Small Business Programs, 17931 [2014-07201]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations prerecorded programming completed well in advance of its distribution on television. (xi) For better coordination for ensuring high quality captions and for addressing problems as they arise, understand the roles and responsibilities of other stakeholders in the closed-captioning process, including video program distributors, video programmers, producers, equipment manufacturers, regulators, and viewers, and keep abreast of issues and developments in those sectors. [FR Doc. 2014–06754 Filed 3–28–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P to require contracting officers to consider the adequacy of an offeror’s or contractor’s accounting system prior to agreeing to use performance-based payments. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 232 and 252 RIN 0750–AH54 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; PerformanceBased Payments (DFARS Case 2011– D045) Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to provide detailed guidance and instructions on the use of the performance-based payments analysis tool. SUMMARY: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System DATES: 48 CFR Part 219 Small Business Programs Mr. Mark Gomersall, 571–372–6099. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CFR Correction In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 2 (Parts 201 to 299), revised as of October 1, 2013, on page 136, before subpart 219.12, subpart 219.11 is reinstated to read as follows: ■ Subpart 219.11—Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns 219.1101 Effective March 31, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General. The determination to use or suspend the price evaluation adjustment for DoD acquisitions can be found at http:// www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/classdev/ index.htm. I. Background DoD published a proposed rule at 77 FR 4638 on January 30, 2012, to provide requirements for the use of the performance-based payments (PBP) analysis tool. The PBP analysis tool is a cash-flow model for evaluating alternative financing arrangements, and is required to be used by all contracting officers contemplating the use of performance-based payments on new fixed-price type contract awards. II. Discussion and Analysis 219.1102 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES [72 FR 20763, Apr. 26, 2007] DoD reviewed the public comments in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments is provided as follows: A. Adequate Accounting System Applicability. (b) The price evaluation adjustment also shall not be used in acquisitions that are for commissary or exchange resale. (c) Also, do not use the price evaluation adjustment in acquisitions that use tiered evaluation of offers, until a tier is reached that considers offers from other than small business concerns. [63 FR 41974, Aug. 6, 1998, as amended at 71 FR 53043, Sept. 8, 2006] [FR Doc. 2014–07201 Filed 3–28–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505–01–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:18 Mar 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 Comment: One respondent requested clarification on whether the proposed rule requires an accounting system deemed adequate by the Government. DoD Response: FAR 32.1007(c) requires the contracting officer to determine the adequacy of controls established by the contractor for the administration of performance-based payments. Since the contractor will be required to report total cost incurred to date based on its existing accounting system, the contracting officer must consider the adequacy of the contractor’s accounting system for providing reliable cost data. DFARS 232.1003–70, Criteria for use, is added PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 17931 B. Administratively Burdensome and Costly Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule is administratively burdensome, and that implementation will surpass the one hour average burden per response. DoD Response: Performance-based payments will be paid for completed events, but not more frequently than monthly. Each request for a PBP will require the contractor to provide two dollar values: Cumulative value of PBP events completed to date and total cost incurred to date. The rule is, therefore, not administratively burdensome since it requires the contractor to provide information that should be readily available in the contractor’s accounting system in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, DoD estimates, on average, it will not take more than one hour per response. Comment: One respondent requested clarification regarding in what manner contractors will be required to verify, or otherwise state, total costs incurred. DoD Response: Each request for a PBP will require the contractor to provide two dollar values: Cumulative value of PBPs completed to date and total cost incurred to date. For DoD verification purposes, the final rule includes the requirement for the contractor to provide access, upon request of the contracting officer, to the contractor’s books and records, as necessary, for the administration of the clause. Comment: One respondent expressed concern that since the proposed rule forces contractors to disclose extensive cost information and report incurred costs per milestone, the costs associated with this reporting obligation will increase the cost to the Government. DoD Response: The cost information to be provided by the contractor takes two forms: A projected expenditure profile of total cost per month which is required once when PBPs are initially proposed (i.e., as part of the contractor’s proposed performance-based payments schedule that includes all performancebased payments events, completion criteria, event values, etc.) and cumulative value of PBPs completed to date and total cost incurred to date, which are required during the performance of the contract. The expenditure profile is a key element in determining the expected financing needs over time and is needed by both parties in order to establish appropriate E:\FR\FM\31MRR1.SGM 31MRR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07201]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Part 219


Small Business Programs

CFR Correction

0
In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 2 (Parts 201 to 
299), revised as of October 1, 2013, on page 136, before subpart 
219.12, subpart 219.11 is reinstated to read as follows:

Subpart 219.11--Price Evaluation Adjustment for Small Disadvantaged 
Business Concerns


219.1101  General.

    The determination to use or suspend the price evaluation adjustment 
for DoD acquisitions can be found at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/classdev/index.htm.


[72 FR 20763, Apr. 26, 2007]


219.1102  Applicability.

    (b) The price evaluation adjustment also shall not be used in 
acquisitions that are for commissary or exchange resale.
    (c) Also, do not use the price evaluation adjustment in 
acquisitions that use tiered evaluation of offers, until a tier is 
reached that considers offers from other than small business concerns.


[63 FR 41974, Aug. 6, 1998, as amended at 71 FR 53043, Sept. 8, 2006]

[FR Doc. 2014-07201 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-P