Federal Acquisition Regulation; Contractor Comment Period, Past Performance Evaluations, 31197-31201 [2014-12407]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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
DoD, GSA, and NASA have prepared
a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The
FRFA is summarized as follows:
DoD, GSA, and NASA do 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, per data from
the Federal Procurement Data System for
fiscal year 2013, most contracts awarded to
small entities are awarded on a competitive,
fixed-price basis, and do not require
application of the cost principle contained in
this rule. With extremely few exceptions,
compensation to small business employees
remains below the compensation caps.
The rule imposes no reporting,
recordkeeping, or other information
collection requirements. The rule does not
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other
Federal rules, and there are no known
significant alternatives to the rule.
No comments were filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in response to the rule and
no changes were made to the rule.
Interested parties may obtain a copy
of the FRFA from the Regulatory
Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat
has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
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 31 and
52
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Government procurement.
Dated: May 22, 2014.
William Clark,
Acting Director, Office of Government-wide
Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition
Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
Interim Rule Adopted As Final Without
Change
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 48 CFR parts 31 and 52 which
was published in the Federal Register at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:36 May 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
78 FR 38535 on June 26, 2013 is
adopted as a final rule without change.
[FR Doc. 2014–12408 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 42
[FAC 2005–74; FAR Case 2012–028; Item
IV; Docket No. 2012–0028, Sequence No.
1]
RIN 9000–AM40
Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Contractor Comment Period, Past
Performance Evaluations
Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
DoD, GSA, and NASA are
issuing a final rule amending the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
implement provisions of law that
change the period allowed for contractor
comments on past performance
evaluations and require that past
performance evaluations be made
available to source selection officials
sooner.
DATES: Effective: July 1, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement
Analyst, at 202–501–1448 for
clarification of content. For information
pertaining to status or publication
schedules, contact the Regulatory
Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite
FAC 2005–74, FAR Case 2012–028.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
DoD, GSA, and NASA published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register at
78 FR 48123 on August 7, 2013, under
FAR Case 2012–028, to implement
section 853 of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239,
enacted January 2, 2013) and section
806 of the NDAA for FY 2012 (Pub. L.
112–81, enacted December 31, 2011; 10
U.S.C. 2302 Note). Section 853, entitled
‘‘Inclusion of Data on Contractor
Performance in Past Performance
Databases for Executive Agency Source
Selection Decisions,’’ and section 806,
entitled ‘‘Inclusion of Data on
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31197
Contractor Performance in Past
Performance Databases for Source
Selection Decisions,’’ require revisions
to the acquisition regulations on past
performance evaluations at FAR subpart
42.15 so that contractors are provided
‘‘up to 14 calendar days . . . from the
date of delivery’’ of past performance
evaluations ‘‘to submit comments,
rebuttals, or additional information
pertaining to past performance’’ for
inclusion in the database. In addition,
paragraph (c) of both sections 853 and
806 requires that agency evaluations of
contractor performance, including any
information submitted by contractors,
be ‘‘included in the relevant past
performance database not later than the
date that is 14 days after the date of
delivery of the information’’ to the
contractor.
Ten respondents submitted comments
on the proposed rule.
II. Discussion and Analysis
The Civilian Agency Acquisition
Council and the Defense Acquisition
Regulation Council (the Councils)
reviewed the public comments in the
development of the final rule. A
discussion of the comments is provided
in the following sections.
A. Analysis of Changes
No changes were made from the
proposed rule as a result of the public
comments.
B. Analysis of Public Comments
1. Contractor Response Time of
Fourteen Days
Comments: Almost all respondents
commented on the burden imposed on
contractors to submit comments in a
maximum of 14 days, especially given
that FAR 42.1503 provides ‘‘a minimum
of 30 days’’ for contractors to provide
comments, rebuttals, or additional
information. One respondent cited
statistics from the Contractor
Performance Assessment Rating System
(CPARS) Program Office for DoD past
performance evaluations completed in
FY 2010–2012:
Percentage
Contractor response times
19 ................
43 ................
No comments provided.
Comments provided within 14
days.
Comments provided between
14–30 days.
Comments provided after 30
days.
30 ................
9 ..................
Two other respondents noted that,
when the contractor disagrees with any
given Government evaluation or
comment, it takes time for the contractor
E:\FR\FM\30MYR2.SGM
30MYR2
31198
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
to gather input from multiple employees
and subcontractors and draft an
objective response, i.e., more than 14
days in their opinion. A respondent
noted that DoD had more than doubled
the number of contracting officials
trained on contract past performance
from FY 2010 to 2012, but that, as of
April 2013, more than half of Federal
agencies had no required contractor
assessments in Past Performance
Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).
Given that, the respondent suggested
that the focus should remain on
improving agency performance rather
than curtailing the time allotted for
contractor review and comment.
Another respondent stated that, after
receipt of the past performance
evaluation, the contractor ‘‘has the
opportunity to request a meeting with
the assessment official to discuss
differences and possible modifications
to the ratings and the comments.’’ These
meetings, according to the respondent,
often result in a better assessment for
the Government.
One respondent noted that the
statutory action of providing up to 14
days from the date of delivery is
beneficial in that it sets a generally
applicable fixed period.
One respondent requested that the
current 30-day period be retained and
not reduced because the shortened time
may lead many contractors to seek
additional business opportunities in the
private-rather than Federal-market.
One respondent stated that, because
the 14-day time period is statutory, the
Councils should consider guidelines to
ensure that requirements for the content
of past performance evaluations are
clear, concise, and contain sufficient
detail to allow a contractor to promptly
begin its assessment of any negative
findings.
Last, a respondent quoted paragraph
(d) of section 853, which reads as
follows:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Nothing in this section shall be construed
to prohibit a contractor from submitting
comments, rebuttals, or additional
information pertaining to past performance
after the period described in subsection (c)(2)
has elapsed or to prohibit a contractor from
challenging a past performance evaluation in
accordance with applicable laws, regulations,
or procedures.
