Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Excessive Pass-Through Charges (DFARS Case 2006-D057), 49849-49850 [2010-20168]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
zone, all vessels shall operate at the
minimum speed necessary to maintain a
safe course.
This notice is issued under authority
of 33 CFR 165.935 Safety Zone,
Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, WI and
5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this
notice in the Federal Register, the Coast
Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of
these enforcement periods via Broadcast
Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to
Mariners. The Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, will issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying
the public when enforcement of the
safety zone established by this section is
suspended. If the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, determines that
the safety zone need not be enforced for
the full duration stated in this notice, he
or she may use a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners to grant general permission to
enter the safety zone. The Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her
on-scene representative may be
contacted via VHF–FM Channel 16.
Dated: July 30, 2010.
L. Barndt
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
DoD
issued a final rule in the Federal
Register on August 10, 2010 (75 FR
48278), under DFARS Case 2006–D057,
Excessive Pass-Through Charges. That
final rule deleted obsolete DFARS
language regarding excessive passthrough charges on contracts and
subcontracts that are entered into for or
on behalf of DoD. The final rule
incorrectly removed and reserved
sections 252.217–7003 and 252.217–
7004, respectively. DoD is issuing this
technical amendment to add these
sections back in and correctly remove
and reserve sections 252.215–7003 and
252.215–7004, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252
Government procurement.
Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Therefore 48 CFR part 252 is amended
as follows:
■
PART 252—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 252 continues to read as follows:
■
[FR Doc. 2010–20124 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am]
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
2. Section 252.215–7003 is removed
and reserved.
■
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
252.215–7003
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Part 252
252.215–7004
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Excessive
Pass-Through Charges (DFARS Case
2006–D057)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule; technical
amendment.
DoD issued a final rule in the
Federal Register on August 10, 2010,
under DFARS Case 2006–D057,
Excessive Pass-Through Charges. That
final rule incorrectly removed and
reserved two CFR sections. DoD is
issuing this technical amendment to
correct that error in the final rule.
DATES: Effective Date: August 16, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Ynette R. Shelkin, Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L)
DPAP (DARS), Room 3B855, 3060
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC
20301–3060. Telephone 703–602–8384;
facsimile 703–602–0350.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:09 Aug 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
[Removed and Reserved]
4. Add sections 252.217–7003 and
252.217–7004 to read as follows:
■
252.217–7003
Changes.
As prescribed in 217.7104(a), use the
following clause:
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
[Removed and Reserved]
3. Section 252.215–7004 is removed
and reserved.
■
CHANGES (DEC 1991)
(a) The Contracting Officer may, at any
time and without notice to the sureties, by
written change order, make changes within
the general scope of any job order issued
under the Master Agreement in—
(1) Drawings, designs, plans, and
specifications;
(2) Work itemized;
(3) Place of performance of the work;
(4) Time of commencement or completion
of the work; and
(5) Any other requirement of the job order.
(b) If a change causes an increase or
decrease in the cost of, or time required for,
performance of the job order, whether or not
changed by the order, the Contracting Officer
shall make an equitable adjustment in the
price or date of completion, or both, and
shall modify the job order in writing.
(1) Within ten days after the Contractor
receives notification of the change, the
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49849
Contractor shall submit to the Contracting
Officer a request for price adjustment,
together with a written estimate of the
increased cost.
(2) The Contracting Officer may grant an
extension of this period if the Contractor
requests it within the ten day period.
(3) If the circumstances justify it, the
Contracting Officer may accept and grant a
request for equitable adjustment at any later
time prior to final payment under the job
order, except that the Contractor may not
receive profit on a payment under a late
request.
(c) If the Contractor includes in its claim
the cost of property made obsolete or excess
as a result of a change, the Contracting
Officer shall have the right to prescribe the
manner of disposition of that property.
(d) Failure to agree to any adjustment shall
be a dispute within the meaning of the
Disputes clause.
(e) Nothing in this clause shall excuse the
Contractor from proceeding with the job
order as changed.
(End of clause)
252.217–7004 Job Orders and
Compensation.
