails to
respond to a challenge notice under a
contract for commercial items.
Paragraph (f) of 252.227–7037 was
amended to state positively that the
contracting officer’s final decision will
adhere to the requirements set forth in
paragraph (b) of the clause.
2. Flowdown of Requirements to
Subcontracts for Commercial Items—
Technical Data
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining
Act (FASA) requires the FAR to identify
statutes that are not to apply to contracts
or subcontracts for commercial items
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(see FAR 12.503 and 12.504). The
corresponding DFARS implementation
of these requirements at 212.503 and
212.504 made 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321
inapplicable to subcontracts for
commercial items, even though these
requirements remained applicable to
such acquisitions at the prime contract
level. Accordingly, the associated
technical data clauses used in prime
contracts have not been flowed down to
lower tier subcontracts for commercial
items, pursuant to current 227.7102–3,
252.227–7013(k)(2), and 252.227–
7037(l). DoD has reviewed the merits of
this approach and has determined that
these statutory requirements should
remain applicable to acquisitions of
technical data related to commercial
items regardless of whether that data is
provided by the prime contractor or by
a lower tier subcontractor.
It is well established policy and
practice in Federal and DoD
acquisitions that the treatment of
intellectual property rights creates a
special, direct, relationship between the
Government and subcontractors (at any
tier). For example, the Government’s
license rights may be granted directly
from the subcontractor to the
Government, and the Government and
subcontractor are allowed to transact
business directly with one another on
issues related to the subcontractor’s
intellectual property (such as delivery of
technical data directly to the
Government, and regarding the
validation of asserted restrictions).
Detailed review of the statutory
provisions also supports the conclusion
that these requirements are intended to
apply to all acquisitions of technical
data, including both commercial and
noncommercial, and at both the prime
contract level and lower tier subcontract
level. 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 have
always applied expressly to prime
contractors and subcontractors. When
FASA amended these sections to
address special requirements for
technical data related to commercial
items (e.g., the Commercial Rule
discussed previously), the statutory
amendments retained this approach,
explicitly applying at the prime contract
and subcontract levels (see 10 U.S.C.
2320(a) and (b)(1), and 2321(f)).
This congressional intent is reinforced
by the recent amendments to these
statutes. Section 802(b) of the FY07
NDAA, which created the new Major
Systems Rule, expressly and explicitly
cited application to prime contractors
and subcontractors ‘‘whether or not
under a contract for commercial items.’’
Section 815(a)(2) retained all of the
language that expressly applies to
subcontracts, and revised the language
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
only to clarify that the Major Systems
Rule is not intended to apply to COTS
items, which, under the existing
statutory language, would be covered
under the Commercial Rule at both the
prime contract and subcontract level.
Accordingly, this proposed rule
revises section 212.504 to eliminate 10
U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 from the list of
statutes that are inapplicable to
subcontracts for commercial items, and
makes corresponding changes to the
flowdown requirements at 227.7102–4,
and to the associated clauses at
252.227–7013(k)(2), –7015(e), and
–7037(l).
3. Procedures and Presumptions
Regarding Development at Private
Expense—Computer Software
Although 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321
apply only to technical data and not to
computer software (which is expressly
excluded from the definition of
technical data), it is longstanding
Federal and DoD policy and practice to
apply the same or analogous
requirements to computer software,
whenever appropriate. Many issues are
common to both technical data and
computer software, and in such cases,
conformity of coverage between
technical data and computer software is
desirable.
For example, although the DFARS
provides separate coverage for technical
data and computer software—subparts
227.71 and 227.72, respectively—the
policies and procedures are identical or
analogous in most respects. Regarding
the procedures for validation of asserted
restrictions on computer software, the
DFARS adapts the technical data
procedures only for application to
noncommercial computer software (see
227.7203–13 and 252.227–7019), but
provides no similar or analogous
coverage for commercial computer
software (see 227.7202). This
applicability model is used to guide the
implementation of revisions analogous
to those discussed previously for
technical data (i.e., analogous revisions
are made to the validation procedures
only for noncommercial technologies).
Accordingly, it is only the new Major
Systems Rule that is applicable to, and
implemented for, the validation
procedures for noncommercial
computer software. These new
procedures are added at proposed
227.7203–13(d) and the associated
clause at 252.227–7019(f). In each case,
the paragraph numbers in the affected
coverage are revised to incorporate the
new paragraph. In addition, a
conforming amendment is also made at
252.227–7019(g)(5) to state positively
that the contracting officer’s final
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
decision will adhere to the new
requirements.
This rule was subject to Office of
Management and Budget review under
Executive Order 12866, dated
September 30, 1993.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DoD does not expect this rule to 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.,
based on the historically low incidence
of formal challenges to validate asserted
restrictions by small businesses on
major systems or subsystems or
components thereof. Therefore, DoD has
not performed an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. DoD invites
comments from small business concerns
and other interested parties on the
expected impact of this rule on small
entities.
DoD will also consider comments
from small entities concerning the
existing regulations in subparts affected
by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
610. Interested parties must submit such
comments separately and should cite 5
U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2007–D003) in
correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply because the proposed changes
to the DFARS do not create new
information collection requirements,
and do not affect the scope of existing
information collection requirements in a
manner that may 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 212,
227, and 252
Government procurement.
Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48
CFR parts 212, 227, and 252 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
parts 212, 227, and 252 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
PART 212—ACQUISITION OF
COMMERCIAL ITEMS
212.504
[Amended]
2. Amend section 212.504 by
removing and reserving paragraphs
(a)(v) and (a)(vi).
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
25163
PART 227—PATENTS, DATA, AND
COPYRIGHTS
227.7102
[Removed]
3. Remove section 227.7102.
227.7102–3
[Redesignated as 227.7102–4]
4. Redesignate section 227.7102–3 as
section 227.7102–4.
5. Add new section 227.7102–3 to
read as follows:
227.7102–3 Government right to review,
verify, challenge and validate asserted
restrictions.
Follow the procedures at 227.7103–13
and the clause at 252.227–7037,
Validation of Restrictive Markings on
Technical Data, regarding the validation
of asserted restrictions on technical data
related to commercial items.
6. Revise newly designated section
227.7102–4 to read as follows:
227.7102–4
Contract clause.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this subsection, use the clause at
252.227–7015, Technical Data–
Commercial Items, in all solicitations
and contracts when the Contractor will
be required to deliver technical data
pertaining to commercial items,
components, or processes.
(2) Use the clause at 252.227–7015
with its Alternate I in contracts for the
development or delivery of a vessel
design or any useful article embodying
a vessel design.
(b) In accordance with the clause
prescription at 227.7103–6(a), use the
clause at 252.227–7013, Rights in
Technical Data—Noncommercial Items,
in lieu of the clause at 252.227–7015 if
the Government has paid or will pay
any portion of the development costs of
a commercial item.
(c) Use the clause at 252.227–7037,
Validation of Restrictive Markings on
Technical Data, in all solicitations and
contracts for commercial items that
include the clause at 252.227–7015 or
the clause at 252.227–7013.
7. Amend section 227.7103–6 by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
227.7103–6
Contract clauses.
(a) Use the clause at 252.227–7013,
Rights in Technical Data—
Noncommercial Items, in solicitations
and contracts when the successful
offeror(s) will be required to deliver to
the Government technical data
pertaining to noncommercial items, or
pertaining to commercial items for
which the Government has paid or will
pay any portion of the development
costs. Do not use the clause when the
only deliverable items are computer
software or computer software
documentation (see 227.72), commercial
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
25164
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
items developed exclusively at private
expense (see 227.7102–4), existing
works (see 227.7105), special works (see
227.7106), or when contracting under
the Small Business Innovation Research
Program (see 227.7104). Except as
provided in 227.7107–2, do not use the
clause in architect-engineer and
construction contracts.
*
*
*
*
*
8. Amend section 227.7103–13 as
follows:
a. By redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d);
b. By adding new paragraph (c);
c. By revising newly redesignated
paragraph (d) introductory text;
d. By revising the first sentence of
(d)(2)(i); and
e. By revising paragraph (d)(4).
The addition and revisions read as
follows:
227.7103–13 Government right to review,
verify, challenge and validate asserted
restrictions.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Challenge considerations and
presumption. (1) Requirements to
initiate a challenge. Contracting officers
shall have reasonable grounds to
challenge the validity of an asserted
restriction. Before issuing a challenge to
an asserted restriction, carefully
consider all available information
pertaining to the assertion. The
contracting officer shall not challenge a
contractor’s assertion that a commercial
item, component, or process was
developed exclusively at private
expense unless the Government can
demonstrate that it contributed to
development of the item, component or
process.
(2) Presumption regarding
development exclusively at private
expense. 10 U.S.C. Sections 2320(b)(1)
and 2321(f) establish a presumption and
procedures regarding validation of
asserted restrictions for technical data
related to commercial items, and to
major systems, on the basis of
development exclusively at private
expense.
(i) Commercial items. For
commercially available off-the-shelf
items (defined at 41 U.S.C. Section
431(c)) in all cases, and for all other
commercial items except as provided in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section,
contracting officers shall presume that
the items were developed exclusively at
private expense whether or not a
contractor submits a justification in
response to a challenge notice. When a
challenge is warranted, a contractor’s or
subcontractor’s failure to respond to the
challenge notice cannot be the sole basis
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
for issuing a final decision denying the
validity of an asserted restriction.
(ii) Major systems. The presumption
of development exclusively at private
expense does not apply to major
systems or subsystems or components
thereof, except for commercially
available off-the-shelf items (which are
governed by paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this
section). When the contracting officer
challenges an asserted restriction
regarding technical data for a major
system or a subsystem or component
thereof on the basis that the technology
was not developed exclusively at
private expense, the contracting officer
shall sustain the challenge unless
information provided by the contractor
or subcontractor demonstrates that the
item was developed exclusively at
private expense.
