Efficiency Initiative Effort To Reduce Non-Value-Added Costs Imposed on Industry by Department of Defense Acquisition Practices, 9329 [2011-3600]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 33 / Thursday, February 17, 2011 / Notices
contract, and the organizational
component of the agency whose
requirements are being met through
contractor performance of the service;
(C) The total dollar amount obligated
for services under the contract and the
funding source for the contract;
(D) The total dollar amount invoiced
for services under the contract;
(E) The contract type and date of
award;
(F) The name of the contractor and
place of performance;
(G) The number and work location of
contractor and subcontractor employees,
expressed as full-time equivalents for
direct labor, compensated under the
contract;
(H) Whether the contract is a personal
services contract; and
(I) Whether the contract was awarded
on a noncompetitive basis, regardless of
date of award.
Section 743(a)(3)(A) through (I) of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Section 743(c) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act requires agencies to
‘‘publish in the Federal Register a notice
that the inventory is available to the
public.’’
Consequently, through this notice, we
are announcing that the CPSC’s service
contract inventory for FY 2010 is
available to the public. The inventory
provides information on service contract
actions over $25,000 that we made in
FY 2010. The information is organized
by function to show how contracted
resources are distributed throughout the
CPSC. We developed the inventory in
accordance with guidance issued on
November 5, 2010 by the OMB. (The
OMB guidance is available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
omb/procurement/memo/servicecontract-inventories-guidance11052010.pdf.) The CPSC’s Division of
Procurement Services has posted its
inventory, and a summary of the
inventory can be found at our homepage
at the following link: https://
www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/reports/
2010inventories.pdf.
Dated: February 14, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–3609 Filed 2–16–11; 8:45 am]
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Efficiency Initiative Effort To Reduce
Non-Value-Added Costs Imposed on
Industry by Department of Defense
Acquisition Practices
AGENCY:
Department of Defense (DoD).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Feb 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
ACTION:
Request for public comments.
The Department of Defense
understands that some of its mandates,
reporting requirements, and other
acquisition practices encourage industry
to adopt processes and make
investments that increase costs,
especially overhead costs, but do not
contribute to value added in systems
and services delivered to the
Department. To implement the
memorandum from Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics) Dr. Ashton Carter, dated
September 14, 2010, Memorandum to
Acquisition Professionals, DoD is
requesting information from the
industrial base to identify the sources of
these costs, backed by specific, credible,
convincing data. DoD’s goal is to
develop a fact-based program to reform
cost-inflating practices.
DATES: Submit written comments to the
address shown below on or before
March 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Industrial Policy, 3330 Defense
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301; or email to efficiency.ip@osd.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Eugene Gholz, telephone 571–256–2974,
or e-mail Eugene.Gholz@osd.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the
summer of 2010, industry voluntarily
furnished nearly 500 suggestions to the
Department of Defense as part of the
first stage of Undersecretary Carter’s
Better Buying Power Initiative. Many of
these suggestions were incorporated
into the September 14, 2010,
memorandum; others involved changes
that can only be made over the longer
term or require additional follow-up
data before they are ready for possible
action. DoD hopes that the current
request for comments will yield the
additional data that it needs along with
information about some additional areas
of non-value-added cost.
Submissions should specifically
identify policies and practices that
increase industry’s non-value-added
costs. They should draw on a reasonable
definition of ‘‘non-value-added,’’
understanding that statutes and defense
policies reflect persistent American
values, including but not limited to, a
clear focus on warfighting performance.
It is not reasonable to count all costs
associated with core laws governing
defense acquisition as non-value added,
but data on the costs of technical and
administrative decisions within the
statutory framework and on particular
aspects of the laws would help the
Efficiency Initiative move forward. As
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
9329
an example, earlier industry comments
on the potential effects of adjusting
thresholds in the Truth in Negotiations
Act (TINA) for inflation seem to be at an
appropriate level of analysis.
The supporting data should give a
clear indication of the magnitude of the
cost, so that DoD can evaluate and
prioritize the information. Submissions
should also explain how the data were
collected and the relevant costs were
counted or estimated. DoD is looking for
the sort of data used in the 1994 Defense
Science Board study, The DoD
Regulatory Cost Premium: A
Quantitative Assessment. DoD is
particularly interested in data that
would allow it to follow up on earlier
industry submissions about the effects
of particular TINA provisions, particular
audit practices, and particular barriers
to right-sizing industry capacity for
current and projected future levels of
demand.