As prescribed in 217.7104(a), use the
following clause:
JOB ORDERS AND COMPENSATION (MAY
2006)
(a) The Contracting Officer shall solicit
bids or proposals and make award of job
orders. The issuance of a job order signed by
the Contracting Officer constitutes award.
The job order shall incorporate the terms and
conditions of the Master Agreement.
(b) Whenever the Contracting Officer
determines that a vessel, its cargo or stores,
would be endangered by delay, or whenever
the Contracting Officer determines that
military necessity requires that immediate
work on a vessel is necessary, the Contracting
Officer may issue a written order to perform
that work and the Contractor hereby agrees
to comply with that order and to perform
work on such vessel within its capabilities.
(1) As soon as practicable after the issuance
of the order, the Contracting Officer and the
Contractor shall negotiate a price for the
work and the Contracting Officer shall issue
a job order covering the work.
(2) The Contractor shall, upon request,
furnish the Contracting Officer with a
breakdown of costs incurred by the
Contractor and an estimate of costs expected
to be incurred in the performance of the
work. The Contractor shall maintain, and
make available for inspection by the
Contracting Officer or the Contracting
Officer’s representative, records supporting
the cost of performing the work.
(3) Failure of the parties to agree upon the
price of the work shall constitute a dispute
within the meaning of the Disputes clause of
the Master Agreement. In the meantime, the
Contractor shall diligently proceed to
perform the work ordered.
(c)(1) If the nature of any repairs is such
that their extent and probable cost cannot be
ascertained readily, the Contracting Officer
may issue a job order (on a sealed bid or
E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM
16AUR1
49850
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
negotiated basis) to determine the nature and
extent of required repairs.
(2) Upon determination by the Contracting
Officer of what work is necessary, the
Contractor, if requested by the Contracting
Officer, shall negotiate prices for
performance of that work. The prices agreed
upon shall be set forth in a modification of
the job order.
(3) Failure of the parties to agree upon the
price shall constitute a dispute under the
Disputes clause. In the meantime, the
Contractor shall diligently proceed to
perform the work ordered.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2010–20168 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 40
[Docket OST–2010–0026]
Principal Policy Issues
RIN 2105–AD95
Procedures for Transportation
Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of
Transportation (the Department or DOT)
is amending certain provisions of its
drug testing procedures dealing with
laboratory testing of urine specimens.
Some of the changes will also affect the
training of and procedures used by
Medical Review Officers. The changes
are intended to create consistency with
many, but not all, of the new
requirements established by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
This rule is effective October 1,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Snider, Senior Policy Advisor (S–
1), Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy
and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone number 202–366–3784
(voice), 202–366–3897 (fax), or
mark.snider@dot.gov (e-mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
Background and Purpose
On November 25, 2008 (73 FR 7185),
the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) issued a
Final Notice of Revisions to the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines for Federal
Workplace Drug Testing Programs (HHS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:09 Aug 13, 2010
Mandatory Guidelines) that included
changes to the procedures for collection
and testing of urine specimens, creation
of and requirements for the certification
of Instrumented Initial Test Facilities
(IITFs), collection site oversight
requirements, and changes to the role of
and standards for collectors and
Medical Review Officers (MROs). The
HHS Mandatory Guidelines were to
become effective May 1, 2010, but on
April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809), HHS
postponed implementation until
October 1, 2010.
On February 4, 2010, DOT published
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) (75 FR 5722) seeking comments
about changing part 40 to be consistent
with certain aspects of the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines. The final rule
responds to the comments and makes a
number of changes to the existing rules
governing the Department’s drug testing
program.
Jkt 220001
Requirements of the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act of
1991
Several commenters questioned
whether and to what extent the
Department must follow the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines. Some
commenters urged the Department to
choose a different approach from the
HHS regarding the drugs for which
testing occurs, the initial testing of all
specimens for 6–Acetylmorphine (6–
AM), and the use of IITFs. Although
since its passage, the Department has
cited the Omnibus Transportation
Employee Testing Act of 1991, 49 U.S.C.