(d) Challenge and validation. All
challenges shall be made in accordance
with the provisions of the clause at
252.227–7037, Validation of Restrictive
Markings on Technical Data.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) * * *
(i) After consideration of the
situations described in paragraph (d)(3)
of this subsection, contracting officers
may request the person asserting a
restriction to furnish a written
explanation of the facts and supporting
documentation for the assertion in
sufficient detail to enable the
contracting officer to ascertain the basis
of the restrictive markings . * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Challenge notice. The contracting
officer will not issue a challenge notice
unless there are reasonable grounds to
question the validity of an assertion.
The contracting officer may challenge
an assertion whether or not supporting
documentation was requested under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
Challenge notices shall be in writing
and issued to the contractor or, after
consideration of the situations described
in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the
person asserting the restriction. The
challenge notice shall include the
information in paragraph (e) of the
clause at 252.227–7037.
*
*
*
*
*
9. Revise section 227.7203–13 by
redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), and (f)
as (e), (f), and (g) respectively; and by
adding new paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
227.7203–13 Government right to review,
verify, challenge and validate asserted
restrictions.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Major systems. When the
contracting officer challenges an
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
asserted restriction regarding
noncommercial computer software for a
major system or a subsystem or
component thereof on the basis that the
computer software was not developed
exclusively at private expense, the
contracting officer shall sustain the
challenge unless information provided
by the contractor or subcontractor
demonstrates that the computer
software was developed exclusively at
private expense.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 252—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
8. Amend section 252.227–7013 by
revising the clause date and paragraph
(k)(2) to read as follows:
252.227–7013 Rights in Technical Data—
Noncommercial Items.
*
*
*
*
*
RIGHTS IN TECHNICAL DATA—
NONCOMMERCIAL ITEMS (DATE)
*
*
*
*
*
(k) * * *
(2) Whenever any technical data is to be
obtained from a subcontractor or supplier for
delivery to the Government under this
contract, the Contractor shall use this same
clause in the subcontract or other contractual
instrument, and require its subcontractors or
suppliers to do so, without alteration, except
to identify the parties. No other clause shall
be used to enlarge or diminish the
Government’s, the Contractor’s, or a highertier subcontractor’s or supplier’s rights in a
subcontractor’s or supplier’s technical data.
*
*
*
*
*
9. Amend section 252.227–7015 by
revising the clause date and the
introductory text, and adding new
paragraph 227.7015(e) to read as
follows:
252.227–7015
Items.
Technical Data-Commercial
As prescribed in 227.7102–4(a)(1), use
the following clause:
TECHNICAL DATA—COMMERCIAL ITEMS
(DATE)
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Applicability to subcontractors or
suppliers.
(1) The Contractor shall recognize and
protect the rights afforded its subcontractors
and suppliers under 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 10
U.S.C. 2321.
(2) Whenever any technical data will be
obtained from a subcontractor or supplier for
delivery to the Government under this
contract, the Contractor shall use this same
clause in the subcontract or other contractual
instrument, and require its subcontractors or
suppliers to do so, without alteration, except
to identify the parties.
(End of clause)
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
25165
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
10. Amend section 252.227–7019 by
revising the clause date; redesignating
paragraphs (f) through (i) as (g) through
(j) respectively; adding new paragraph
(f); and revising newly redesignated
paragraphs (g)(5), (h)(1), and (h)(3) to
read as follows:
Validation of Asserted Restrictions—
Computer Software
*
*
*
*
*
VALIDATION OF ASSERTED
RESTRICTIONS—COMPUTER SOFTWARE
(DATE)
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Major systems. When the Contracting
Officer challenges an asserted restriction
regarding noncommercial computer software
for a major system or a subsystem or
component thereof on the basis that the
computer software was not developed
exclusively at private expense, the
Contracting Officer shall sustain the
challenge unless information provided by the
Contractor or subcontractor demonstrates
that the computer software was developed
exclusively at private expense.
(g) * * *
(5) If the Contractor fails to respond to the
Contracting Officer’s request for information
or additional information under paragraph
(g)(1) of this clause, the Contracting Officer
shall issue a final decision, in accordance
with paragraph (f) of this clause and the
Disputes clause of this contract, pertaining to
the validity of the asserted restriction.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(1) The Government agrees that,
notwithstanding a Contracting Officer’s final
decision denying the validity of an asserted
restriction and except as provided in
paragraph (h)(3) of this clause, it will honor
the asserted restriction—
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(3) The agency head, on a nondelegable
basis, may determine that urgent or
compelling circumstances do not permit
awaiting the filing of suit in an appropriate
court, or the rendering of a decision by a
court of competent jurisdiction or Board of
Contract Appeals. In that event, the agency
head will notify the Contractor of the urgent
or compelling circumstances.
Notwithstanding paragraph (h)(1) of this
clause, the Contractor agrees that the agency
may use, modify, reproduce, release,
perform, display, or disclose computer
software marked with government purpose
legends for any purpose, and authorize others
to do so; or restricted or special license rights
for government purposes only. The
Government agrees not to release or disclose
such software unless, prior to release or
disclosure, the intended recipient is subject
to the use and non-disclosure agreement at
227.7103–7 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS), or is a Government contractor
receiving access to the software for
performance of a Government contract that
contains the clause at DFARS 252.227–7025,
Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of
Government-Furnished Information Marked
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:40 May 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
with Restrictive Legends. The agency head’s
determination may be made at any time after
the date of the Contracting Officer’s final
decision and shall not affect the Contractor’s
right to damages against the United States, or
other relief provided by law, if its asserted
restrictions are ultimately upheld.
