Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Discussions Prior to Contract Award (DFARS Case 2010-D013), 71647-71648 [2010-29510]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(d) The following representations or
certifications in ORCA are applicable to this
solicitation as indicated:
(i) 252.209–7005, Reserve Officer Training
Corps and Military Recruiting on Campus.
This clause applies to all solicitations and
contracts with institutions of higher
education.
(ii) 252.225–7000, Buy American Act—
Balance of Payments Program Certificate.
This provision applies to solicitations
containing the clause at 252.225–7001, Buy
American Act and Balance of Payments
Program.
(iii) 252.225–7020, Trade Agreements
Certificate. This provision applies to
solicitations containing the clause at
252.225–7021, Trade Agreements.
(iv) 252.225–7022, Trade Agreements
Certificate—Inclusion of Iraqi End Products.
This provision applies to solicitations
containing the clause at 252.225–7021, Trade
Agreements, used with its Alternate I.
(v) 252.225–7031, Secondary Arab Boycott
of Israel. This provision applies to all
solicitations unless an exception applies or a
waiver has been granted in accordance with
225.7604.
(vi) 252.225–7035, Buy American Act—
Free Trade Agreements—Balance of
Payments Program Certificate. This provision
applies to solicitations that include the
clause at 252.225–7036, Buy American Act—
Free Trade Agreements—Balance of
Payments Program. Alternate I applies when
the clause at 252.225–7036 is used with its
Alternate I.
(vii) 252.225–7042, Authorization to
Perform. This provision applies to
solicitations when contract performance will
be wholly or in part in a foreign country.
(viii) 252.229–7003, Tax Exemptions
(Italy). This clause applies to solicitations
and contracts when contract performance
will be in Italy.
(ix) 252.229–7005, Tax Exemptions
(Spain). This clause applies to solicitations
and contracts when contract performance
will be in Spain.
(x) 252.247–7022, Representation of Extent
of Transportation by Sea. This provision
applies to all solicitations except—
(A) Those for direct purchase of ocean
transportation services; or
(B) Those with an anticipated value at or
below the simplified acquisition threshold.
FAR/DFARS Clause #
Any changes provided by the offeror are
applicable to this solicitation only, and do
not result in an update to the representations
and certifications posted on ORCA.
[FR Doc. 2010–29495 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Part 215
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Discussions
Prior to Contract Award (DFARS Case
2010–D013)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
AGENCY:
Proposed rule with request for
comments.
ACTION:
DoD is proposing to amend
the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to
strongly encourage discussions prior to
award for source selections of
procurements estimated at $100 million
or more. The proposed change was
recommended by the DoD Source
Selection Joint Analysis Team.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
Comments on the proposed rule
should be submitted in writing to the
address shown below on or before
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:12 Nov 23, 2010
Jkt 223001
Ms.
Meredith Murphy, Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L)
DPAP (DARS), 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Room 3B855, Washington, DC 20301–
3060. Telephone 703–602–1302;
facsimile 703–602–0350. Please cite
DFARS Case 2010–D013.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00081
(e) The offeror has completed the annual
representations and certifications
electronically via the Online Representations
and Certifications Application (ORCA) Web
site at https://orca.bpn.gov/. After reviewing
the ORCA database information, the offeror
verifies by submission of the offer that the
representations and certifications currently
posted electronically that apply to this
solicitation as indicated in paragraphs (d)
and (e) of this provision have been entered
or updated within the last 12 months, are
current, accurate, complete, and applicable to
this solicitation (including the business size
standard applicable to the NAICS code
referenced for this solicitation), as of the date
of this offer, and are incorporated in this offer
by reference (see FAR 4.1201); except for the
changes identified below [offeror to insert
changes, identifying change by clause
number, title, date]. These amended
representation(s) and/or certification(s) are
also incorporated in this offer and are
current, accurate, and complete as of the date
of this offer.
Title
January 24, 2011, to be considered in
the formation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
identified by DFARS Case 2010–D013,
using any of the following methods:
Æ Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Æ E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include
DFARS Case 2010–D013 in the subject
line of the message.
Æ Fax: 703–602–0350.
Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Attn: Meredith
Murphy, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS),
Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–3060.
Comments received generally will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
To confirm receipt of your
comment(s), please check https://
www.regulations.gov approximately two
to three days after submission to verify
posting (except allow 30 days for
posting of comments submitted by
mail).
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
71647
Date
Change
I. Background
This DFARS case was initiated at the
request of the DoD Source Selection
Joint Analysis Team (JAT), chartered by
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)
to revise the DoD source selection
procedures (which are being published
separately).
In their examination of current source
selection processes utilized within the
DoD, members of the JAT determined
that there is a significant positive
correlation between high-dollar value
source selections conducted without
discussions and protests sustained.