Response: The FAR is incorporating
section 853 of the NDAA for FY 2013.
Paragraph (c) of section 853 provides, at
(c)(2) and (3), that ‘‘contractors are
afforded up to 14 calendar days, from
the date of delivery of the information
provided in accordance with paragraph
(1), to submit comments, rebuttals, or
additional information pertaining to
past performance for inclusion in such
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:36 May 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
databases;’’ and that ‘‘agency
evaluations of contractor past
performance, including any comments,
rebuttals, or additional information
submitted under paragraph (2), are
included in the relevant past
performance database not later than the
date that is 14 days after the date of
delivery of the information provided in
accordance with paragraph (1).’’ The
information provided in accordance
with paragraph (c)(1) is the notice that
a past performance evaluation has been
submitted to CPARS. CPARS will
generate a notice to the contractor
automatically, so the 14 calendar day
period for contractor comments begins
at that point in time. The law
specifically states that the 14 days
allotted for contractor comments are
calendar days, not business days or any
other method of counting days. The
Councils are aware of the effort and
coordination involved in gathering,
summarizing, and vetting possible
responses but were provided no latitude
under the terms of the law.
There is no requirement in the law for
the Government assessing official to
meet with the contractor. However, if
the contractor requests such a meeting,
the assessing official may accept the
request. In this case, the statute is clear
and does not allow for alterations to the
14 calendar day time frame and requires
that the past performance evaluation
must be made available for the use of
source selection officials 14 days after
its initial submission, and it will be
made available at that time with any
contractor comments that have been
received. Delaying the availability of the
contractor’s comments until after a
meeting with the assessing official
would only result in the past
performance evaluation being seen by
source selection officials without them
having the benefit of any contractor
comments. The CPARS and PPIRS
systems have been revised so that
transfers between CPARS and PPIRS
occur automatically, thus eliminating
delays in availability. The assessing
official, who may also be the contracting
officer, has a responsibility to review
the contractor’s comments when, and if,
they are submitted by the contractor, but
that review should not be allowed to
delay or prevent source selection
officials from seeing the contractor’s
comments as soon as they are provided.
The Councils are mindful of the terms
of section 853, including paragraph (d),
and have structured this rule so that
contractor comments, rebuttals, or
additional information can be submitted
at any point in time between the initial
notification of availability of a past
performance evaluation until the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
evaluation is removed from PPIRS and
archived (see FAR 42.1503(g)). The
other element of section 853(d), the
ability for a contractor to appeal a past
performance evaluation and have a
review at a level above the contracting
officer, is retained, without change, in
the FAR at 42.1503(d).
The intent of the statute is to make
timely, relevant past performance
information available to source selection
officials without delay. The statute
ensures that past performance
information moves forward without
allowing for delays caused by agencies
or contractors. Any information or
changes from such meetings or reviews
will be added to the past performance
information as it becomes available, but
its absence will no longer lengthen the
process.
2. Accuracy of Information Available to
Source Selection Officials
Comments: Nine respondents
submitted comments concerning the
proposed rule requirement that past
performance evaluations be available to
source selection officials not later than
14 days after the evaluation was
provided to the contractor, whether or
not the contractor comments have been
received. Four respondents stated this
requirement may result in agencies
relying upon potentially inaccurate or
erroneous information in source
selection decisions and may increase
the number of disputes. One respondent
stated past performance evaluations
which do not have the benefit of either
the contractor’s comments or the more
senior official’s review could be
obtained by source selection officials
but would impact these source
selections officials since they would
have to take the time to address
contractor reactions to the evaluations.
One respondent stated that the
reductions in the contractor comment
period places the integrity of the past
performance system at significant risk
due to the likelihood that it will result
in incorrect information passing through
the system and on to procurement
offices. Another respondent strongly
objects to halving the time allotted for
contractor comment because it would
‘‘sacrifice the quality (of past
performance evaluations) for quantity.’’
One respondent commented on the
mechanism to make changes to
incomplete or inaccurate reports after
they have been provided to PPIRS. The
respondent is concerned that, although
the mechanism is in place to correct
mistakes, the inaccurate information
would be available for release before the
information is corrected.
E:\FR\FM\30MYR2.SGM
30MYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Response: The FAR is incorporating
section 853 of the NDAA for FY 2013
and section 806 of the NDAA for FY
2012. These laws require that past
performance evaluations be made
available to source selection officials not
later than 14 days after the evaluation
was provided to the contractor, whether
or not contractor comments have been
received. The purpose of the 14
calendar day deadline is to make timely,
relevant past performance information
available to source selection officials
without delay so that award decisions
can be better informed and made in a
more timely manner. Having a past
performance evaluation, with the
contractor’s comments and explanations
included, available to source selection
officials in 14-days will be
advantageous, not detrimental, to most
contractors. These timely evaluations
will allow contractors that are meeting
their contractual obligations to be more
competitive for future awards.
Therefore, it is anticipated that the
deadline for comments will serve as a
greater impetus to contractors to meet
the new 14 calendar day deadline for
comments. When a contractor is unable
to provide comments within 14 days,
however, the changes to CPARS and
PPIRS will enable the contractor’s
comments to be added to the past
performance evaluation after the
evaluation has been moved into PPIRS.
Currently, if a contractor does not
submit comments, rebuttals, or
additional information with regard to a
past performance evaluation, the
evaluation remains in CPARS
indefinitely and will not move to PPIRS
so as to become available to source
selection officials.
In addition, the system changes to
CPARS and PPIRS will allow the
Government to revise the evaluation
after it has moved to PPIRS, if the
Government determines that such
revisions are appropriate. OFPP issued
guidance in its memoranda dated March
6, 2013, January 21, 2011, and July 29,
2009, encouraging agencies to improve
the quality and timeliness of reporting
past performance information. The FAR
was also recently updated at FAR
42.1501(b) and 42.1503(b)(1) to require
the Government to provide past
performance evaluations that are clear,
concise, and contain sufficient detail to
allow a contractor to begin its
assessment promptly.
