Federal Acquisition Regulation; Justification and Approval of Sole-Source 8(a) Contracts, 23369-23370 [2012-9204]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
II. Discussion and Analysis
The Civilian Agency Acquisition
Council and the Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council (the Councils)
reviewed the public comments in the
development of the final rule. A
discussion of the comments is provided
as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 6, 15, and 19
[FAC 2005–58; FAR Case 2009–038; Item
III; Docket 2010–0095, Sequence 1]
A. Summary of Significant Changes
There were no changes made to the
FAR as a result of the public comments
received.
RIN 9000–AL55
B. Analysis of Public Comments
Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Justification and Approval of SoleSource 8(a) Contracts
1. General Support for the Rule as
Written
Comment: A majority of the
respondents were supportive of the rule
as written and recommended there be
no substantial changes to the interim
rule.
Response: The Councils acknowledge
receipt of these comments in support of
the rule.
Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
DoD, GSA, and NASA are
adopting as final, without change, an
interim rule amending the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
implement a section of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010. This section requires the
head of an agency to execute and make
public prior to award, the justification
for an 8(a) sole-source contract in an
amount exceeding $20 million.
DATES: Effective Date: April 18, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Karlos Morgan, Procurement
Analyst, at 202–501–2364, for
clarification of content. For information
pertaining to status or publication
schedules, contact the Regulatory
Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite
FAC 2005–58, FAR Case 2009–038.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
I. Background
DoD, GSA, and NASA published an
interim rule in the Federal Register at
76 FR 14559 on March 16, 2011, to
implement section 811 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010 (NDAA for FY 2010) (Pub. L.
111–84). Section 811 prohibits the
award of a sole-source contract in an
amount over $20 million under the 8(a)
Business Development Program
authority (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) without first
obtaining a written Justification and
Approval (J&A) approved by an
appropriate official and making public
the J&A and related information. Section
811 does not institute any requirement
for J&As for sole-source 8(a) contracts
less than or equal to $20 million. Nine
respondents submitted comments on the
interim rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Apr 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
2. Statutory Basis for the Rule
Comment: A number of respondents
commented that there is no statutory
basis for the new language at FAR
19.808–1(a), which states that the Small
Business Administration (SBA) may not
accept a sole-source 8(a) contract in
excess of $20 million for negotiation,
unless the requesting agency has
completed a J&A in accordance with
FAR 6.303. The respondents
recommended amending this language
in the final rule to clarify that the J&A
is only required to be developed and
executed prior to award and after
coordinating and negotiating with the
SBA (or the 8(a) participant where SBA
has delegated its authority to the
procuring agency).
Response: The law stipulates that the
head of the agency may not award a
sole-source contract that exceeds $20
million under the 8(a) program unless
the contracting officer justifies the use
of a sole-source contract in writing and
the justification is approved by the
appropriate official. However, the law
does not specify the precise stage in the
contract award process when the J&A
must be executed. The language that
was added to FAR 19.808–1 ensures that
the J&A is executed prior to contract
negotiation, a critical juncture in the
contract award continuum. Contract
negotiation, with rare exception, occurs
before the contract is awarded; therefore
there is no conflict with the law.
Execution of the J&A prior to the
SBA’s initiation of contract negotiations
adheres to the established procedures in
the FAR that require (1) at FAR 6.303–
1, the contracting officer to justify the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23369
use of a sole-source contract in writing
prior to negotiations; and (2) at FAR
19.804–2, the agency, if appropriate, to
request in its offering letter to the SBA,
that a requirement with a contract value
over the applicable competitive
threshold be awarded as a sole-source
contract under the 8(a) program. The
language that was added at FAR 19.808–
1 does not pre-empt the obligation of
agencies to cooperate with the SBA in
determining the extent to which a
requirement should be offered in
support of the 8(a) program, nor does it
impact SBA’s acceptance of the
requirement into the 8(a) program. It
does not affect the timing of SBA’s
eligibility determination.
3. Including the Value of Options in
Contract Value
Comment: Several respondents
recommended that the $20 million
threshold be applicable to the base year
only, rather than including options in
the total contract value.
