Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Offset Costs (DFARS Case 2015-D028), 31309-31310 [2015-12901]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
submission to verify posting (except
allow 30 days for posting of comments
submitted by mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Mark Gomersall, telephone 571–372–
6099.
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
I. Background
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–13118 Filed 6–1–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
48 CFR Part 225
RIN 0750–AI59
Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement: Offset Costs
(DFARS Case 2015–D028)
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Interim rule.
AGENCY:
DoD is issuing an interim rule
amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) to clarify requirements related
to costs associated with indirect offsets
under Foreign Military Sales
agreements.
SUMMARY:
Effective June 2, 2015.
Comment Date: Comments on the
interim rule should be submitted in
writing to the address shown below on
or before August 3, 2015, to be
considered in the formation of a final
rule.
DATES:
Submit comments
identified by DFARS Case 2015–D028,
using any of the following methods:
Æ Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2015–D028’’
under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or
ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the
link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that
corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2015–
D028.’’ Follow the instructions provided
at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen.
Please include your name, company
name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2015–
D028’’ on your attached document.
Æ Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include
DFARS Case 2015–D028 in the subject
line of the message.
Æ Fax: 571–372–6094.
Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark
Gomersall, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS,
Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–3060.
Comments received generally will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. To
confirm receipt of your comment(s),
please check www.regulations.gov,
approximately two to three days after
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Jun 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
This interim rule revises DFARS
225.7303–2, ‘‘Cost of doing business
with a foreign government or an
international organization,’’ by adding
paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to provide
guidelines to contracting officers when
an indirect offset is a condition of a
Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
acquisition. A reference to the Defense
Security Cooperation Agency manual is
also updated at DFARS 225.7301.
This interim rule specifically
addresses indirect offsets as they are
applied to the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency’s FMS cases.
II. Discussion and Analysis
DoD administers FMS programs to
maintain and strengthen relationships
with partner nations. Failure to nurture
these relationships may create a threat
to national security. DoD’s FMS
program allows foreign customers to
request, and pay for, through inclusion
of the cost in the FMS Letter of Offer
and Acceptance (LOA) and DoD
contract, offsets that are directly related
to the FMS end items (i.e., ‘‘direct
offsets’’), as well as offsets that are not
directly related to the end item (i.e.,
‘‘indirect offsets’’).
DoD recognizes the need to have
offsets embedded in DoD FMS contracts.
However, the decision whether to
engage in indirect offsets and the
responsibility for negotiating and
implementing these offset arrangements
ultimately reside with the FMS
customer and contractor(s) involved.
Thus, the DoD contracting officer is not
provided the information necessary to
negotiate cost or price of the indirect
offsets, particularly with respect to price
reasonableness determinations pursuant
to FAR part 15. This interim rule
provides that under these
circumstances, when the provision of an
indirect offset is a condition of the FMS
acquisition, and provided that the U.S.
defense contractor submits to the
contracting officer an offset agreement
or other substantiating documentation,
the indirect offset costs are deemed
reasonable for the purposes of FAR part
31.
III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
13563 direct agencies to assess all costs
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
31309
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 does 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.
However, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis has been performed, and is
summarized as follows:
The objective of this rule is to provide
clarification to contracting officers when
indirect offsets are a condition of an
FMS acquisition. This rule revises
DFARS 225.7303–2, ‘‘Cost of doing
business with a foreign government or
an international organization,’’ by
adding paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to provide
guidelines to contracting officers when
an indirect offset is a condition of a
Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
acquisition. This interim rule
specifically addresses indirect offsets as
they are applied to the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency’s FMS cases.
This rule does not add any reporting
or recordkeeping requirements. The rule
does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with any other Federal rules. This rule
does not impose any significant
economic burden on small firms
because the DFARS amendments merely
clarify that contracting officers are not
responsible for making a determination
of price reasonableness for indirect
offset agreements, which are not within
their purview.
DoD did not identify any alternatives
that could reduce the burden and still
meet the objectives of the rule.
DoD invites comments from small
business concerns and other interested
parties on the expected impact of this
rule on small entities.
DoD will also consider comments
from small entities concerning the
existing regulations in subparts affected
by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
610. Interested parties must submit such
comments separately and should cite 5
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
31310
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 105 / Tuesday, June 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2015–D028), in
correspondence.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The 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).
