Small Business Programs, 17931 [2014-07201]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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 https://
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 https://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