3. Posting of the Evaluation
Comment: One respondent found FAR
42.1503(f) of the proposed rule
ambiguous ‘‘as to whether the rule
permits the agency to post its evaluation
before receiving the contractor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:36 May 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
comments within this 14-day period.’’
This respondent requested a
clarification in the final rule to the effect
that ‘‘the agency will not post the
evaluation until it affords the contractor
the opportunity to submit its comments
with in this 14-day period, or if no
contractor comments are forthcoming, at
the end of the 14-day period.’’
Response: If a contractor has
submitted comments to the Government
and the Government has not closed the
evaluation (i.e., reconciled the
comments), the evaluation as well as
any contractor comment will be posted
to the database automatically 14 days
after the evaluations are provided to the
contractor. In this case, the database
will apply a ‘‘Contractor Comment
Pending Government Review’’
notification to the evaluation. Once the
Government completes the evaluation,
the database will be updated the
following day and remove this
notification. Also, CPARS and PPIRS
software will not allow a past
performance evaluation to be released
into PPIRS until the end of the 14th day,
unless the evaluation has been
completed by the Government (i.e., the
contractor has commented and the
Government has reconciled the
comments).
4. Further Updates to a Past
Performance Evaluation
Comments: Three respondents stated
the proposed rule does not require the
Government to timely revise a past
performance evaluation in PPIRS if the
Government determines, after the 14day period expired, that it was in error,
and these respondents recommend that
the final rule include a deadline by
which the Government shall update
PPIRS to include any contractor
comments provided after the initial
comment period as well as any
subsequent agency review of comments
received, within 14 days of receipt of
such additional comments. The
respondents suggest a 14-day deadline
be established for agency updates to
PPIRS or require the Government to
update PPIRS to include the current
status of the evaluation review process
and include the submissions and final
evaluations ‘‘promptly’’ or ‘‘within a
reasonable time’’. Another respondent
recommended that the agency senior
reviewer be given a deadline of 5
working days to resolve any differences.
One respondent commented that one of
its member companies had a CPARS
assessment done with which it did not
concur, and that the company submitted
its response in a timely manner;
however, the respondent stated that the
assessing officer did not respond in a
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31199
reasonable amount of time to the
response.
Response: Agencies are required to
have internal management and technical
controls for past performance
evaluations. Agency compliance delays
should be addressed with the office that
issued the assessment and its
management. A specific past
performance evaluation should be
discussed with the assessing official
responsible for the past performance
evaluation.
5. Contractors’ Interim Response
Comment: The respondent proposed
allowing contractors to submit an
interim response; the interim response
would be to the effect that the contractor
is in the process of reviewing the
evaluation and will provide final
comments.
Response: Contractors can submit an
interim response but any interim
response received will be posted and
may be evaluated as if it were the final
response.
6. System Changes
Comments: A respondent stated that
the Government should provide a
timeline when CPARS and PPIRS
system changes/updates will be started,
completed, tested, and verified. Another
respondent stated that the rule should
not be made effective until these critical
systems (software) changes have been
put into effect.
Response: The effective date for the
FAR change is aligned with the effective
date for the system changes. The
systems changes are expected to be fully
operational on July 1, 2014.
7. Other
Comment: One respondent
commented that, given the severely
truncated timeline, more than one
contractor focal point per contract
should be allowed to receive draft
CPARS reports.
Response: The FAR does not prevent
contractors from assigning more than
one contractor focal point per contract.
Although each contractor has one
primary focal point, the CPARS Program
Office recommends that the same
contractor could have multiple back-up
focal points, all of whom would receive
an email notification that a past
performance evaluation had been
submitted to CPARS.
Comment: One respondent
commented that automatic notification
to the contractor when a past
performance evaluation is available
should be specified with a standardized
cover sheet and a label warning the
contractor about the 14-day deadline;
E:\FR\FM\30MYR2.SGM
30MYR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
31200
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
the respondent suggested that FAR
53.302–17 (Offer Label) provides a
useful model.
Response: A standardized PPIRS
notification email will be sent to the
contractor’s stated contact point via
email once a past performance
evaluation is available for review by the
contractor.
Comment: One respondent urged
public access to contractor performance
information relating to late or
nonpayment of subcontractors.
Response: The public access to
contractor performance information is
currently prohibited per FAR 9.105–
2(b)(2)(iii) as required by section 3010 of
the Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2010 (Pub. L. 111–212).
Comment: One respondent requested
the creation of a new FAR clause
mandating timely submission of past
performance evaluations and stating the
contractor’s right to dispute untimely
past performance evaluations.
Response: The FAR requires the
Government to submit timely past
performance evaluations. FAR
42.1503(d) requires agencies to evaluate
a contractor’s performance after the end
of the period of performance as soon as
practicable. Once the evaluation is
completed and submitted to CPARS,
CPARS will automatically send it to the
contractor. After the 14-day period, the
Government’s evaluation and the
contractor’s response, if any, will be
posted in PPIRS. A FAR clause is not
necessary because contractors have the
right to dispute past performance
evaluations, regardless of when the
evaluations are submitted for the
contractor’s review.
Comment: One respondent suggested
assigning a regional ‘‘overseer’’ or
‘‘ombudsman’’ for the evaluation
process.
Response: FAR 42.1503, Agency
procedures, requires agencies to
establish roles and responsibilities for
ensuring past performance information
is timely reported in CPARS and PPIRS.
OFPP’s January 21, 2011, memorandum
required agencies to assign an agency
point of contact accountable for
updating agency guidance, workforce
training, oversight mechanisms, and
identification of improvements to
CPARS and PPIRS. OFPP’s March 6,
2012, memorandum required agencies
to report the designated agency point of
contact to OMB.