Therefore, to improve the quality of
high-dollar value, more complex source
selections and reduce turbulence and
inefficiency resulting from sustained
protests, the JAT recommended that
discussions prior to award be strongly
encouraged for source selections with a
dollar value of $100 million or more.
DoD research has indicated that
holding meaningful discussions with
industry prior to contract award on
high-dollar value, complex
requirements improves both industry’s
understanding of solicitation
requirements and the Government’s
understanding of industry issues. By
identifying and discussing these issues
prior to submission of final proposals,
the Government is often able to issue
clarifying language. The modified
requirements documentation allows
E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM
24NOP1
71648
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules
industry to tailor proposals and better
describe the offeror’s intended
approach, increases the probability that
the offeror’s proposal satisfies
Government requirements, and often
results in better contract performance.
Asking contracting officers to conduct
discussions with industry provides a
reasonable approach to recognizing and
addressing valid industry concerns and
a constructive alternative to protests
resulting from industry frustration over
misunderstood requirements.
DoD notes the potential disadvantages
of this proposed change in increased
time to complete the source-selection
process and additional workload for
acquisition staff. However, failure to
hold discussions in high-dollar value,
more complex source selections has led
to misunderstandings of Government
requirements by industry and flaws in
the Government’s evaluation of offerors’
proposals, leading to protests that have
been sustained, and ultimately
extending source-selection timelines.
DoD proposes to decrease the possibility
of this outcome by making such
discussions the default procedure for
source selections for procurements at or
above $100 million. However, use of the
term ‘‘should,’’ as defined in FAR part 2,
provides that the expected course of
action need not be followed if
inappropriate for a particular
circumstance.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
II. Executive Order 12866
This is not a significant regulatory
action and, therefore, is not subject to
review under Section 6 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.
III. 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.,
because the rule does not add to or
delete existing regulations on
discussions for the vast majority of DoD
procurements, i.e., those under $100
million. For the largest procurements of
at least $100 million, any increase in
discussions is anticipated to benefit all
offerors, including small businesses, by
providing them an opportunity to
explain details of the offer and market
their particular capabilities.
An initial regulatory flexibility
analysis has been prepared and is
summarized as follows: The opportunity
to participate in discussions increases
the probability of selection for award, as
described above. In fiscal year 2009, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:12 Nov 23, 2010
Jkt 223001
most recent fiscal year for which data is
available, DoD awarded 620 new
contracts and 252 new task orders/
delivery orders of $100 million or more
to small businesses. While there is no
way to determine how many more small
businesses may have been selected for
high-dollar value DoD awards had
discussions been held, it is reasonable
to assume that the number would have
been higher, thus providing small
businesses with a net positive benefit.
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 2010–D013) in
correspondence.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does
not apply, because there are no
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 Part 215
Government procurement.
Clare M. Zebrowski,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48
CFR part 215 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 215 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
PART 215—CONTRACTING BY
NEGOTIATION
2. Add sections 215.203–71 and
215.209 to read as follows:
215.203–71 Requests for proposals—
procurements of $100 million or more.
For source selections when the
procurement is $100 million or more,
contracting officers should conduct
discussions with offerors in the
competitive range.
215.209 Solicitation provisions and
contract clauses.
(a) For source selections when the
procurement is $100 million or more,
contracting officers should use the
provision at 52.215–1, Instructions to
Offerors—Competitive Acquisition, with
its Alternate I.
[FR Doc. 2010–29510 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0158
Regulation Identifier No. (RIN) 2127–AJ44
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards, Child Restraint Systems;
Hybrid III 10-Year-Old Child Test
Dummy
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
AGENCY:
This document proposes to
amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child
Restraint Systems, regarding a Hybrid III
10-year-old child test dummy that the
agency seeks to use in the compliance
test procedures of the standard. This
document supplements a 2005 notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and a
2008 SNPRM previously published in
this rulemaking (RIN 2127–AJ44)
regarding this test dummy. In the 2005
NPRM, in response to Anton’s Law,
NHTSA proposed to adopt the 10-yearold child test dummy into FMVSS No.
213 to test child restraints for older
children. Subsequently, to address
variation that was found in dummy
readings due to chin-to-chest contact,
NHTSA published the 2008 SNPRM to
propose a NHTSA-developed procedure
for positioning the test dummy in beltpositioning seats. Comments on the
SNPRM objected to the positioning
procedure, and some suggested an
alternative procedure developed by the
University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute (UMTRI). Today’s
SNPRM proposes to use the UMTRI
procedure to position the test dummy
rather than the NHTSA-developed
procedure. We note that the 10-year-old
child dummy may sometimes
experience stiff contact between its chin
and upper sternal bib region which may
result in an unrealistically high value of
the head injury criterion (HIC) 1
referenced in the standard. Accordingly,
NHTSA proposes that the dummy’s HIC
measurement will not be used to assess
the compliance of the tested child
restraint. This SNPRM also proposes
other amendments to FMVSS No. 213,
including a proposal to permit NHTSA
to use, at the manufacturer’s option, the
SUMMARY:
1 Throughout this document, HIC refers to the
head injury criterion computed using a 36
millisecond (msec) time interval.