*
*
*
*
*
11. Amend section 252.227–7037 by
revising the clause date and revising
paragraphs (b), (c), (f), and (l) to read as
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
252.227–7037 Validation of Restrictive
Markings on Technical Data.
*
*
*
*
*
VALIDATION OF RESTRICTIVE
MARKINGS ON TECHNICAL DATA (DATE)
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Presumption regarding development
exclusively at private expense.
(1) Commercial items. For commercially
available off-the-shelf items (defined at 41
U.S.C. Section 431(c)) in all cases, and for all
other commercial items except as provided in
paragraph (b)(2) of this clause, the
Contracting Officer shall presume that a
Contractor’s asserted use or release
restrictions are justified on the basis that the
item, component, or process was developed
exclusively at private expense. The
Contracting Officer shall not challenge such
assertions unless information provided by
the Contracting Officer demonstrates that the
item, component, or process was not
developed exclusively at private expense.
(2) Major systems. The presumption of
development exclusively at private expense
does not apply to major systems or
subsystems or components thereof, except for
commercially available off-the-shelf items
(which are governed by paragraph (b)(1) of
this clause). When the Contracting Officer
challenges an asserted restriction regarding
technical data for a major system or a
subsystem or component thereof on the basis
that the item, component, or process was not
developed exclusively at private expense, the
Contracting Officer shall sustain the
challenge unless information provided by the
Contractor or subcontractor demonstrates
that the item, component, or process was
developed exclusively at private expense.
(c) Justification. The Contractor or
subcontractor at any tier is responsible for
maintaining records sufficient to justify the
validity of its markings that impose
restrictions on the Government and others to
use, duplicate, or disclose technical data
delivered or required to be delivered under
the contract or subcontract. Except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this clause, the
Contractor or subcontractor shall be prepared
to furnish to the Contracting Officer a written
justification for such restrictive markings in
response to a challenge under paragraph (e)
of this clause.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Final decision when Contractor or
subcontractor fails to respond. Upon a failure
of a Contractor or subcontractor to submit
any response to the challenge notice, the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Contracting Officer shall issue a final
decision to the Contractor or subcontractor in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this clause
and the Disputes clause of this contract
pertaining to the validity of the asserted
restriction. This final decision shall be issued
as soon as possible after the expiration of the
time period of paragraph (e)(1)(ii) or (e)(2) of
this clause. Following issuance of the final
decision, the Contracting Officer shall
comply with the procedures in paragraphs
(g)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this clause.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) Flowdown. The Contractor or
subcontractor agrees to insert this clause in
contractual instruments with its
subcontractors or suppliers at any tier
requiring the delivery of technical data.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2010–10764 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
[DFARS Case 2008–D027]
48 CFR Parts 215, 234, 242, and 252
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Cost and
Software Data Reporting System
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for
comments.
SUMMARY: DoD proposes to amend the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement (DFARS) to set forth DoD
Cost and Software Data Reporting
system requirements for major defense
acquisition programs and major
automated information system
programs.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
should be submitted in writing to the
address shown below on or before July
6, 2010, to be considered in the
formation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by DFARS Case 2008–D027,
using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include
DFARS Case 2008–D027 in the subject
line of the message.
• Fax: 703–602–0350.
• Mail: Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Mary
Overstreet, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS),
Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–3060.
Comments received generally will be
posted without change to https://
E:\FR\FM\07MYP1.SGM
07MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25161-25165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10764]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
[DFARS Case 2007-D003]
48 CFR Parts 212, 227, and 252
RIN 0750-AF84
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Presumption of
Development at Private Expense
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD proposes to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 802(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 and
section 815(a)(2) of the NDAA for FY 2008. This proposed rule
implements special requirements and procedures related to the
validation of a contractor's or subcontractor's asserted restrictions
on technical data and computer software.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted to the address
shown below on or before July 6, 2010, to be considered in the
formulation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2007-D003,
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 2007-D003 in the
subject line of the message.
Fax: 703-602-0350.
Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms.
Amy Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B855,
Washington, DC 20301-3060.
All comments received will be posted generally without change to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, 703-602-0328.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 802(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364) modified 10 U.S.C. 2321(f) with
regard to the presumption of development at private expense for major
systems; and section 815(a)(2) of the NDAA for FY 2008 (Pub. L. 110-
181) revised 10 U.S.C. 2321(f)(2) to exempt commercially available off-
the-shelf items from the requirements that section 802(b) had
established for major systems. This proposed rule implements special
requirements and procedures related to the validation of a contractor's
or subcontractor's asserted restrictions on technical data and computer
software. More specifically, the proposed rule affects these validation
procedures in the context of two special categories of items:
Commercial items, (including commercially available off-the-shelf
items); and major systems (including subsystems and components of major
systems).