Comment: One respondent
commented that some agencies overuse
past performance questionnaires, and
this should be considered for correction
in the FAR, to streamline the past
performance evaluation process.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:36 May 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
Response: Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii),
offerors are provided an opportunity to
identify past or current contracts
(including Federal, State, and local
government and private) for efforts
similar to the Government requirement.
However, this rule is not intended to set
standards for use of past performance
questionnaires across the Federal
Government.
Comment: One respondent
commented that the Government should
consider assessing the actual impact of
the rule 12 to 18 months after
implementation.
Response: FAR regulations are
periodically reviewed for continuous
improvement and industry is always
invited to submit regulatory change
proposals. For the past several years,
OFPP has issued memoranda to improve
agencies use and reporting of past
performance information and is also
exploring ways to enhance the
evaluation process and systems.
Further, the law, at paragraph (e) of
section 853 of the NDAA for FY 2013,
requires a review and report by the
Comptroller General on the actions
taken by the FAR Council pursuant to
the law.
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 not a significant
regulatory action and, therefore, was not
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
DoD, GSA, and NASA have prepared
a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The
FRFA is summarized as follows:
Section 806 of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year
2012 (Public Law 112–81, enacted December
31, 2011) is entitled ‘‘Inclusion of Data on
Contractor Performance in Past Performance
Databases for Source Selection Decisions.’’
Paragraph (c) of section 806 mandates
DFARS revisions so that contractors are
provided ‘‘up to 14 calendar days from the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
date of delivery’’ to them of past performance
evaluations ‘‘to submit comments, rebuttals,
or additional information pertaining to past
performance’’ for inclusion in the database.
In addition, section 806(c) requires that DoD
agency evaluations of contractor
performance, including any information
submitted by contractors, be ‘‘included in the
relevant past performance database not later
than 14 days after the date of delivery of the
information’’ to the contractor. Section 853 of
the NDAA for FY 2013 (Public Law 112–239,
enacted January 2, 2013) is entitled
‘‘Inclusion of Data on Contractor Performance
in Past Performance Databases for Executive
Agency Source Selection Decisions,’’ and it
extends the requirements of section 806 to all
Executive agencies.
Two respondents expressed concern about
the reduced comment period and the
hardship it would create for small
businesses. The respondents said that the 14day comment period would negatively
impact the limited human resources of small
businesses, affect the accuracy of evaluations,
and have an overall negative effect on small
entities. One erroneous evaluation affects a
small business more than a large business.
However, the 14-day comment period is
mandated by law, and it will be
advantageous to the Government and all its
contractors to standardize past performance
evaluation practices. Further, the statute does
not prohibit, and the CPARS and PPIRS
systems allow, submission by businesses of
their comments, rebuttals, and additional
information after the 14-day comment period
has expired. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration did not
submit comments in response to the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis.
The final rule applies to all small
businesses for which past performance
evaluations are completed. The information
collection for past performance evaluations,
OMB Control Number 9000–0142, published
in the Federal Register at 77 FR 6799, on
February 9, 2012, is the source for the data
used in the FRFA. It indicates that an
estimated 150,000 respondents submit an
average four responses annually, for a total of
600,000 responses. Data from the Federal
Procurement Data System (FPDS) for FY 2011
show that approximately 32 percent of the
relevant actions of the responses are from
small businesses; the rule applies to
approximately 48,000 small entities.
There are no new reporting, recordkeeping,
or other compliance requirements created by
the rule. The difference between the current
FAR past performance evaluation
requirements (see FAR subpart 42.15) and
this final rule is that sections 806 and 853
reduce the time allowed for a contractor to
submit comments, rebuttals, or additional
information pertaining to past performance
for inclusion in the past performance
database from ‘‘a minimum of 30 days’’ (FAR
42.1503(b)) to ‘‘up to 14 calendar days’’ and
the law now requires that past performance
evaluations be available to source selection
officials not later than 14 days after the
evaluation was provided to the contractor,
whether or not contractor comments have
been received.
E:\FR\FM\30MYR2.SGM
30MYR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The specifics of the statutory requirement
do not allow for alternative implementation
strategies.
Interested parties may obtain a copy
of the FRFA from the Regulatory
Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat
has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule affects the information
collection requirements in the
provisions at FAR subpart 42.15,
currently approved under OMB Control
Number 9000–0142, entitled ‘‘Past
Performance Information,’’ in the
amount of 1,200,000 hours, in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
This rule would shorten the contractors’
response time, but it would not expand
the reporting requirement. Therefore,
the impact is considered negligible
because contractors are already allowed
to submit comments, rebutting
statements, or additional information
regarding agency evaluations of their
performance. The number of contractors
providing comments will be unaffected
by this rule. Further, the type of
information provided is not impacted by
this proposed rule.
electronically in the CPARS at https://
www.cpars.gov. These evaluations,
including any contractor-submitted
information (with indication whether
agency review is pending), are
automatically transmitted to PPIRS at
https://www.ppirs.gov not later than 14
days after the date on which the
contractor is notified of the evaluation’s
availability for comment. The
Government shall update PPIRS with
any contractor comments provided after
14 days, as well as any subsequent
agency review of comments received.
Past performance evaluations for
classified contracts and special access
programs shall not be reported in
CPARS, but will be reported as stated in
this subpart and in accordance with
agency procedures. Agencies shall
ensure that appropriate management
and technical controls are in place to
ensure that only authorized personnel
have access to the data and the
information safeguarded in accordance
with 42.1503(d).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–12407 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 42
Government procurement.
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
Dated: May 22, 2014.