E:\FR\FM\24NOP1.SGM
24NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71647-71648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29510]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
48 CFR Part 215
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Discussions
Prior to Contract Award (DFARS Case 2010-D013)
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to strongly encourage discussions prior
to award for source selections of procurements estimated at $100
million or more. The proposed change was recommended by the DoD Source
Selection Joint Analysis Team.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to
the address shown below on or before January 24, 2011, to be considered
in the formation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2010-D013, using
any of the following methods:
[cir] Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[cir] E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 2010-D013 in the
subject line of the message.
[cir] Fax: 703-602-0350.
[cir] Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Meredith
Murphy, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301-3060.
Comments received generally will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check https://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to
verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted
by mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Meredith Murphy, Defense
Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), 3060 Defense
Pentagon, Room 3B855, Washington, DC 20301-3060. Telephone 703-602-
1302; facsimile 703-602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2010-D013.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This DFARS case was initiated at the request of the DoD Source
Selection Joint Analysis Team (JAT), chartered by the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) to revise
the DoD source selection procedures (which are being published
separately).
In their examination of current source selection processes utilized
within the DoD, members of the JAT determined that there is a
significant positive correlation between high-dollar value source
selections conducted without discussions and protests sustained.
Therefore, to improve the quality of high-dollar value, more complex
source selections and reduce turbulence and inefficiency resulting from
sustained protests, the JAT recommended that discussions prior to award
be strongly encouraged for source selections with a dollar value of
$100 million or more.
DoD research has indicated that holding meaningful discussions with
industry prior to contract award on high-dollar value, complex
requirements improves both industry's understanding of solicitation
requirements and the Government's understanding of industry issues. By
identifying and discussing these issues prior to submission of final
proposals, the Government is often able to issue clarifying language.
The modified requirements documentation allows
[[Page 71648]]
industry to tailor proposals and better describe the offeror's intended
approach, increases the probability that the offeror's proposal
satisfies Government requirements, and often results in better contract
performance. Asking contracting officers to conduct discussions with
industry provides a reasonable approach to recognizing and addressing
valid industry concerns and a constructive alternative to protests
resulting from industry frustration over misunderstood requirements.
DoD notes the potential disadvantages of this proposed change in
increased time to complete the source-selection process and additional
workload for acquisition staff. However, failure to hold discussions in
high-dollar value, more complex source selections has led to
misunderstandings of Government requirements by industry and flaws in
the Government's evaluation of offerors' proposals, leading to protests
that have been sustained, and ultimately extending source-selection
timelines. DoD proposes to decrease the possibility of this outcome by
making such discussions the default procedure for source selections for
procurements at or above $100 million. However, use of the term
``should,'' as defined in FAR part 2, provides that the expected course
of action need not be followed if inappropriate for a particular
circumstance.
II. Executive Order 12866
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, is not
subject to review under Section 6 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.
III. 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., because the rule
does not add to or delete existing regulations on discussions for the
vast majority of DoD procurements, i.e., those under $100 million. For
the largest procurements of at least $100 million, any increase in
discussions is anticipated to benefit all offerors, including small
businesses, by providing them an opportunity to explain details of the
offer and market their particular capabilities.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared and is
summarized as follows: The opportunity to participate in discussions
increases the probability of selection for award, as described above.
In fiscal year 2009, the most recent fiscal year for which data is
available, DoD awarded 620 new contracts and 252 new task orders/
delivery orders of $100 million or more to small businesses. While
there is no way to determine how many more small businesses may have
been selected for high-dollar value DoD awards had discussions been
held, it is reasonable to assume that the number would have been
higher, thus providing small businesses with a net positive benefit.
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 2010-D013)
in correspondence.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because there are no
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 Part 215
Government procurement.
Clare M. Zebrowski,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR part 215 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 215 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
PART 215--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
2. Add sections 215.203-71 and 215.209 to read as follows:
215.203-71 Requests for proposals--procurements of $100 million or
more.
For source selections when the procurement is $100 million or more,
contracting officers should conduct discussions with offerors in the
competitive range.
215.209 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.
(a) For source selections when the procurement is $100 million or
more, contracting officers should use the provision at 52.215-1,
Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition, with its Alternate
I.
[FR Doc. 2010-29510 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P