VI. Determination to Issue an Interim
Rule
A determination has been made under
the authority of the Secretary of Defense
that urgent and compelling reasons exist
to promulgate this interim rule without
prior opportunity for public comment.
DoD administers FMS programs to
maintain and strengthen relationships
with partner nations. Failure to nurture
these relationships may create a threat
to national security. This action is
necessary because of the recent and
foreseeable trend of increasing numbers
and complexity of indirect offsets
desired by DoD’s Foreign Military Sales
(FMS) customers.
Currently, Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) 225.7303–2(a)(3)(ii) provides
that the U.S. Government assumes no
obligation to satisfy or administer the
offset requirement or to bear any of the
associated costs. However, DFARS
225.7301(b) provides that the U.S.
Government conduct FMS acquisitions
under the same acquisition and contract
management procedures used for other
defense acquisitions. This requires the
contracting officer to adhere to FAR
provisions concerning the negotiation of
contracts and subcontracts (FAR part
15) and contract cost principles (FAR
part 31), and thus be capable of attesting
to the price reasonableness of FMS
contracts, including indirect offset costs
that are not tied directly to the end item.
Contracting officers must follow these
regulations even though no DoD
appropriated funds are being used to
pay for the effort, and DoD contracting
officers have no insight to pricing of the
indirect offset. In the past several years,
compliance with regulations has
resulted in an inability of contracting
officers to finalize FMS contract
negotiations.
The interim rule affirms that all offset
costs that involve benefits provided by
a U.S. defense contractor to an FMS
customer that are unrelated to the item
being purchased under a Letter of Offer
and Acceptance (LOA), i.e., indirect
offset costs, are deemed reasonable for
purposes of FAR part 31. The rule
provides that no additional analysis is
necessary on the part of the contracting
officer, provided that the U.S. defense
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Jun 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
contractor submits to the contracting
officer a signed offset agreement or other
documentation showing that the FMS
customer has made the provision of an
indirect offset of a certain dollar value
a condition of the FMS acquisition.
Finally, the rule provides that the FMS
customer shall be notified through the
LOA that indirect offset costs are
deemed reasonable without any further
analysis by the contracting officer.
It is essential that DoD implement this
interim rule immediately to clarify that
contracting officers are not required to
make price reasonableness
determinations on costs associated with
indirect offsets under FMS agreements,
which, while included in the FMS
contract, fall outside of the DoD
contracting officer’s purview. Immediate
implementation will allow DoD
contracting officers to finalize pending
negotiations for FMS contracts to
support U.S. allies and partners, and
maintain bilateral relationships.
However, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707
and FAR 1.501–3(b), DoD will consider
public comments received in response
to this interim rule in the formation of
the final rule.
225.7303–2 Cost of doing business with a
foreign government or an international
organization.
(a) * * *
(3) Offsets. For additional information
see PGI 225.7303–2(a)(3)), and also see
225.7306.
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) All offset costs that involve
benefits provided by the U.S. defense
contractor to the FMS customer that are
unrelated to the item being purchased
under the LOA (indirect offset costs) are
deemed reasonable for purposes of FAR
part 31 with no further analysis
necessary on the part of the contracting
officer, provided that the U.S. defense
contractor submits to the contracting
officer a signed offset agreement or other
documentation showing that the FMS
customer has made the provision of an
indirect offset of a certain dollar value
a condition of the FMS acquisition. FMS
customers are placed on notice through
the LOA that indirect offset costs are
deemed reasonable without any further
analysis by the contracting officer.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–12901 Filed 6–1–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5006–01–P
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 225
Government procurement.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Amy G. Williams,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Therefore, 48 CFR part 225 is
amended as follows:
50 CFR Part 218
PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION
RIN 0648–BE51
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 225 continues to read as follows:
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Joint
Logistics Over-the-Shore Training
Activities in Virginia and North
Carolina
■
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
2. Amend section 225.7301 by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
225.7301
General.
(a) The U.S. Government sells defense
articles and services to foreign
governments or international
organizations through FMS agreements.