DoD will use these submissions as
part of its internal deliberations on the
Better Buying Power Initiative. We
expect to seek further industry comment
at a public meeting where we hope that
industry experts in contract
management and finance will offer
comments on the topic areas raised
through this request for comments,
ensuring that the results of this
submission process are not idiosyncratic
or overly influenced by particular
companies’ cost structures. Any
information from this request shared at
that future meeting will be entirely
sanitized.
Submissions are likely to rely on
business confidential data. Any
business confidential data should be
clearly labeled. The information will
only be used by individuals in the
Department of Defense who need it for
purposes of policy development as part
of Undersecretary Carter’s Efficiency
Initiative. Trade secrets and commercial
or financial information considered by
the submitter to be privileged or
confidential, and marked accordingly by
the submitter, will be treated as exempt
from public disclosure as provided for
by 5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4) (Freedom of
Information Act rules).
Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
[FR Doc. 2011–3600 Filed 2–16–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–08–P
E:\FR\FM\17FEN1.SGM
17FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 9329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3600]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Efficiency Initiative Effort To Reduce Non-Value-Added Costs
Imposed on Industry by Department of Defense Acquisition Practices
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Request for public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense understands that some of its
mandates, reporting requirements, and other acquisition practices
encourage industry to adopt processes and make investments that
increase costs, especially overhead costs, but do not contribute to
value added in systems and services delivered to the Department. To
implement the memorandum from Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics) Dr. Ashton Carter, dated September 14, 2010,
Memorandum to Acquisition Professionals, DoD is requesting information
from the industrial base to identify the sources of these costs, backed
by specific, credible, convincing data. DoD's goal is to develop a
fact-based program to reform cost-inflating practices.
DATES: Submit written comments to the address shown below on or before
March 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Industrial Policy, 3330 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301; or
e-mail to efficiency.ip@osd.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Eugene Gholz, telephone 571-256-
2974, or e-mail Eugene.Gholz@osd.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the summer of 2010, industry
voluntarily furnished nearly 500 suggestions to the Department of
Defense as part of the first stage of Undersecretary Carter's Better
Buying Power Initiative. Many of these suggestions were incorporated
into the September 14, 2010, memorandum; others involved changes that
can only be made over the longer term or require additional follow-up
data before they are ready for possible action. DoD hopes that the
current request for comments will yield the additional data that it
needs along with information about some additional areas of non-value-
added cost.
Submissions should specifically identify policies and practices
that increase industry's non-value-added costs. They should draw on a
reasonable definition of ``non-value-added,'' understanding that
statutes and defense policies reflect persistent American values,
including but not limited to, a clear focus on warfighting performance.
It is not reasonable to count all costs associated with core laws
governing defense acquisition as non-value added, but data on the costs
of technical and administrative decisions within the statutory
framework and on particular aspects of the laws would help the
Efficiency Initiative move forward. As an example, earlier industry
comments on the potential effects of adjusting thresholds in the Truth
in Negotiations Act (TINA) for inflation seem to be at an appropriate
level of analysis.
The supporting data should give a clear indication of the magnitude
of the cost, so that DoD can evaluate and prioritize the information.
Submissions should also explain how the data were collected and the
relevant costs were counted or estimated. DoD is looking for the sort
of data used in the 1994 Defense Science Board study, The DoD
Regulatory Cost Premium: A Quantitative Assessment. DoD is particularly
interested in data that would allow it to follow up on earlier industry
submissions about the effects of particular TINA provisions, particular
audit practices, and particular barriers to right-sizing industry
capacity for current and projected future levels of demand.
DoD will use these submissions as part of its internal
deliberations on the Better Buying Power Initiative. We expect to seek
further industry comment at a public meeting where we hope that
industry experts in contract management and finance will offer comments
on the topic areas raised through this request for comments, ensuring
that the results of this submission process are not idiosyncratic or
overly influenced by particular companies' cost structures. Any
information from this request shared at that future meeting will be
entirely sanitized.
Submissions are likely to rely on business confidential data. Any
business confidential data should be clearly labeled. The information
will only be used by individuals in the Department of Defense who need
it for purposes of policy development as part of Undersecretary
Carter's Efficiency Initiative. Trade secrets and commercial or
financial information considered by the submitter to be privileged or
confidential, and marked accordingly by the submitter, will be treated
as exempt from public disclosure as provided for by 5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4)
(Freedom of Information Act rules).
Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 2011-3600 Filed 2-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P
