Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Use of Military Construction Funds in Countries Bordering the Arabian Sea (DFARS Case 2014-D016), 73498-73499 [2014-28815]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
73498
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
CONTRACTOR FORWARD PRICING RATE PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST—Continued
Proposal page No.
(if applicable)
Submission item
If not provided,
explain (may use
continuation pages)
11. Does the proposal identify planned or anticipated changes in the composition of labor
rates, labor categories, union agreements, headcounts, or other factors that could significantly impact the direct labor rates?
Indirect Rates (Fringe, Overhead, G&A, etc.)
12. Indirect Rates Methodology and Basis of Each Estimate.
a. Does the proposal identify the basis of each estimate and provide an explanation of
the methodology used to develop the indirect rates?
b. Does the proposal include or identify the location of the supporting documents for
the proposed rates?
13. Does the proposal identify indirect expenses by burden center, by cost element, by
year (including any voluntary deletions, if applicable) in a format that is consistent with
the accounting system used to accumulate actual expenses?
14. Does the proposal identify any contingencies?
15. Does the proposal identify planned or anticipated changes in the nature, type, or level
of indirect costs, including fringe benefits?
16. Does the proposal identify corporate, home office, shared services, or other incoming
allocated costs and the source for those costs, including location and point of contact
(custodian) name, phone number, and email address?
17. Does the proposal separately identify all intermediate cost pools and provide a reconciliation to show where the costs will be allocated?
18. Does the proposal identify the escalation factors used to escalate indirect costs for the
out-years, the costs to which escalation is applicable, and the basis of each factor used?
19. Does the proposal provide details of the development of the allocation base?
20. Does the proposal include or reference the supporting data for the allocation base such
as program budgets, negotiation memoranda, proposals, contract values, etc.?
21. Does the proposal identify how the proposed allocation bases reconcile with its long
range plans, strategic plan, operating budgets, sales forecasts, program budgets, etc.?
Cost of Money (COM)
22. Cost of Money.
a. Are Cost of Money rates submitted on Form CASB–CMF, with the Treasury Rate
used to compute COM identified and a summary of the net book value of assets,
identified as distributed and non-distributed?
b. Does the proposal identify the support for the Form CASB–CMF, for example, the
underlying reports and records supporting the net book value of assets contained in
the form?
Other
23. Does the proposal include a comparison of prior forecasted costs to actual results in
the same format as the proposal and an explanation/analysis of any differences?
24. If this is a revision to a previous rate proposal or a forward pricing rate agreement,
does the new proposal provide a summary of the changes in the circumstances or the
facts that the contractor asserts require the change to the rates?
[FR Doc. 2014–28811 Filed 12–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 225 and 236
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
RIN 0750–AI33
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Use of Military
Construction Funds in Countries
Bordering the Arabian Sea (DFARS
Case 2014–D016)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DoD has adopted as final,
without change, an interim rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to implement sections of the
Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2014, that restricts
use of military construction funds in
various countries, including countries
bordering the Arabian Sea.
SUMMARY:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DATES:
Effective December 11, 2014.
Ms.
Amy G. Williams, telephone 571–372–
6106.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\11DER1.SGM
11DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
I. Background
DoD published an interim rule in the
Federal Register at 79 FR 44314 on July
31, 2014, to implement sections of the
Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2014, that restricts
use of military construction funds in
various countries, including countries
bordering the Arabian Sea. Since 1997,
sections 111 and 112 of the annual
military construction appropriations
acts restrict use of military construction
funds for acquisitions exceeding certain
dollar thresholds of architect-engineer
services and military construction to be
performed in certain countries. With
some exceptions, these restrictions
require award to a U.S. firm or provide
a preference for award to a U.S. firm.
One respondent submitted a public
comment in response to the interim
rule.
II. Discussion and Analysis
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
DoD reviewed the public comment in
the development of the final rule. The
comment did not result in any changes
in the final rule. A discussion of the
comment is provided, as follows:
Comment: The respondent disagreed
with the substitution of ‘‘Arabian Sea’’
for the ‘‘Arabian Gulf’’ for the following
reasons:
• The respondent viewed the rule as
a ‘‘degradation of the intent of the law.’’