William Clark,
Acting Director, Office of Government-wide
Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 52
[FAC 2005–74; FAR Case 2012–016; Item
V; Docket No. 2012–0016, Sequence No. 1]
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA
amend 48 CFR part 42 as set forth
below:
RIN 9000–AM50
Federal Acquisition Regulation;
Defense Base Act
PART 42—CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT
SERVICES
Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCIES:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 42 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C.
chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
2. Amend section 42.1503 by revising
the third sentence in paragraph (d); and
paragraph (f) to read as follows:
■
42.1503
Procedures.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * * Contractors shall be
afforded up to 14 calendar days from the
date of notification of availability of the
past performance evaluation to submit
comments, rebutting statements, or
additional information. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Agencies shall prepare and submit
all past performance evaluations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:36 May 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
DoD, GSA, and NASA are
issuing a final rule amending the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
clarify contractor and subcontractor
responsibilities to obtain workers’
compensation insurance or to qualify as
a self-insurer, and other requirements,
under the terms of the Longshore and
Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act
(LHWCA) as extended by the Defense
Base Act (DBA).
DATES: Effective: July 1, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Edward N. Chambers, Procurement
Analyst, at 202–501–3221 for
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
31201
clarification of content. For information
pertaining to status or publication
schedules, contact the Regulatory
Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite
FAC 2005–74, FAR Case 2012–016.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD, GSA, and NASA published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register at
78 FR 17176 on March 20, 2013, to
make the necessary regulatory revisions
to revise the FAR to clarify contractor
and subcontractor responsibilities to
obtain workers’ compensation insurance
or to qualify as a self-insurer, and other
requirements, under the terms of the
LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. 901, et seq., as
extended by the DBA, 42 U.S.C. 1651,
et seq. Three respondents submitted
comments on the proposed rule.
II. Discussion and Analysis
The Civilian Agency Acquisition
Council and the Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council (the Councils)
reviewed the 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 are provided as
follows:
A. Summary of Significant Changes
This final rule includes one change to
align the FAR with Department of
Labor’s (DOL) regulations and
implementation of section 30(a) of the
LHWCA. This change involves deleting
proposed paragraph (b) of FAR clause
52.228–3, which stated that the actions
set forth under paragraphs (a)(2) through
(a)(8) may be performed by the
contractor’s agent or insurance carrier.
The DOL’s regulations place the
responsibility for reporting injuries on
the employer, see 20 CFR 703.115. The
removal of proposed FAR 52.228–3
paragraph (b) also promotes consistency
with the statutory requirements.
B. Analysis of Public Comments
1. Support of the Proposed Rule
Comment: Two respondents
expressed support for the rule.
Response: The public’s support for
this rule is acknowledged.
2. Clarify Term ‘‘Days’’
Comment: One respondent
recommends that the ten-day reporting
period within the report of injury
requirements set forth in proposed FAR
52.228–3 paragraph (a)(2) should be
revised to read ‘‘ten business days.’’ The
respondent asserts this modification
will clarify the reporting period.
Response: The intent of this rule is to
alert contractors to their obligations
E:\FR\FM\30MYR2.SGM
30MYR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31197-31201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12407]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 42
[FAC 2005-74; FAR Case 2012-028; Item IV; Docket No. 2012-0028,
Sequence No. 1]
RIN 9000-AM40
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Contractor Comment Period, Past
Performance Evaluations
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 issuing a final rule amending the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement provisions of law
that change the period allowed for contractor comments on past
performance evaluations and require that past performance evaluations
be made available to source selection officials sooner.
DATES: Effective: July 1, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement
Analyst, at 202-501-1448 for clarification of content. For information
pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory
Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-74, FAR Case 2012-
028.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register at 78 FR 48123 on August 7, 2013, under FAR Case 2012-028, to
implement section 853 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239, enacted January 2, 2013)
and section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81, enacted
December 31, 2011; 10 U.S.C. 2302 Note). Section 853, entitled
``Inclusion of Data on Contractor Performance in Past Performance
Databases for Executive Agency Source Selection Decisions,'' and
section 806, entitled ``Inclusion of Data on Contractor Performance in
Past Performance Databases for Source Selection Decisions,'' require
revisions to the acquisition regulations on past performance
evaluations at FAR subpart 42.15 so that contractors are provided ``up
to 14 calendar days . . . from the date of delivery'' of past
performance evaluations ``to submit comments, rebuttals, or additional
information pertaining to past performance'' for inclusion in the
database. In addition, paragraph (c) of both sections 853 and 806
requires that agency evaluations of contractor performance, including
any information submitted by contractors, be ``included in the relevant
past performance database not later than the date that is 14 days after
the date of delivery of the information'' to the contractor.
Ten respondents submitted comments on the proposed rule.
II. Discussion and Analysis
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition
Regulation Council (the Councils) reviewed the public comments in the
development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments is provided
in the following sections.
A. Analysis of Changes
No changes were made from the proposed rule as a result of the
public comments.
B. Analysis of Public Comments
1. Contractor Response Time of Fourteen Days
Comments: Almost all respondents commented on the burden imposed on
contractors to submit comments in a maximum of 14 days, especially
given that FAR 42.1503 provides ``a minimum of 30 days'' for
contractors to provide comments, rebuttals, or additional information.
One respondent cited statistics from the Contractor Performance
Assessment Rating System (CPARS) Program Office for DoD past
performance evaluations completed in FY 2010-2012:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage Contractor response times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.................................. No comments provided.
43.................................. Comments provided within 14 days.
30.................................. Comments provided between 14-30
days.
9................................... Comments provided after 30 days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two other respondents noted that, when the contractor disagrees
with any given Government evaluation or comment, it takes time for the
contractor
[[Page 31198]]
to gather input from multiple employees and subcontractors and draft an
objective response, i.e., more than 14 days in their opinion. A
respondent noted that DoD had more than doubled the number of
contracting officials trained on contract past performance from FY 2010
to 2012, but that, as of April 2013, more than half of Federal agencies
had no required contractor assessments in Past Performance Information
Retrieval System (PPIRS). Given that, the respondent suggested that the
focus should remain on improving agency performance rather than
curtailing the time allotted for contractor review and comment.