[[Page 25162]]
1. Procedures and Presumptions Regarding Development at Private
Expense--Technical Data
The validation of asserted restrictions on technical data is based
on statutory requirements, codified primarily at 10 U.S.C. section
2321. In 1994, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (Pub. L. 103-
355) revised these requirements to include specialized presumptions and
procedures for technical data related to commercial items. For
discussion purposes, these specialized requirements will be referred to
as the ``Commercial Rule'' (see 10 U.S.C. 2320(b)(1) and 2321(f)).
Under the Commercial Rule, a contracting officer is required to
presume that a commercial item has been developed entirely at private
expense, unless shown otherwise in accordance with the procedures at 10
U.S.C. 2321(f). The detailed procedures at 10 U.S.C. 2321(f)(1) require
the contracting officer to presume that the asserted restrictions have
been justified (on the basis that the item was developed exclusively at
private expense), whether or not the contractor or subcontractor
submits a justification in response to the challenge notice issued by
the contracting officer. The contracting officer's challenge may be
sustained only if information provided by DoD demonstrates that the
item was not developed exclusively at private expense.
Section 802(b) of the FY 2007 NDAA established another set of
procedures for technical data related to major systems (including
subsystems or components thereof). For discussion purposes, these
specialized requirements will be referred to as the ``Major Systems
Rule.'' Under the Major Systems Rule, codified at 10 U.S.C. 2321(f)(2),
a contracting officer's challenge to asserted restrictions on technical
data relating to a major system shall be sustained unless the
contractor or subcontractor submits information demonstrating that the
item was developed exclusively at private expense. In the initial
statutory implementation of section 802(b), the Major Systems Rule also
covered all contracts for commercial items (i.e., serving as a complete
exception to the otherwise applicable Commercial Rule).
However, section 815(a)(2) of the FY 2008 NDAA altered the
relationship between these two special rules in cases of overlap--
revising the Major Systems Rule so that it does not apply to
commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items (as defined at 41
U.S.C. 431(c)). Since COTS items are a subtype of commercial items,
this change results in COTS items being governed by the Commercial Rule
in all cases, regardless of whether the COTS items are included in a
major system.
The proposed implementation in the DFARS of these special rules for
technical data is modeled closely after this two-pronged statutory
scheme. The detailed requirements for each special rule, and the
relationship between the two rules, are consolidated in the regulatory
coverage at 227.7103-13(c), and in the associated clause language at
252.227-7037(b). In each case, the implementing language combines the
relevant preexisting DFARS coverage (e.g., for the Commercial Rule, or
for validation procedures generally) with the additional language
necessary to implement the new Major Systems Rule and to clarify which
rule governs in cases of overlap.
For example, preexisting DFARS coverage for the Commercial Rule at
227.7102 is relocated primarily to new 227.7103-13(c)(2), where it is
combined with new language to address the Major Systems Rule (new
paragraph (c)(2)(ii)). The language at proposed new 227.7103-13(c)(1)
is a combination of preexisting language regarding initiation of
challenges from preexisting 227.7102 and 227.7103-13(c) (the latter is
redesignated as paragraph (d)).
Several other conforming or clarifying revisions are included.
Preexisting language from 227.7102 is adapted to serve as proposed new
subsection 227.7102-3, which highlights and cross-references the
regulatory coverage for validation of asserted restrictions on
technical data for commercial items, which is now consolidated at
227.7103-13. The prescriptive language at proposed 227.7102-4 and
227.7103-6(a) was revised for clarity and consistency. The language
``other than a failure to respond under a contract for commercial
items'' was deleted from 252.227-7037(f) in order to eliminate
confusion as to when a contracting officer is required to issue a final
decision. The contracting officer must issue a final decision, even
when the contractor or subcontractor fails to respond to a challenge
notice under a contract for commercial items. Paragraph (f) of 252.227-
7037 was amended to state positively that the contracting officer's
final decision will adhere to the requirements set forth in paragraph
(b) of the clause.
2. Flowdown of Requirements to Subcontracts for Commercial Items--
Technical Data
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) requires the FAR to
identify statutes that are not to apply to contracts or subcontracts
for commercial items (see FAR 12.503 and 12.504). The corresponding
DFARS implementation of these requirements at 212.503 and 212.504 made
10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 inapplicable to subcontracts for commercial
items, even though these requirements remained applicable to such
acquisitions at the prime contract level. Accordingly, the associated
technical data clauses used in prime contracts have not been flowed
down to lower tier subcontracts for commercial items, pursuant to
current 227.7102-3, 252.227-7013(k)(2), and 252.227-7037(l). DoD has
reviewed the merits of this approach and has determined that these
statutory requirements should remain applicable to acquisitions of
technical data related to commercial items regardless of whether that
data is provided by the prime contractor or by a lower tier
subcontractor.
It is well established policy and practice in Federal and DoD
acquisitions that the treatment of intellectual property rights creates
a special, direct, relationship between the Government and
subcontractors (at any tier). For example, the Government's license
rights may be granted directly from the subcontractor to the
Government, and the Government and subcontractor are allowed to
transact business directly with one another on issues related to the
subcontractor's intellectual property (such as delivery of technical
data directly to the Government, and regarding the validation of
asserted restrictions).