• The respondent viewed the rule as
harmful to all U.S. businesses, small
and large, interested in construction
projects in countries that border the
Arabian Gulf, due to loss of the 20
percent preference.
The respondent suggested extension
of the preferences for U.S. businesses
when awarding military construction or
architect-engineer contracts in countries
bordering the Arabian Gulf to contracts
in countries bordering the Arabian Sea.
Response: The interim rule was
issued in order to comply with the law.
For several years, the restrictions in the
annual military construction
appropriations acts have applied the use
of military construction funds in
countries bordering the Arabian Sea, not
the Arabian Gulf. The law does not
provide the option to provide the 20
percent preference to U.S. firms
performing construction projects in
countries that border the Arabian Gulf.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:05 Dec 10, 2014
Jkt 235001
73499
(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.
when the contracts are to be performed
in countries bordering the Arabian Sea.
There is a requirement for offerors to
indicate in their offer whether they are
a U.S. firm.
This rule does not impose any
significant economic impact on small
firms. The offeror must represent if it is
a U.S. firm, but in return is granted a
preference. DoD did not identify any
alternatives that could reduce the
burden and still meet the objectives of
the rule.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
A final regulatory flexibility analysis
has been prepared consistent with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
et seq., and is summarized as follows:
This rule is necessary to implement
the preference for award only to U.S.
firms when awarding certain military
construction and architect-engineer
contracts to be performed in countries
bordering the Arabian Sea.
The objective of this rule is to
implement sections 111 and 112 of the
Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division J of
Pub. L. 113–76). This rule revises the
preference for award to U.S. firms of
military construction contracts that have
an estimated value greater than
$1,000,000 and the restriction requiring
award only to U.S. firms for architectengineer contracts that have an
estimated value greater than $500,000,
to make it applicable to contracts to be
performed in a country bordering the
Arabian Sea, rather than a country
bordering the Arabian Gulf (as required
in earlier statutes).
One respondent stated that the rule
would cause harm to U.S. small
business entities engaged in
construction projects in countries
bordering the Arabian Gulf, due to loss
of the 20 percent preference. There was
no change made to the rule as the result
of this comment, because the law no
longer provides a preference for U.S.
businesses (small or large) performing
construction projects in countries
bordering the Arabian Gulf. The law
changed the applicability of the
preference from military construction
projects in countries bordering the
Arabian Gulf to military construction
projects bordering the Arabian Sea.
This will only apply to a very limited
number of small entities—those entities
that submit offers in response to
solicitations for military construction
contracts that have an estimated value
greater than $1,000,000 and architectengineer contracts that have an
estimated value greater than $500,000,
The rule does not impose any new
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). However, it modifies the
prescription for use of the provision at
DFARS 252.236–7010, Overseas
Military Construction—Preference for
United States Firms, currently approved
under OMB Clearance 0704–0255,
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement (DFARS) Part 236,
Construction and Architect-Engineer
Contracts, an amount of less than 8
hours. Any change in the burden hours
due to the changed prescription is
negligible.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 225 and
236
Government procurement.
Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 48 CFR part 225 and 236,
which was published at 79 FR 44314 on
July 31, 2014, is adopted as a final rule
without change.
■
[FR Doc. 2014–28815 Filed 12–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
48 CFR Parts 225 and 252
RIN 0750–AI47
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Elimination of
Quarterly Reporting of Actual
Performance Outside the United States
(DFARS Case 2015–D001)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\11DER1.SGM
11DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73498-73499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28815]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
48 CFR Parts 225 and 236
RIN 0750-AI33
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Use of
Military Construction Funds in Countries Bordering the Arabian Sea
(DFARS Case 2014-D016)
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, without change, an interim rule
amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)
to implement sections of the Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014, that restricts
use of military construction funds in various countries, including
countries bordering the Arabian Sea.
