Federal Acquisition Regulation: Exception From Certified Cost or Pricing Data Requirements-Adequate Price Competition, 27303-27305 [2018-12539]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
841, at II–747 (1986) (Conf. Rep.), 1986–
3 (vol. 4) C.B. 608 (stating that the
conference agreement follows the House
bill and the Senate amendment on this
restriction).
To clarify the scope of the investmenttype property definition consistent with
Congressional intent reflected in the
legislative history, the Proposed
Regulations would provide an express
exception to the definition of
investment-type property for capital
projects that further the public purposes
for which the tax-exempt bonds were
issued. For example, investment-type
property does not include a courthouse
financed with governmental bonds or an
eligible exempt facility under section
142, such as a public road, financed
with private activity bonds.
2. Applicability Dates and Reliance
The proposed amendments to the
definition of investment-type property
in the Proposed Regulations are
proposed to apply to bonds sold on or
after the date that is 90 days after the
date of publication of a Treasury
Decision adopting these rules as final
regulations in the Federal Register.
Issuers may apply the Proposed
Regulations to bonds that are sold before
the applicability date provided in a
Treasury Decision adopting these rules
as final regulations in the Federal
Register.
pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Special Analyses
This regulation is not subject to
review under section 6(b) of Executive
Order 12866 pursuant to the
Memorandum of Agreement (April 11,
2018) between the Department of the
Treasury and the Office of Management
and Budget regarding review of tax
regulations. Because these regulations
do not impose a collection of
information on small entities, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to
section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice
of proposed rulemaking will be
submitted to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on its
impact on small entities.
Comments and Requests for Public
Hearing
Before the Proposed Regulations are
adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any
comments that are submitted timely to
the IRS as prescribed in this preamble
under the ADDRESSES heading. The
Treasury Department and the IRS
request comments on all aspects of the
proposed rules. All comments will be
available at www.regulations.gov or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:09 Jun 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
upon request. A public hearing will be
scheduled if requested in writing by any
person that timely submits written
comments. If a public hearing is
scheduled, notice of the date, time, and
place for the hearing will be published
in the Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The principal authors of these
regulations are Spence Hanemann of the
Office of Associate Chief Counsel
(Financial Institutions and Products)
and Vicky Tsilas, formerly of the Office
of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial
Institutions and Products). However,
other personnel from the Treasury
Department and the IRS participated in
their development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 1 continues to read in part as
follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.148–0(c) is amended
by adding entries for §§ 1.148–1(e)(4)
and 1.148–11(n) to read as follows:
■
§ 1.148–0
*
Scope and table of contents.
*
*
(c) * * *
§ 1.148–1
*
*
Definitions and elections.
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(4) Exception for certain capital
projects.
*
*
*
*
*
Effective/applicability dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) Investment-type property.
■ Par. 3. Section 1.148–1 is amended
by:
■ 1. Revising the first sentence of
paragraph (e)(1).
■ 2. Adding paragraph (e)(4).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
§ 1.148–1
Definitions and elections.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Investment-type property—(1) In
general. Except as otherwise provided
in this paragraph (e), investment-type
property includes any property, other
than property described in section
148(b)(2)(A), (B), (C), or (E), that is held
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
principally as a passive vehicle for the
production of income. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Exception for certain capital
projects. Investment-type property does
not include real property or tangible
personal property (for example, land,
buildings, and equipment) that is used
in furtherance of the public purposes for
which the tax-exempt bonds are issued.
For example, investment-type property
does not include a courthouse financed
with governmental bonds or an eligible
exempt facility under section 142, such
as a public road, financed with private
activity bonds.
*
*
*
*
*
■ Par. 4. Section 1.148–11 is amended
by adding paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
§ 1.148–11
Effective/applicability dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) Investment-type property. Section
1.148–1(e)(1) and (4) apply to bonds
sold on or after the date that is 90 days
after the date of publication of a
Treasury Decision adopting these rules
as final regulations in the Federal
Register.
Kirsten Wielobob,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2018–12565 Filed 6–11–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
*
§ 1.148–11
27303
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 15
[FAR Case 2017–006; Docket No. 2017–
0006, Sequence No. 1]
RIN 9000–AN53
Federal Acquisition Regulation:
Exception From Certified Cost or
Pricing Data Requirements—Adequate
Price Competition
Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
DoD, GSA, and NASA are
proposing to amend the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to provide
guidance to DoD, NASA, and the Coast
Guard, consistent with a section of the
National Defense Authorization Act for
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
27304
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Fiscal Year 2017 that addresses the
exception from certified cost or pricing
data requirements when price is based
on adequate price competition.
DATES: Interested parties should submit
written comments to the Regulatory
Secretariat at one of the addresses
shown below on or before August 13,
2018 to be considered in the formation
of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in
response to FAR Case 2017–006 by any
of the following methods:
Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit comments
via the Federal eRulemaking portal by
entering ‘‘FAR Case 2017–006’’ under
the heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and
selecting ‘‘Search’’. Select the link
‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds
with ‘‘FAR Case 2017–006’’. Follow the
instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a
Comment’’ screen. Please include your
name, company name (if any), and
‘‘FAR Case 2017–006’’ on your attached
document.
Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(MVCB), ATTN: Lois Mandell, 1800 F
Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20405–0001.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite ‘‘FAR Case 2017–006’’ in
all correspondence related to this case.
All comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal and/or business confidential
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Michael O. Jackson, Procurement
Analyst, at 202–208–4949 for
clarification of content. For information
pertaining to status or publication
schedules, contact the Regulatory
Secretariat at 202–501–4755. Please cite
FAR Case 2017–006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing
to provide a separate standard for
‘‘adequate price competition’’ in the
FAR, applicable only to DoD, NASA,
and the Coast Guard, consistent with the
requirements of section 822 of the
National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub.