Response: The standard contract
action valuation practice is outlined in
FAR 1.108(c), which provides that the
final anticipated dollar value of an
action include the dollar value of all
options. Section 811 does not provide a
basis to diverge from this standard.
4. Cross Reference at FAR 6.204(b)
Comment: One respondent
recommended striking the parenthetical
text at FAR 6.204(b), which references
the requirements for a separate
justification to support the use of 8(a)
sole-source awards in FAR subpart 6.3,
because it was unnecessary and
potentially confusing.
Response: The Councils considered
the comment, but find that the cross
reference adds clarity to the FAR text.
5. Content of Justification
Comment: A number of respondents
recommended that the language at FAR
6.303–2(d)(5) be amended in the final
rule to clarify the other matters the head
of the agency should consider when
justifying and approving the award of a
sole-source 8(a) contract in excess of
$20 million. These considerations
should include Native American
economic development and meeting
agency small business goals.
Response: FAR 6.303–2(d)(5), as
currently written, requires agency heads
to address ‘‘Such other matters as the
head of the agency concerned shall
specify for purposes of this section.’’
This gives agency heads the discretion
to consider Native American economic
development and meeting agency small
business goals, as well as other relevant
E:\FR\FM\18APR2.SGM
18APR2
23370
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
matters when justifying and approving
the award of a sole-source 8(a) contract.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
6. Potential Impact on Native AmericanOwned Firms
Comment: Several respondents
expressed concern regarding the
possible impact facing Native Americanowned enterprises. The respondents
pointed out that the 8(a) program has
undergone considerable reform over the
last two years and has experienced
overwhelming success in achieving its
goals. The respondents also emphasized
that the vast majority of Native
American-owned enterprises have
consistently provided high value
support to their Government customers.
In view of these considerations, the
respondents requested that each
executive agency send a policy directive
to their contracting officers to outline
the benefits of the SBA 8(a) program and
the positive impact this program has
had for Native participants.
Response: The benefits of SBA’s 8(a)
program and the positive impact this
program has had for Native participants
are promoted by SBA and the Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization (OSDBU) on a consistent
basis throughout the Government. Each
Federal agency with contracting
authority has established an OSDBU.
The OSDBU advocates for small, small
disadvantaged (including the 8(a)
program), veteran, service-disabled
veteran-owned, HUBZone, and womenowned businesses. The OSDBU is
charged with promoting increased
access for small businesses to
procurement opportunities, conducting
outreach efforts, and providing liaison
support for small and disadvantaged
businesses. In addition, the OSDBU
works closely with program officers and
contracting officers to assist in the
accomplishment of the annual
Governmentwide 5 percent procurement
goals for small disadvantaged
businesses.
III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
13563 direct agencies to assess all costs
and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This is a significant
regulatory action and, therefore, was
subject to review under section 6(b) of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Apr 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
804.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
The Department of Defense, the
General Services Administration, and
the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration certify that this final
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the
rule does not impose any additional
requirements on the majority of small
businesses. The rule implements the
statutory requirements mandated by
section 811, Justification and Approval
of Sole-Source Contracts, of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010. It is recognized that a very
small number of businesses that have
been awarded 8(a) contracts over the
$20 million threshold may be impacted.
However, the rule does not limit the
number of contracts or dollars awarded
to these businesses. The rule may also
indirectly benefit the 8,833 currently
certified section 8(a) firms by improving
their likelihood of a contract award
through increased competition, but this
impact is similarly considered not
significant.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule does not contain any
information collection requirements that
require the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35).
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 6, 15,
and 19
Government procurement.
Dated: April 11, 2012.
Laura Auletta,
Director, Office of Governmentwide
Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition
Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1 and 52
[FAC 2005–58; Item IV; Docket 2012–0079;
Sequence 2]
Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Technical Amendments
Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This document makes
amendments to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) in order to make
editorial changes.