DATES: Effective December 11, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-
372-6106.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 73499]]
I. Background
DoD published an interim rule in the Federal Register at 79 FR
44314 on July 31, 2014, to implement sections of the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2014, that restricts use of military construction funds in various
countries, including countries bordering the Arabian Sea. Since 1997,
sections 111 and 112 of the annual military construction appropriations
acts restrict use of military construction funds for acquisitions
exceeding certain dollar thresholds of architect-engineer services and
military construction to be performed in certain countries. With some
exceptions, these restrictions require award to a U.S. firm or provide
a preference for award to a U.S. firm.
One respondent submitted a public comment in response to the
interim rule.
II. Discussion and Analysis
DoD reviewed the public comment in the development of the final
rule. The comment did not result in any changes in the final rule. A
discussion of the comment is provided, as follows:
Comment: The respondent disagreed with the substitution of
``Arabian Sea'' for the ``Arabian Gulf'' for the following reasons:
The respondent viewed the rule as a ``degradation of the
intent of the law.''
The respondent viewed the rule as harmful to all U.S.
businesses, small and large, interested in construction projects in
countries that border the Arabian Gulf, due to loss of the 20 percent
preference.
The respondent suggested extension of the preferences for U.S.
businesses when awarding military construction or architect-engineer
contracts in countries bordering the Arabian Gulf to contracts in
countries bordering the Arabian Sea.
Response: The interim rule was issued in order to comply with the
law. For several years, the restrictions in the annual military
construction appropriations acts have applied the use of military
construction funds in countries bordering the Arabian Sea, not the
Arabian Gulf. The law does not provide the option to provide the 20
percent preference to U.S. firms performing construction projects in
countries that border the Arabian Gulf.
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
A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared
consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,
and is summarized as follows:
This rule is necessary to implement the preference for award only
to U.S. firms when awarding certain military construction and
architect-engineer contracts to be performed in countries bordering the
Arabian Sea.
The objective of this rule is to implement sections 111 and 112 of
the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division J of Pub. L. 113-76). This rule
revises the preference for award to U.S. firms of military construction
contracts that have an estimated value greater than $1,000,000 and the
restriction requiring award only to U.S. firms for architect-engineer
contracts that have an estimated value greater than $500,000, to make
it applicable to contracts to be performed in a country bordering the
Arabian Sea, rather than a country bordering the Arabian Gulf (as
required in earlier statutes).
One respondent stated that the rule would cause harm to U.S. small
business entities engaged in construction projects in countries
bordering the Arabian Gulf, due to loss of the 20 percent preference.
There was no change made to the rule as the result of this comment,
because the law no longer provides a preference for U.S. businesses
(small or large) performing construction projects in countries
bordering the Arabian Gulf. The law changed the applicability of the
preference from military construction projects in countries bordering
the Arabian Gulf to military construction projects bordering the
Arabian Sea.
This will only apply to a very limited number of small entities--
those entities that submit offers in response to solicitations for
military construction contracts that have an estimated value greater
than $1,000,000 and architect-engineer contracts that have an estimated
value greater than $500,000, when the contracts are to be performed in
countries bordering the Arabian Sea.
There is a requirement for offerors to indicate in their offer
whether they are a U.S. firm.
This rule does not impose any significant economic impact on small
firms. The offeror must represent if it is a U.S. firm, but in return
is granted a preference. DoD did not identify any alternatives that
could reduce the burden and still meet the objectives of the rule.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule does not impose any new 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).
However, it modifies the prescription for use of the provision at DFARS
252.236-7010, Overseas Military Construction--Preference for United
States Firms, currently approved under OMB Clearance 0704-0255, Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 236,
Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts, an amount of less than 8
hours. Any change in the burden hours due to the changed prescription
is negligible.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 225 and 236
Government procurement.
Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR part 225 and 236, which
was published at 79 FR 44314 on July 31, 2014, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
[FR Doc. 2014-28815 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