Detailed review of the statutory provisions also supports the
conclusion that these requirements are intended to apply to all
acquisitions of technical data, including both commercial and
noncommercial, and at both the prime contract level and lower tier
subcontract level. 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 have always applied
expressly to prime contractors and subcontractors. When FASA amended
these sections to address special requirements for technical data
related to commercial items (e.g., the Commercial Rule discussed
previously), the statutory amendments retained this approach,
explicitly applying at the prime contract and subcontract levels (see
10 U.S.C. 2320(a) and (b)(1), and 2321(f)).
This congressional intent is reinforced by the recent amendments to
these statutes. Section 802(b) of the FY07 NDAA, which created the new
Major Systems Rule, expressly and explicitly cited application to prime
contractors and subcontractors ``whether or not under a contract for
commercial items.'' Section 815(a)(2) retained all of the language that
expressly applies to subcontracts, and revised the language
[[Page 25163]]
only to clarify that the Major Systems Rule is not intended to apply to
COTS items, which, under the existing statutory language, would be
covered under the Commercial Rule at both the prime contract and
subcontract level.
Accordingly, this proposed rule revises section 212.504 to
eliminate 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 from the list of statutes that are
inapplicable to subcontracts for commercial items, and makes
corresponding changes to the flowdown requirements at 227.7102-4, and
to the associated clauses at 252.227-7013(k)(2), -7015(e), and -
7037(l).
3. Procedures and Presumptions Regarding Development at Private
Expense--Computer Software
Although 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 apply only to technical data and
not to computer software (which is expressly excluded from the
definition of technical data), it is longstanding Federal and DoD
policy and practice to apply the same or analogous requirements to
computer software, whenever appropriate. Many issues are common to both
technical data and computer software, and in such cases, conformity of
coverage between technical data and computer software is desirable.
For example, although the DFARS provides separate coverage for
technical data and computer software--subparts 227.71 and 227.72,
respectively--the policies and procedures are identical or analogous in
most respects. Regarding the procedures for validation of asserted
restrictions on computer software, the DFARS adapts the technical data
procedures only for application to noncommercial computer software (see
227.7203-13 and 252.227-7019), but provides no similar or analogous
coverage for commercial computer software (see 227.7202). This
applicability model is used to guide the implementation of revisions
analogous to those discussed previously for technical data (i.e.,
analogous revisions are made to the validation procedures only for
noncommercial technologies).
Accordingly, it is only the new Major Systems Rule that is
applicable to, and implemented for, the validation procedures for
noncommercial computer software. These new procedures are added at
proposed 227.7203-13(d) and the associated clause at 252.227-7019(f).
In each case, the paragraph numbers in the affected coverage are
revised to incorporate the new paragraph. In addition, a conforming
amendment is also made at 252.227-7019(g)(5) to state positively that
the contracting officer's final decision will adhere to the new
requirements.
This rule was subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
DoD does not expect this rule to 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., based on the
historically low incidence of formal challenges to validate asserted
restrictions by small businesses on major systems or subsystems or
components thereof. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small
business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact
of this rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the
existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments
separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2007-D003) in
correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed
changes to the DFARS do not create new information collection
requirements, and do not affect the scope of existing information
collection requirements in a manner that may 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 212, 227, and 252
Government procurement.
Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 212, 227, and 252 as
follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 212, 227, and 252
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
PART 212--ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS
212.504 [Amended]
2. Amend section 212.504 by removing and reserving paragraphs
(a)(v) and (a)(vi).
PART 227--PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS
227.7102 [Removed]
3. Remove section 227.7102.
227.7102-3 [Redesignated as 227.7102-4]
4. Redesignate section 227.7102-3 as section 227.7102-4.
5. Add new section 227.7102-3 to read as follows:
227.7102-3 Government right to review, verify, challenge and validate
asserted restrictions.
Follow the procedures at 227.7103-13 and the clause at 252.227-
7037, Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data, regarding
the validation of asserted restrictions on technical data related to
commercial items.
6. Revise newly designated section 227.7102-4 to read as follows:
227.7102-4 Contract clause.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, use
the clause at 252.227-7015, Technical Data- Commercial Items, in all
solicitations and contracts when the Contractor will be required to
deliver technical data pertaining to commercial items, components, or
processes.
(2) Use the clause at 252.227-7015 with its Alternate I in
contracts for the development or delivery of a vessel design or any
useful article embodying a vessel design.
(b) In accordance with the clause prescription at 227.7103-6(a),
use the clause at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial
Items, in lieu of the clause at 252.227-7015 if the Government has paid
or will pay any portion of the development costs of a commercial item.
(c) Use the clause at 252.227-7037, Validation of Restrictive
Markings on Technical Data, in all solicitations and contracts for
commercial items that include the clause at 252.227-7015 or the clause
at 252.227-7013.
7. Amend section 227.7103-6 by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
227.7103-6 Contract clauses.