The agreement is documented in a
Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA)
(see the Defense Security Cooperation
Agency (DSCA) Security Assistance
Management Manual (DSCA 5105.38–
M)).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend section 225.7303–2 by—
■ a. Adding a heading to paragraph
(a)(3), and revising the introductory text
of paragraph (a)(3); and
■ b. Adding a new paragraph (a)(3)(iii).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[Docket No. 140909771–5427–02]
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Upon application from the
U.S. Navy (Navy), we (the National
Marine Fisheries Service) are issuing
regulations under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) to govern the
unintentional taking of marine
mammals incidental to the Joint
Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS)
training activities conducted in Virginia
and North Carolina, from June 2015
through June 2020. These regulations
allows us to issue a Letter of
Authorization (LOA) for the incidental
take of marine mammals during the
Navy’s specified activities and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31309-31310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12901]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
48 CFR Part 225
RIN 0750-AI59
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Offset Costs
(DFARS Case 2015-D028)
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD is issuing an interim rule amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to clarify requirements
related to costs associated with indirect offsets under Foreign
Military Sales agreements.
DATES: Effective June 2, 2015.
Comment Date: Comments on the interim rule should be submitted in
writing to the address shown below on or before August 3, 2015, to be
considered in the formation of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2015-D028, using
any of the following methods:
[cir] Regulations.gov: https://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering ``DFARS Case 2015-D028''
under the heading ``Enter keyword or ID'' and selecting ``Search.''
Select the link ``Submit a Comment'' that corresponds with ``DFARS Case
2015-D028.'' Follow the instructions provided at the ``Submit a
Comment'' screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and
``DFARS Case 2015-D028'' on your attached document.
[cir] Email: osd.dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2015-D028 in
the subject line of the message.
[cir] Fax: 571-372-6094.
[cir] Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Mark
Gomersall, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301-3060.
Comments received generally will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To
confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov,
approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting
(except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Gomersall, telephone 571-372-
6099.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
This interim rule revises DFARS 225.7303-2, ``Cost of doing
business with a foreign government or an international organization,''
by adding paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to provide guidelines to contracting
officers when an indirect offset is a condition of a Foreign Military
Sales (FMS) acquisition. A reference to the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency manual is also updated at DFARS 225.7301.
This interim rule specifically addresses indirect offsets as they
are applied to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency's FMS cases.
II. Discussion and Analysis
DoD administers FMS programs to maintain and strengthen
relationships with partner nations. Failure to nurture these
relationships may create a threat to national security. DoD's FMS
program allows foreign customers to request, and pay for, through
inclusion of the cost in the FMS Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA)
and DoD contract, offsets that are directly related to the FMS end
items (i.e., ``direct offsets''), as well as offsets that are not
directly related to the end item (i.e., ``indirect offsets'').
DoD recognizes the need to have offsets embedded in DoD FMS
contracts. However, the decision whether to engage in indirect offsets
and the responsibility for negotiating and implementing these offset
arrangements ultimately reside with the FMS customer and contractor(s)
involved. Thus, the DoD contracting officer is not provided the
information necessary to negotiate cost or price of the indirect
offsets, particularly with respect to price reasonableness
determinations pursuant to FAR part 15. This interim rule provides that
under these circumstances, when the provision of an indirect offset is
a condition of the FMS acquisition, and provided that the U.S. defense
contractor submits to the contracting officer an offset agreement or
other substantiating documentation, the indirect offset costs are
deemed reasonable for the purposes of FAR part 31.
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 does 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. However, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed, and is summarized
as follows:
The objective of this rule is to provide clarification to
contracting officers when indirect offsets are a condition of an FMS
acquisition. This rule revises DFARS 225.7303-2, ``Cost of doing
business with a foreign government or an international organization,''
by adding paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to provide guidelines to contracting
officers when an indirect offset is a condition of a Foreign Military
Sales (FMS) acquisition. This interim rule specifically addresses
indirect offsets as they are applied to the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency's FMS cases.
This rule does not add any reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other
Federal rules. This rule does not impose any significant economic
burden on small firms because the DFARS amendments merely clarify that
contracting officers are not responsible for making a determination of
price reasonableness for indirect offset agreements, which are not
within their purview.