Another respondent stated that, after receipt of the past
performance evaluation, the contractor ``has the opportunity to request
a meeting with the assessment official to discuss differences and
possible modifications to the ratings and the comments.'' These
meetings, according to the respondent, often result in a better
assessment for the Government.
One respondent noted that the statutory action of providing up to
14 days from the date of delivery is beneficial in that it sets a
generally applicable fixed period.
One respondent requested that the current 30-day period be retained
and not reduced because the shortened time may lead many contractors to
seek additional business opportunities in the private-rather than
Federal-market.
One respondent stated that, because the 14-day time period is
statutory, the Councils should consider guidelines to ensure that
requirements for the content of past performance evaluations are clear,
concise, and contain sufficient detail to allow a contractor to
promptly begin its assessment of any negative findings.
Last, a respondent quoted paragraph (d) of section 853, which reads
as follows:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a
contractor from submitting comments, rebuttals, or additional
information pertaining to past performance after the period
described in subsection (c)(2) has elapsed or to prohibit a
contractor from challenging a past performance evaluation in
accordance with applicable laws, regulations, or procedures.
Response: The FAR is incorporating section 853 of the NDAA for FY
2013. Paragraph (c) of section 853 provides, at (c)(2) and (3), that
``contractors are afforded up to 14 calendar days, from the date of
delivery of the information provided in accordance with paragraph (1),
to submit comments, rebuttals, or additional information pertaining to
past performance for inclusion in such databases;'' and that ``agency
evaluations of contractor past performance, including any comments,
rebuttals, or additional information submitted under paragraph (2), are
included in the relevant past performance database not later than the
date that is 14 days after the date of delivery of the information
provided in accordance with paragraph (1).'' The information provided
in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) is the notice that a past
performance evaluation has been submitted to CPARS. CPARS will generate
a notice to the contractor automatically, so the 14 calendar day period
for contractor comments begins at that point in time. The law
specifically states that the 14 days allotted for contractor comments
are calendar days, not business days or any other method of counting
days. The Councils are aware of the effort and coordination involved in
gathering, summarizing, and vetting possible responses but were
provided no latitude under the terms of the law.
There is no requirement in the law for the Government assessing
official to meet with the contractor. However, if the contractor
requests such a meeting, the assessing official may accept the request.
In this case, the statute is clear and does not allow for alterations
to the 14 calendar day time frame and requires that the past
performance evaluation must be made available for the use of source
selection officials 14 days after its initial submission, and it will
be made available at that time with any contractor comments that have
been received. Delaying the availability of the contractor's comments
until after a meeting with the assessing official would only result in
the past performance evaluation being seen by source selection
officials without them having the benefit of any contractor comments.
The CPARS and PPIRS systems have been revised so that transfers between
CPARS and PPIRS occur automatically, thus eliminating delays in
availability. The assessing official, who may also be the contracting
officer, has a responsibility to review the contractor's comments when,
and if, they are submitted by the contractor, but that review should
not be allowed to delay or prevent source selection officials from
seeing the contractor's comments as soon as they are provided.
The Councils are mindful of the terms of section 853, including
paragraph (d), and have structured this rule so that contractor
comments, rebuttals, or additional information can be submitted at any
point in time between the initial notification of availability of a
past performance evaluation until the evaluation is removed from PPIRS
and archived (see FAR 42.1503(g)). The other element of section 853(d),
the ability for a contractor to appeal a past performance evaluation
and have a review at a level above the contracting officer, is
retained, without change, in the FAR at 42.1503(d).
The intent of the statute is to make timely, relevant past
performance information available to source selection officials without
delay. The statute ensures that past performance information moves
forward without allowing for delays caused by agencies or contractors.
Any information or changes from such meetings or reviews will be added
to the past performance information as it becomes available, but its
absence will no longer lengthen the process.
2. Accuracy of Information Available to Source Selection Officials
Comments: Nine respondents submitted comments concerning the
proposed rule requirement that past performance evaluations be
available to source selection officials not later than 14 days after
the evaluation was provided to the contractor, whether or not the
contractor comments have been received. Four respondents stated this
requirement may result in agencies relying upon potentially inaccurate
or erroneous information in source selection decisions and may increase
the number of disputes. One respondent stated past performance
evaluations which do not have the benefit of either the contractor's
comments or the more senior official's review could be obtained by
source selection officials but would impact these source selections
officials since they would have to take the time to address contractor
reactions to the evaluations. One respondent stated that the reductions
in the contractor comment period places the integrity of the past
performance system at significant risk due to the likelihood that it
will result in incorrect information passing through the system and on
to procurement offices. Another respondent strongly objects to halving
the time allotted for contractor comment because it would ``sacrifice
the quality (of past performance evaluations) for quantity.'' One
respondent commented on the mechanism to make changes to incomplete or
inaccurate reports after they have been provided to PPIRS. The
respondent is concerned that, although the mechanism is in place to
correct mistakes, the inaccurate information would be available for
release before the information is corrected.
[[Page 31199]]
Response: The FAR is incorporating section 853 of the NDAA for FY
2013 and section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2012. These laws require that
past performance evaluations be made available to source selection
officials not later than 14 days after the evaluation was provided to
the contractor, whether or not contractor comments have been received.
The purpose of the 14 calendar day deadline is to make timely, relevant
past performance information available to source selection officials
without delay so that award decisions can be better informed and made
in a more timely manner. Having a past performance evaluation, with the
contractor's comments and explanations included, available to source
selection officials in 14-days will be advantageous, not detrimental,
to most contractors. These timely evaluations will allow contractors
that are meeting their contractual obligations to be more competitive
for future awards. Therefore, it is anticipated that the deadline for
comments will serve as a greater impetus to contractors to meet the new
14 calendar day deadline for comments. When a contractor is unable to
provide comments within 14 days, however, the changes to CPARS and
PPIRS will enable the contractor's comments to be added to the past
performance evaluation after the evaluation has been moved into PPIRS.