(a) Use the clause at 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data--
Noncommercial Items, in solicitations and contracts when the successful
offeror(s) will be required to deliver to the Government technical data
pertaining to noncommercial items, or pertaining to commercial items
for which the Government has paid or will pay any portion of the
development costs. Do not use the clause when the only deliverable
items are computer software or computer software documentation (see
227.72), commercial
[[Page 25164]]
items developed exclusively at private expense (see 227.7102-4),
existing works (see 227.7105), special works (see 227.7106), or when
contracting under the Small Business Innovation Research Program (see
227.7104). Except as provided in 227.7107-2, do not use the clause in
architect-engineer and construction contracts.
* * * * *
8. Amend section 227.7103-13 as follows:
a. By redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d);
b. By adding new paragraph (c);
c. By revising newly redesignated paragraph (d) introductory text;
d. By revising the first sentence of (d)(2)(i); and
e. By revising paragraph (d)(4).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
227.7103-13 Government right to review, verify, challenge and validate
asserted restrictions.
* * * * *
(c) Challenge considerations and presumption. (1) Requirements to
initiate a challenge. Contracting officers shall have reasonable
grounds to challenge the validity of an asserted restriction. Before
issuing a challenge to an asserted restriction, carefully consider all
available information pertaining to the assertion. The contracting
officer shall not challenge a contractor's assertion that a commercial
item, component, or process was developed exclusively at private
expense unless the Government can demonstrate that it contributed to
development of the item, component or process.
(2) Presumption regarding development exclusively at private
expense. 10 U.S.C. Sections 2320(b)(1) and 2321(f) establish a
presumption and procedures regarding validation of asserted
restrictions for technical data related to commercial items, and to
major systems, on the basis of development exclusively at private
expense.
(i) Commercial items. For commercially available off-the-shelf
items (defined at 41 U.S.C. Section 431(c)) in all cases, and for all
other commercial items except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of
this section, contracting officers shall presume that the items were
developed exclusively at private expense whether or not a contractor
submits a justification in response to a challenge notice. When a
challenge is warranted, a contractor's or subcontractor's failure to
respond to the challenge notice cannot be the sole basis for issuing a
final decision denying the validity of an asserted restriction.
(ii) Major systems. The presumption of development exclusively at
private expense does not apply to major systems or subsystems or
components thereof, except for commercially available off-the-shelf
items (which are governed by paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section). When
the contracting officer challenges an asserted restriction regarding
technical data for a major system or a subsystem or component thereof
on the basis that the technology was not developed exclusively at
private expense, the contracting officer shall sustain the challenge
unless information provided by the contractor or subcontractor
demonstrates that the item was developed exclusively at private
expense.
(d) Challenge and validation. All challenges shall be made in
accordance with the provisions of the clause at 252.227-7037,
Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) After consideration of the situations described in paragraph
(d)(3) of this subsection, contracting officers may request the person
asserting a restriction to furnish a written explanation of the facts
and supporting documentation for the assertion in sufficient detail to
enable the contracting officer to ascertain the basis of the
restrictive markings . * * *
* * * * *
(4) Challenge notice. The contracting officer will not issue a
challenge notice unless there are reasonable grounds to question the
validity of an assertion. The contracting officer may challenge an
assertion whether or not supporting documentation was requested under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Challenge notices shall be in writing
and issued to the contractor or, after consideration of the situations
described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the person asserting the
restriction. The challenge notice shall include the information in
paragraph (e) of the clause at 252.227-7037.
* * * * *
9. Revise section 227.7203-13 by redesignating paragraphs (d), (e),
and (f) as (e), (f), and (g) respectively; and by adding new paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
227.7203-13 Government right to review, verify, challenge and validate
asserted restrictions.
* * * * *
(d) Major systems. When the contracting officer challenges an
asserted restriction regarding noncommercial computer software for a
major system or a subsystem or component thereof on the basis that the
computer software was not developed exclusively at private expense, the
contracting officer shall sustain the challenge unless information
provided by the contractor or subcontractor demonstrates that the
computer software was developed exclusively at private expense.
* * * * *
PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
8. Amend section 252.227-7013 by revising the clause date and
paragraph (k)(2) to read as follows:
252.227-7013 Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial Items.
* * * * *
RIGHTS IN TECHNICAL DATA--NONCOMMERCIAL ITEMS (DATE)
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(2) Whenever any technical data is to be obtained from a
subcontractor or supplier for delivery to the Government under this
contract, the Contractor shall use this same clause in the
subcontract or other contractual instrument, and require its
subcontractors or suppliers to do so, without alteration, except to
identify the parties. No other clause shall be used to enlarge or
diminish the Government's, the Contractor's, or a higher-tier
subcontractor's or supplier's rights in a subcontractor's or
supplier's technical data.
* * * * *
9. Amend section 252.227-7015 by revising the clause date and the
introductory text, and adding new paragraph 227.7015(e) to read as
follows:
252.227-7015 Technical Data-Commercial Items.
As prescribed in 227.7102-4(a)(1), use the following clause:
TECHNICAL DATA--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (DATE)
* * * * *
(e) Applicability to subcontractors or suppliers.
(1) The Contractor shall recognize and protect the rights
afforded its subcontractors and suppliers under 10 U.S.C. 2320 and
10 U.S.C. 2321.
(2) Whenever any technical data will be obtained from a
subcontractor or supplier for delivery to the Government under this
contract, the Contractor shall use this same clause in the
subcontract or other contractual instrument, and require its
subcontractors or suppliers to do so, without alteration, except to
identify the parties.