DoD did not identify any alternatives that could reduce the burden
and still meet the objectives of the rule.
DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other
interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small
entities.
DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the
existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments
separately and should cite 5
[[Page 31310]]
U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2015-D028), in correspondence.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The 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).
VI. Determination to Issue an Interim Rule
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary
of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this
interim rule without prior opportunity for public comment. DoD
administers FMS programs to maintain and strengthen relationships with
partner nations. Failure to nurture these relationships may create a
threat to national security. This action is necessary because of the
recent and foreseeable trend of increasing numbers and complexity of
indirect offsets desired by DoD's Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
customers.
Currently, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) 225.7303-2(a)(3)(ii) provides that the U.S. Government assumes
no obligation to satisfy or administer the offset requirement or to
bear any of the associated costs. However, DFARS 225.7301(b) provides
that the U.S. Government conduct FMS acquisitions under the same
acquisition and contract management procedures used for other defense
acquisitions. This requires the contracting officer to adhere to FAR
provisions concerning the negotiation of contracts and subcontracts
(FAR part 15) and contract cost principles (FAR part 31), and thus be
capable of attesting to the price reasonableness of FMS contracts,
including indirect offset costs that are not tied directly to the end
item. Contracting officers must follow these regulations even though no
DoD appropriated funds are being used to pay for the effort, and DoD
contracting officers have no insight to pricing of the indirect offset.
In the past several years, compliance with regulations has resulted in
an inability of contracting officers to finalize FMS contract
negotiations.
The interim rule affirms that all offset costs that involve
benefits provided by a U.S. defense contractor to an FMS customer that
are unrelated to the item being purchased under a Letter of Offer and
Acceptance (LOA), i.e., indirect offset costs, are deemed reasonable
for purposes of FAR part 31. The rule provides that no additional
analysis is necessary on the part of the contracting officer, provided
that the U.S. defense contractor submits to the contracting officer a
signed offset agreement or other documentation showing that the FMS
customer has made the provision of an indirect offset of a certain
dollar value a condition of the FMS acquisition. Finally, the rule
provides that the FMS customer shall be notified through the LOA that
indirect offset costs are deemed reasonable without any further
analysis by the contracting officer.
It is essential that DoD implement this interim rule immediately to
clarify that contracting officers are not required to make price
reasonableness determinations on costs associated with indirect offsets
under FMS agreements, which, while included in the FMS contract, fall
outside of the DoD contracting officer's purview. Immediate
implementation will allow DoD contracting officers to finalize pending
negotiations for FMS contracts to support U.S. allies and partners, and
maintain bilateral relationships. However, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707
and FAR 1.501-3(b), DoD will consider public comments received in
response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 225
Government procurement.
Amy G. Williams,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
Therefore, 48 CFR part 225 is amended as follows:
PART 225--FOREIGN ACQUISITION
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 225 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
0
2. Amend section 225.7301 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
225.7301 General.
(a) The U.S. Government sells defense articles and services to
foreign governments or international organizations through FMS
agreements. The agreement is documented in a Letter of Offer and
Acceptance (LOA) (see the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
Security Assistance Management Manual (DSCA 5105.38-M)).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend section 225.7303-2 by--
0
a. Adding a heading to paragraph (a)(3), and revising the introductory
text of paragraph (a)(3); and
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (a)(3)(iii).
The revision and additions read as follows:
225.7303-2 Cost of doing business with a foreign government or an
international organization.
(a) * * *
(3) Offsets. For additional information see PGI 225.7303-2(a)(3)),
and also see 225.7306.
* * * * *
(iii) All offset costs that involve benefits provided by the U.S.
defense contractor to the FMS customer that are unrelated to the item
being purchased under the LOA (indirect offset costs) are deemed
reasonable for purposes of FAR part 31 with no further analysis
necessary on the part of the contracting officer, provided that the
U.S. defense contractor submits to the contracting officer a signed
offset agreement or other documentation showing that the FMS customer
has made the provision of an indirect offset of a certain dollar value
a condition of the FMS acquisition. FMS customers are placed on notice
through the LOA that indirect offset costs are deemed reasonable
without any further analysis by the contracting officer.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-12901 Filed 6-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5006-01-P