Currently, if a contractor does not submit comments, rebuttals, or
additional information with regard to a past performance evaluation,
the evaluation remains in CPARS indefinitely and will not move to PPIRS
so as to become available to source selection officials.
In addition, the system changes to CPARS and PPIRS will allow the
Government to revise the evaluation after it has moved to PPIRS, if the
Government determines that such revisions are appropriate. OFPP issued
guidance in its memoranda dated March 6, 2013, January 21, 2011, and
July 29, 2009, encouraging agencies to improve the quality and
timeliness of reporting past performance information. The FAR was also
recently updated at FAR 42.1501(b) and 42.1503(b)(1) to require the
Government to provide past performance evaluations that are clear,
concise, and contain sufficient detail to allow a contractor to begin
its assessment promptly.
3. Posting of the Evaluation
Comment: One respondent found FAR 42.1503(f) of the proposed rule
ambiguous ``as to whether the rule permits the agency to post its
evaluation before receiving the contractor comments within this 14-day
period.'' This respondent requested a clarification in the final rule
to the effect that ``the agency will not post the evaluation until it
affords the contractor the opportunity to submit its comments with in
this 14-day period, or if no contractor comments are forthcoming, at
the end of the 14-day period.''
Response: If a contractor has submitted comments to the Government
and the Government has not closed the evaluation (i.e., reconciled the
comments), the evaluation as well as any contractor comment will be
posted to the database automatically 14 days after the evaluations are
provided to the contractor. In this case, the database will apply a
``Contractor Comment Pending Government Review'' notification to the
evaluation. Once the Government completes the evaluation, the database
will be updated the following day and remove this notification. Also,
CPARS and PPIRS software will not allow a past performance evaluation
to be released into PPIRS until the end of the 14th day, unless the
evaluation has been completed by the Government (i.e., the contractor
has commented and the Government has reconciled the comments).
4. Further Updates to a Past Performance Evaluation
Comments: Three respondents stated the proposed rule does not
require the Government to timely revise a past performance evaluation
in PPIRS if the Government determines, after the 14-day period expired,
that it was in error, and these respondents recommend that the final
rule include a deadline by which the Government shall update PPIRS to
include any contractor comments provided after the initial comment
period as well as any subsequent agency review of comments received,
within 14 days of receipt of such additional comments. The respondents
suggest a 14-day deadline be established for agency updates to PPIRS or
require the Government to update PPIRS to include the current status of
the evaluation review process and include the submissions and final
evaluations ``promptly'' or ``within a reasonable time''. Another
respondent recommended that the agency senior reviewer be given a
deadline of 5 working days to resolve any differences. One respondent
commented that one of its member companies had a CPARS assessment done
with which it did not concur, and that the company submitted its
response in a timely manner; however, the respondent stated that the
assessing officer did not respond in a reasonable amount of time to the
response.
Response: Agencies are required to have internal management and
technical controls for past performance evaluations. Agency compliance
delays should be addressed with the office that issued the assessment
and its management. A specific past performance evaluation should be
discussed with the assessing official responsible for the past
performance evaluation.
5. Contractors' Interim Response
Comment: The respondent proposed allowing contractors to submit an
interim response; the interim response would be to the effect that the
contractor is in the process of reviewing the evaluation and will
provide final comments.
Response: Contractors can submit an interim response but any
interim response received will be posted and may be evaluated as if it
were the final response.
6. System Changes
Comments: A respondent stated that the Government should provide a
timeline when CPARS and PPIRS system changes/updates will be started,
completed, tested, and verified. Another respondent stated that the
rule should not be made effective until these critical systems
(software) changes have been put into effect.
Response: The effective date for the FAR change is aligned with the
effective date for the system changes. The systems changes are expected
to be fully operational on July 1, 2014.
7. Other
Comment: One respondent commented that, given the severely
truncated timeline, more than one contractor focal point per contract
should be allowed to receive draft CPARS reports.
Response: The FAR does not prevent contractors from assigning more
than one contractor focal point per contract. Although each contractor
has one primary focal point, the CPARS Program Office recommends that
the same contractor could have multiple back-up focal points, all of
whom would receive an email notification that a past performance
evaluation had been submitted to CPARS.
Comment: One respondent commented that automatic notification to
the contractor when a past performance evaluation is available should
be specified with a standardized cover sheet and a label warning the
contractor about the 14-day deadline;
[[Page 31200]]
the respondent suggested that FAR 53.302-17 (Offer Label) provides a
useful model.
Response: A standardized PPIRS notification email will be sent to
the contractor's stated contact point via email once a past performance
evaluation is available for review by the contractor.
Comment: One respondent urged public access to contractor
performance information relating to late or nonpayment of
subcontractors.
Response: The public access to contractor performance information
is currently prohibited per FAR 9.105-2(b)(2)(iii) as required by
section 3010 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-
212).
Comment: One respondent requested the creation of a new FAR clause
mandating timely submission of past performance evaluations and stating
the contractor's right to dispute untimely past performance
evaluations.
Response: The FAR requires the Government to submit timely past
performance evaluations. FAR 42.1503(d) requires agencies to evaluate a
contractor's performance after the end of the period of performance as
soon as practicable. Once the evaluation is completed and submitted to
CPARS, CPARS will automatically send it to the contractor. After the
14-day period, the Government's evaluation and the contractor's
response, if any, will be posted in PPIRS. A FAR clause is not
necessary because contractors have the right to dispute past
performance evaluations, regardless of when the evaluations are
submitted for the contractor's review.
Comment: One respondent suggested assigning a regional ``overseer''
or ``ombudsman'' for the evaluation process.