(End of clause)
[[Page 25165]]
10. Amend section 252.227-7019 by revising the clause date;
redesignating paragraphs (f) through (i) as (g) through (j)
respectively; adding new paragraph (f); and revising newly redesignated
paragraphs (g)(5), (h)(1), and (h)(3) to read as follows:
Validation of Asserted Restrictions--Computer Software
* * * * *
VALIDATION OF ASSERTED RESTRICTIONS--COMPUTER SOFTWARE (DATE)
* * * * *
(f) Major systems. When the Contracting Officer challenges an
asserted restriction regarding noncommercial computer software for a
major system or a subsystem or component thereof on the basis that
the computer software was not developed exclusively at private
expense, the Contracting Officer shall sustain the challenge unless
information provided by the Contractor or subcontractor demonstrates
that the computer software was developed exclusively at private
expense.
(g) * * *
(5) If the Contractor fails to respond to the Contracting
Officer's request for information or additional information under
paragraph (g)(1) of this clause, the Contracting Officer shall issue
a final decision, in accordance with paragraph (f) of this clause
and the Disputes clause of this contract, pertaining to the validity
of the asserted restriction.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) The Government agrees that, notwithstanding a Contracting
Officer's final decision denying the validity of an asserted
restriction and except as provided in paragraph (h)(3) of this
clause, it will honor the asserted restriction--
* * * * *
(3) The agency head, on a nondelegable basis, may determine that
urgent or compelling circumstances do not permit awaiting the filing
of suit in an appropriate court, or the rendering of a decision by a
court of competent jurisdiction or Board of Contract Appeals. In
that event, the agency head will notify the Contractor of the urgent
or compelling circumstances. Notwithstanding paragraph (h)(1) of
this clause, the Contractor agrees that the agency may use, modify,
reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose computer software
marked with government purpose legends for any purpose, and
authorize others to do so; or restricted or special license rights
for government purposes only. The Government agrees not to release
or disclose such software unless, prior to release or disclosure,
the intended recipient is subject to the use and non-disclosure
agreement at 227.7103-7 of the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS), or is a Government contractor
receiving access to the software for performance of a Government
contract that contains the clause at DFARS 252.227-7025, Limitations
on the Use or Disclosure of Government-Furnished Information Marked
with Restrictive Legends. The agency head's determination may be
made at any time after the date of the Contracting Officer's final
decision and shall not affect the Contractor's right to damages
against the United States, or other relief provided by law, if its
asserted restrictions are ultimately upheld.
* * * * *
11. Amend section 252.227-7037 by revising the clause date and
revising paragraphs (b), (c), (f), and (l) to read as follows:
* * * * *
252.227-7037 Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data.
* * * * *
VALIDATION OF RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS ON TECHNICAL DATA (DATE)
* * * * *
(b) Presumption regarding development exclusively at private
expense.
(1) Commercial items. For commercially available off-the-shelf
items (defined at 41 U.S.C. Section 431(c)) in all cases, and for
all other commercial items except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of
this clause, the Contracting Officer shall presume that a
Contractor's asserted use or release restrictions are justified on
the basis that the item, component, or process was developed
exclusively at private expense. The Contracting Officer shall not
challenge such assertions unless information provided by the
Contracting Officer demonstrates that the item, component, or
process was not developed exclusively at private expense.
(2) Major systems. The presumption of development exclusively at
private expense does not apply to major systems or subsystems or
components thereof, except for commercially available off-the-shelf
items (which are governed by paragraph (b)(1) of this clause). When
the Contracting Officer challenges an asserted restriction regarding
technical data for a major system or a subsystem or component
thereof on the basis that the item, component, or process was not
developed exclusively at private expense, the Contracting Officer
shall sustain the challenge unless information provided by the
Contractor or subcontractor demonstrates that the item, component,
or process was developed exclusively at private expense.
(c) Justification. The Contractor or subcontractor at any tier
is responsible for maintaining records sufficient to justify the
validity of its markings that impose restrictions on the Government
and others to use, duplicate, or disclose technical data delivered
or required to be delivered under the contract or subcontract.
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this clause, the Contractor
or subcontractor shall be prepared to furnish to the Contracting
Officer a written justification for such restrictive markings in
response to a challenge under paragraph (e) of this clause.
* * * * *
(f) Final decision when Contractor or subcontractor fails to
respond. Upon a failure of a Contractor or subcontractor to submit
any response to the challenge notice, the Contracting Officer shall
issue a final decision to the Contractor or subcontractor in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this clause and the Disputes clause
of this contract pertaining to the validity of the asserted
restriction. This final decision shall be issued as soon as possible
after the expiration of the time period of paragraph (e)(1)(ii) or
(e)(2) of this clause. Following issuance of the final decision, the
Contracting Officer shall comply with the procedures in paragraphs
(g)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this clause.
* * * * *
(l) Flowdown. The Contractor or subcontractor agrees to insert
this clause in contractual instruments with its subcontractors or
suppliers at any tier requiring the delivery of technical data.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2010-10764 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P