DATES: Effective Date: April 18, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Regulatory Secretariat, 1275 First Street
NE., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20417,
202–501–4755, for information
pertaining to status or publication
schedules. Please cite FAC 2005–58,
Technical Amendments.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In order to
update certain elements in 48 CFR parts
1 and 52, this document makes editorial
changes to the FAR.
SUMMARY:
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1 and
52
Government procurement.
Dated: April 11, 2012.
Laura Auletta,
Director, Office of Governmentwide
Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition
Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA
amend 48 CFR parts 1 and 52 as set
forth below:
■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
parts 1 and 52 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C.
chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without
Change
PART 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION
REGULATIONS SYSTEM
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 48 CFR parts 6, 15, and 19,
which was published in the Federal
Register at 76 FR 14559 on March 16,
2011, is adopted as a final rule without
change.
■
■
[FR Doc. 2012–9204 Filed 4–17–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2. Amend section 1.201–1 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
1.201–1
The two councils.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The Director of the DAR Council
shall be the representative of the
Secretary of Defense. The operation of
the DAR Council will be as prescribed
by the Secretary of Defense.
E:\FR\FM\18APR2.SGM
18APR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23369-23370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9204]
[[Page 23369]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 6, 15, and 19
[FAC 2005-58; FAR Case 2009-038; Item III; Docket 2010-0095, Sequence
1]
RIN 9000-AL55
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Justification and Approval of
Sole-Source 8(a) Contracts
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are adopting as final, without change, an
interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010. This section requires the head of an agency to
execute and make public prior to award, the justification for an 8(a)
sole-source contract in an amount exceeding $20 million.
DATES: Effective Date: April 18, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Karlos Morgan, Procurement
Analyst, at 202-501-2364, for clarification of content. For information
pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory
Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-58, FAR Case 2009-
038.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD, GSA, and NASA published an interim rule in the Federal
Register at 76 FR 14559 on March 16, 2011, to implement section 811 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (NDAA for
FY 2010) (Pub. L. 111-84). Section 811 prohibits the award of a sole-
source contract in an amount over $20 million under the 8(a) Business
Development Program authority (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) without first
obtaining a written Justification and Approval (J&A) approved by an
appropriate official and making public the J&A and related information.
Section 811 does not institute any requirement for J&As for sole-source
8(a) contracts less than or equal to $20 million. Nine respondents
submitted comments on the interim rule.
II. Discussion and Analysis
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council (the Councils) reviewed the public comments in the
development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments is provided
as follows:
A. Summary of Significant Changes
There were no changes made to the FAR as a result of the public
comments received.
B. Analysis of Public Comments
1. General Support for the Rule as Written
Comment: A majority of the respondents were supportive of the rule
as written and recommended there be no substantial changes to the
interim rule.
Response: The Councils acknowledge receipt of these comments in
support of the rule.
2. Statutory Basis for the Rule
Comment: A number of respondents commented that there is no
statutory basis for the new language at FAR 19.808-1(a), which states
that the Small Business Administration (SBA) may not accept a sole-
source 8(a) contract in excess of $20 million for negotiation, unless
the requesting agency has completed a J&A in accordance with FAR 6.303.
The respondents recommended amending this language in the final rule to
clarify that the J&A is only required to be developed and executed
prior to award and after coordinating and negotiating with the SBA (or
the 8(a) participant where SBA has delegated its authority to the
procuring agency).
Response: The law stipulates that the head of the agency may not
award a sole-source contract that exceeds $20 million under the 8(a)
program unless the contracting officer justifies the use of a sole-
source contract in writing and the justification is approved by the
appropriate official. However, the law does not specify the precise
stage in the contract award process when the J&A must be executed. The
language that was added to FAR 19.808-1 ensures that the J&A is
executed prior to contract negotiation, a critical juncture in the
contract award continuum. Contract negotiation, with rare exception,
occurs before the contract is awarded; therefore there is no conflict
with the law.