31300, et seq., 49 U.S.C. 20100, et seq.,
49 U.S.C. 5330, et seq., and 49 U.S.C.
45100, et seq. (Omnibus Act), as the
definitive authority for our reliance on
the HHS Mandatory Guidelines for
scientific testing issues, several of the
commenters have challenged this or
otherwise asked the Department to
clarify what the Omnibus Act requires.
Even before the Omnibus Act, the
Department looked to the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines for guidance on
scientific matters. In a 1988 Interim
Final Rule (IFR) the Department relied
upon the HHS for testing methodologies
to determine the drugs for which testing
would be done and which laboratories
to use. Specifically, the Department
noted that under ‘‘the HHS Guidelines,
a Federal agency may test a urine
sample only for certain specified drugs.
The Department’s Procedures echo this
requirement.’’ (53 FR 47002, Nov. 21,
1988; emphasis in the original) In the
same IFR, the Department required
regulated transportation employers to
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
use only laboratories certified under the
HHS Mandatory Guidelines for Federal
Workplace Drug Testing Programs.
While deciding to utilize many aspects
of the HHS Mandatory Guidelines, the
Department acknowledged ‘‘that the
Guidelines, as written by HHS to apply
to testing by Federal agencies, do not fit
perfectly the circumstances of
employers regulated by DOT * * *.
Obviously, the circumstances of
industries regulated by DOT are very
different from those of Federal
agencies.’’ (53 FR 47002) Thus, the
Department began to lay the foundation
for using the technical expertise of the
HHS for the scientific aspects of DOT’s
testing program while relying upon the
Department’s own authority and that of
DOT agencies to tailor many procedural
aspects of DOT testing to fit the
transportation industries.
In a 1989 final rule, we discussed the
applicability of the Fourth Amendment
of the United States Constitution to both
the Federal agency programs covered by
the HHS Mandatory Guidelines and the
testing that transportation employers
would conduct in response to the
Department’s requirements. The
Department acknowledged that the HHS
Mandatory Guidelines had passed
Constitutional scrutiny by the Federal
courts, all the way up to the Supreme
Court of the United States. The Federal
courts concluded that HHS had met the
Fourth Amendment balancing of the
Federal need to ensure safety by drug
testing versus individuals’ strong
interests in their right to privacy. The
HHS Mandatory Guidelines had set up
a testing system with sound
methodology that ensured privacy and
accuracy. Given these considerations,
the Department decided to rely on HHS
for the science of DOT’s testing program
and for the drugs for which we test, the
testing methodologies, and the integrity
of the HHS certified laboratories. (54 FR
49854, Dec. 1, 1989)
Congress endorsed the Department’s
decision by explicitly directing, in the
Omnibus Act, the Department to
incorporate the HHS scientific and
technical guidelines for laboratories and
testing procedures for controlled
substances. The Omnibus Act
specifically requires that we incorporate
the HHS scientific and technical
guidelines that ‘‘establish
comprehensive standards for all aspects
of laboratory controlled substances
testing’’ in order to ensure full reliability
and accuracy in testing. [49 U.S.C.
31306(c)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. 20140(c)(2)(A),
49 U.S.C. 5331(d)(2)(A) and 49 U.S.C.
45104(2)(A)] The legislative history for
the Omnibus Act indicates the following
intent: ‘‘Incorporating the HHS
E:\FR\FM\16AUR1.SGM
16AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49849-49850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20168]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
48 CFR Part 252
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Excessive
Pass-Through Charges (DFARS Case 2006-D057)
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD issued a final rule in the Federal Register on August 10,
2010, under DFARS Case 2006-D057, Excessive Pass-Through Charges. That
final rule incorrectly removed and reserved two CFR sections. DoD is
issuing this technical amendment to correct that error in the final
rule.
DATES: Effective Date: August 16, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ynette R. Shelkin, Defense
Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), Room 3B855,
3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 703-602-
8384; facsimile 703-602-0350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DoD issued a final rule in the Federal
Register on August 10, 2010 (75 FR 48278), under DFARS Case 2006-D057,
Excessive Pass-Through Charges. That final rule deleted obsolete DFARS
language regarding excessive pass-through charges on contracts and
subcontracts that are entered into for or on behalf of DoD. The final
rule incorrectly removed and reserved sections 252.217-7003 and
252.217-7004, respectively. DoD is issuing this technical amendment to
add these sections back in and correctly remove and reserve sections
252.215-7003 and 252.215-7004, respectively.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252
Government procurement.
Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
0
Therefore 48 CFR part 252 is amended as follows:
PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 252 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
0
2. Section 252.215-7003 is removed and reserved.
252.215-7003 [Removed and Reserved]
0
3. Section 252.215-7004 is removed and reserved.
252.215-7004 [Removed and Reserved]
0
4. Add sections 252.217-7003 and 252.217-7004 to read as follows:
252.217-7003 Changes.
As prescribed in 217.7104(a), use the following clause:
CHANGES (DEC 1991)
(a) The Contracting Officer may, at any time and without notice
to the sureties, by written change order, make changes within the
general scope of any job order issued under the Master Agreement
in--
(1) Drawings, designs, plans, and specifications;
(2) Work itemized;
(3) Place of performance of the work;
(4) Time of commencement or completion of the work; and
(5) Any other requirement of the job order.
(b) If a change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of,
or time required for, performance of the job order, whether or not
changed by the order, the Contracting Officer shall make an
equitable adjustment in the price or date of completion, or both,
and shall modify the job order in writing.
(1) Within ten days after the Contractor receives notification
of the change, the Contractor shall submit to the Contracting
Officer a request for price adjustment, together with a written
estimate of the increased cost.
(2) The Contracting Officer may grant an extension of this
period if the Contractor requests it within the ten day period.
(3) If the circumstances justify it, the Contracting Officer may
accept and grant a request for equitable adjustment at any later
time prior to final payment under the job order, except that the
Contractor may not receive profit on a payment under a late request.
(c) If the Contractor includes in its claim the cost of property
made obsolete or excess as a result of a change, the Contracting
Officer shall have the right to prescribe the manner of disposition
of that property.
(d) Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute within
the meaning of the Disputes clause.
(e) Nothing in this clause shall excuse the Contractor from
proceeding with the job order as changed.
(End of clause)
252.217-7004 Job Orders and Compensation.
As prescribed in 217.7104(a), use the following clause:
JOB ORDERS AND COMPENSATION (MAY 2006)
(a) The Contracting Officer shall solicit bids or proposals and
make award of job orders. The issuance of a job order signed by the
Contracting Officer constitutes award. The job order shall
incorporate the terms and conditions of the Master Agreement.
(b) Whenever the Contracting Officer determines that a vessel,
its cargo or stores, would be endangered by delay, or whenever the
Contracting Officer determines that military necessity requires that
immediate work on a vessel is necessary, the Contracting Officer may
issue a written order to perform that work and the Contractor hereby
agrees to comply with that order and to perform work on such vessel
within its capabilities.
(1) As soon as practicable after the issuance of the order, the
Contracting Officer and the Contractor shall negotiate a price for
the work and the Contracting Officer shall issue a job order
covering the work.
(2) The Contractor shall, upon request, furnish the Contracting
Officer with a breakdown of costs incurred by the Contractor and an
estimate of costs expected to be incurred in the performance of the
work. The Contractor shall maintain, and make available for
inspection by the Contracting Officer or the Contracting Officer's
representative, records supporting the cost of performing the work.
(3) Failure of the parties to agree upon the price of the work
shall constitute a dispute within the meaning of the Disputes clause
of the Master Agreement. In the meantime, the Contractor shall
diligently proceed to perform the work ordered.
(c)(1) If the nature of any repairs is such that their extent
and probable cost cannot be ascertained readily, the Contracting
Officer may issue a job order (on a sealed bid or
[[Page 49850]]
negotiated basis) to determine the nature and extent of required
repairs.
(2) Upon determination by the Contracting Officer of what work
is necessary, the Contractor, if requested by the Contracting
Officer, shall negotiate prices for performance of that work. The
prices agreed upon shall be set forth in a modification of the job
order.
(3) Failure of the parties to agree upon the price shall
constitute a dispute under the Disputes clause. In the meantime, the
Contractor shall diligently proceed to perform the work ordered.
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 2010-20168 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P