Response: FAR 42.1503, Agency procedures, requires agencies to
establish roles and responsibilities for ensuring past performance
information is timely reported in CPARS and PPIRS. OFPP's January 21,
2011, memorandum required agencies to assign an agency point of contact
accountable for updating agency guidance, workforce training, oversight
mechanisms, and identification of improvements to CPARS and PPIRS.
OFPP's March 6, 2012, memorandum required agencies to report the
designated agency point of contact to OMB.
Comment: One respondent commented that some agencies overuse past
performance questionnaires, and this should be considered for
correction in the FAR, to streamline the past performance evaluation
process.
Response: Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), offerors are provided an
opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal,
State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the
Government requirement. However, this rule is not intended to set
standards for use of past performance questionnaires across the Federal
Government.
Comment: One respondent commented that the Government should
consider assessing the actual impact of the rule 12 to 18 months after
implementation.
Response: FAR regulations are periodically reviewed for continuous
improvement and industry is always invited to submit regulatory change
proposals. For the past several years, OFPP has issued memoranda to
improve agencies use and reporting of past performance information and
is also exploring ways to enhance the evaluation process and systems.
Further, the law, at paragraph (e) of section 853 of the NDAA for FY
2013, requires a review and report by the Comptroller General on the
actions taken by the FAR Council pursuant to the law.
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 not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not
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
DoD, GSA, and NASA have prepared a final regulatory flexibility
analysis (FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601, et seq. The FRFA is summarized as follows:
Section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81, enacted December 31, 2011) is
entitled ``Inclusion of Data on Contractor Performance in Past
Performance Databases for Source Selection Decisions.'' Paragraph
(c) of section 806 mandates DFARS revisions so that contractors are
provided ``up to 14 calendar days from the date of delivery'' to
them of past performance evaluations ``to submit comments,
rebuttals, or additional information pertaining to past
performance'' for inclusion in the database. In addition, section
806(c) requires that DoD agency evaluations of contractor
performance, including any information submitted by contractors, be
``included in the relevant past performance database not later than
14 days after the date of delivery of the information'' to the
contractor. Section 853 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Public Law 112-239,
enacted January 2, 2013) is entitled ``Inclusion of Data on
Contractor Performance in Past Performance Databases for Executive
Agency Source Selection Decisions,'' and it extends the requirements
of section 806 to all Executive agencies.
Two respondents expressed concern about the reduced comment
period and the hardship it would create for small businesses. The
respondents said that the 14-day comment period would negatively
impact the limited human resources of small businesses, affect the
accuracy of evaluations, and have an overall negative effect on
small entities. One erroneous evaluation affects a small business
more than a large business. However, the 14-day comment period is
mandated by law, and it will be advantageous to the Government and
all its contractors to standardize past performance evaluation
practices. Further, the statute does not prohibit, and the CPARS and
PPIRS systems allow, submission by businesses of their comments,
rebuttals, and additional information after the 14-day comment
period has expired. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration did not submit comments in response to the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The final rule applies to all small businesses for which past
performance evaluations are completed. The information collection
for past performance evaluations, OMB Control Number 9000-0142,
published in the Federal Register at 77 FR 6799, on February 9,
2012, is the source for the data used in the FRFA. It indicates that
an estimated 150,000 respondents submit an average four responses
annually, for a total of 600,000 responses. Data from the Federal
Procurement Data System (FPDS) for FY 2011 show that approximately
32 percent of the relevant actions of the responses are from small
businesses; the rule applies to approximately 48,000 small entities.
There are no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements created by the rule. The difference between the current
FAR past performance evaluation requirements (see FAR subpart 42.15)
and this final rule is that sections 806 and 853 reduce the time
allowed for a contractor to submit comments, rebuttals, or
additional information pertaining to past performance for inclusion
in the past performance database from ``a minimum of 30 days'' (FAR
42.1503(b)) to ``up to 14 calendar days'' and the law now requires
that past performance evaluations be available to source selection
officials not later than 14 days after the evaluation was provided
to the contractor, whether or not contractor comments have been
received.
[[Page 31201]]
The specifics of the statutory requirement do not allow for
alternative implementation strategies.
Interested parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA from the
Regulatory Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy
of the FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule affects the information collection requirements in the
provisions at FAR subpart 42.15, currently approved under OMB Control
Number 9000-0142, entitled ``Past Performance Information,'' in the
amount of 1,200,000 hours, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). This rule would shorten the contractors'
response time, but it would not expand the reporting requirement.
Therefore, the impact is considered negligible because contractors are
already allowed to submit comments, rebutting statements, or additional
information regarding agency evaluations of their performance. The
number of contractors providing comments will be unaffected by this
rule. Further, the type of information provided is not impacted by this
proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 42
Government procurement.
Dated: May 22, 2014.
William Clark,
Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office
of Government-wide Policy.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR part 42 as set forth
below:
PART 42--CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 42 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51
U.S.C. 20113.
0
2. Amend section 42.1503 by revising the third sentence in paragraph
(d); and paragraph (f) to read as follows:
42.1503 Procedures.
* * * * *
(d) * * * Contractors shall be afforded up to 14 calendar days from
the date of notification of availability of the past performance
evaluation to submit comments, rebutting statements, or additional
information. * * *
* * * * *
(f) Agencies shall prepare and submit all past performance
evaluations electronically in the CPARS at https://www.cpars.gov. These
evaluations, including any contractor-submitted information (with
indication whether agency review is pending), are automatically
transmitted to PPIRS at https://www.ppirs.gov not later than 14 days
after the date on which the contractor is notified of the evaluation's
availability for comment. The Government shall update PPIRS with any
contractor comments provided after 14 days, as well as any subsequent
agency review of comments received. Past performance evaluations for
classified contracts and special access programs shall not be reported
in CPARS, but will be reported as stated in this subpart and in
accordance with agency procedures. Agencies shall ensure that
appropriate management and technical controls are in place to ensure
that only authorized personnel have access to the data and the
information safeguarded in accordance with 42.1503(d).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-12407 Filed 5-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P