Execution of the J&A prior to the SBA's initiation of contract
negotiations adheres to the established procedures in the FAR that
require (1) at FAR 6.303-1, the contracting officer to justify the use
of a sole-source contract in writing prior to negotiations; and (2) at
FAR 19.804-2, the agency, if appropriate, to request in its offering
letter to the SBA, that a requirement with a contract value over the
applicable competitive threshold be awarded as a sole-source contract
under the 8(a) program. The language that was added at FAR 19.808-1
does not pre-empt the obligation of agencies to cooperate with the SBA
in determining the extent to which a requirement should be offered in
support of the 8(a) program, nor does it impact SBA's acceptance of the
requirement into the 8(a) program. It does not affect the timing of
SBA's eligibility determination.
3. Including the Value of Options in Contract Value
Comment: Several respondents recommended that the $20 million
threshold be applicable to the base year only, rather than including
options in the total contract value.
Response: The standard contract action valuation practice is
outlined in FAR 1.108(c), which provides that the final anticipated
dollar value of an action include the dollar value of all options.
Section 811 does not provide a basis to diverge from this standard.
4. Cross Reference at FAR 6.204(b)
Comment: One respondent recommended striking the parenthetical text
at FAR 6.204(b), which references the requirements for a separate
justification to support the use of 8(a) sole-source awards in FAR
subpart 6.3, because it was unnecessary and potentially confusing.
Response: The Councils considered the comment, but find that the
cross reference adds clarity to the FAR text.
5. Content of Justification
Comment: A number of respondents recommended that the language at
FAR 6.303-2(d)(5) be amended in the final rule to clarify the other
matters the head of the agency should consider when justifying and
approving the award of a sole-source 8(a) contract in excess of $20
million. These considerations should include Native American economic
development and meeting agency small business goals.
Response: FAR 6.303-2(d)(5), as currently written, requires agency
heads to address ``Such other matters as the head of the agency
concerned shall specify for purposes of this section.'' This gives
agency heads the discretion to consider Native American economic
development and meeting agency small business goals, as well as other
relevant
[[Page 23370]]
matters when justifying and approving the award of a sole-source 8(a)
contract.
6. Potential Impact on Native American-Owned Firms
Comment: Several respondents expressed concern regarding the
possible impact facing Native American-owned enterprises. The
respondents pointed out that the 8(a) program has undergone
considerable reform over the last two years and has experienced
overwhelming success in achieving its goals. The respondents also
emphasized that the vast majority of Native American-owned enterprises
have consistently provided high value support to their Government
customers. In view of these considerations, the respondents requested
that each executive agency send a policy directive to their contracting
officers to outline the benefits of the SBA 8(a) program and the
positive impact this program has had for Native participants.
Response: The benefits of SBA's 8(a) program and the positive
impact this program has had for Native participants are promoted by SBA
and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU)
on a consistent basis throughout the Government. Each Federal agency
with contracting authority has established an OSDBU. The OSDBU
advocates for small, small disadvantaged (including the 8(a) program),
veteran, service-disabled veteran-owned, HUBZone, and women-owned
businesses. The OSDBU is charged with promoting increased access for
small businesses to procurement opportunities, conducting outreach
efforts, and providing liaison support for small and disadvantaged
businesses. In addition, the OSDBU works closely with program officers
and contracting officers to assist in the accomplishment of the annual
Governmentwide 5 percent procurement goals for small disadvantaged
businesses.
III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O.
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to
review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5
U.S.C. 804.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration certify that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule does not
impose any additional requirements on the majority of small businesses.
The rule implements the statutory requirements mandated by section 811,
Justification and Approval of Sole-Source Contracts, of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. It is recognized that a
very small number of businesses that have been awarded 8(a) contracts
over the $20 million threshold may be impacted. However, the rule does
not limit the number of contracts or dollars awarded to these
businesses. The rule may also indirectly benefit the 8,833 currently
certified section 8(a) firms by improving their likelihood of a
contract award through increased competition, but this impact is
similarly considered not significant.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 6, 15, and 19
Government procurement.
Dated: April 11, 2012.
Laura Auletta,
Director, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of
Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without Change
0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 6, 15, and 19,
which was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 14559 on March 16,
2011, is adopted as a final rule without change.
[FR Doc. 2012-9204 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P