L. 114–328). Setting forth the separate
standard for DoD, NASA, and the Coast
Guard in the FAR provides a top-level
framework to facilitate consistent
implementation of section 822 at the
agency level by DoD, NASA, and the
Coast Guard. Section 822 modifies 10
U.S.C. 2306a, the Truth in Negotiations
Act, which is applicable only to DoD,
NASA, and the Coast Guard. Section
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:09 Jun 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
822 limits the exception for price based
on adequate price competition to
circumstances in which there is
adequate competition that results in at
least two or more responsive and viable
competing bids.
II. Discussion and Analysis
This proposed rule modifies the
standard for adequate price competition
at FAR 15.403–1(c)(1), to provide a
separate standard for DoD, NASA, and
the Coast Guard. There are also
conforming changes to the cross
references at FAR 15.305(a)(1) and
15.404–1(b)(2)(i).
III. Applicability to Contracts at or
Below the Simplified Acquisition
Threshold and for Commercial Items,
Including Commercially Available Offthe-Shelf Items
This rule does not contain any
provision or clause that applies to
contracts or subcontracts at or below the
simplified acquisition threshold or
contracts or subcontracts for the
acquisition of commercial items,
including commercially available offthe-shelf items.
IV. 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.
V. Executive Order 13771
This proposed rule is not expected to
be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action,
because this proposed rule is not
significant under E.O. 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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. However, an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been
performed and is summarized as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This rule proposes to provide a separate
standard for ‘‘adequate price competition’’ in
the FAR for DoD, NASA, and the Coast
Guard, consistent with the requirements of
section 822 of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114–328).
The objective of this rule is to clarify that
there is a different standard applicable to
DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, and to
provide a top-level framework to facilitate
consistent implementation of section 822 at
the agency level by DoD, NASA, and the
Coast Guard. The statutory basis is 10 U.S.C.
2306a, as amended by section 822 of the
NDAA for FY 2017.
This rule only provides a statement of
internal guidance to DoD, NASA, and the
Coast Guard, i.e., ‘‘For DoD, NASA, and the
Coast Guard, a price is based on adequate
price competition only if two or more
offerors, competing independently, submit
responsive and viable offers.’’ This principle
will not have impact on small entities until
implemented at the agency level by DoD,
NASA, and the Coast Guard.
There are no projected reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements of the rule. The rule amends
the standards for adequate price competition
for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard.
However, the corollary of this FAR change is
that DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard will
be required to obtain certified cost or pricing
data from an offeror when only one offer is
received and no other exception applies. The
rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with any other Federal rules.
Since this rule does not impose a burden
on small entities, DoD, GSA, and NASA were
unable to identify any alternatives that would
reduce burden on small business and still
meet the requirements of the statute.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division
has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of the
IRFA may be obtained from the
Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD,
GSA, and NASA invite comments from
small business concerns and other
interested parties on the expected
impact of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also
consider comments from small entities
concerning the existing regulations in
subparts affected by the rule consistent
with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties
must submit such comments separately
and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case
2017–006), in correspondence.
VII. 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).
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 15
Government procurement.
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Dated: June 6, 2018.
William F. Clark,
Director, Office of Government-wide
Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition
Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA
proposes to amend 48 CFR part 15 as set
forth below:
PART 15—CONTRACTING BY
NEGOTIATION
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 15 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C.
chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
15.305
[Amended]
2. Amend section 15.305 by removing
from paragraph (a)(1) in the fourth
sentence ‘‘(see 15.403–1(c)(1)(i)(B))’’ and
adding ‘‘(see 15.403–1(c)(1)(i)(A)(2))’’ in
its place.
■ 3. Amend section 15.403–1 by—
■ a. Revising the heading of paragraph
(c); and
■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
■
15.403–1 Prohibition on obtaining certified
cost or pricing data (10 U.S.C. 2306a and 41
U.S.C. chapter 35).
pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Standards for exceptions from
certified cost or pricing data
requirements.
(1) Adequate price competition. (i)
For agencies other than DoD, NASA,
and the Coast Guard, a price is based on
adequate price competition if—
(A) Two or more responsible offerors,
competing independently, submit
priced offers that satisfy the
Government’s expressed requirement
and if—
(1) Award will be made to the offeror
whose proposal represents the best
value (see 2.101) where price is a
substantial factor in source selection;
and
(2) There is no finding that the price
of the otherwise successful offeror is
unreasonable. Any finding that the price
is unreasonable must be supported by a
statement of the facts and approved at
a level above the contracting officer;
(B) There was a reasonable
expectation, based on market research
or other assessment, that two or more
responsible offerors, competing
independently, would submit priced
offers in response to the solicitation’s
expressed requirement, even though
only one offer is received from a
responsible offeror and if—
(1) Based on the offer received, the
contracting officer can reasonably
conclude that the offer was submitted
with the expectation of competition,
e.g., circumstances indicate that—
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:09 Jun 11, 2018
Jkt 244001
(i) The offeror believed that at least
one other offeror was capable of
submitting a meaningful offer; and
(ii) The offeror had no reason to
believe that other potential offerors did
not intend to submit an offer; and
(2) The determination that the
proposed price is based on adequate
price competition and is reasonable has
been approved at a level above the
contracting officer; or
(C) Price analysis clearly
demonstrates that the proposed price is
reasonable in comparison with current
or recent prices for the same or similar
items, adjusted to reflect changes in
market conditions, economic
conditions, quantities, or terms and
conditions under contracts that resulted
from adequate price competition.
(ii) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast
Guard, a price is based on adequate
price competition only if two or more
responsible offerors, competing
independently, submit responsive and
viable offers. (10 U.S.C.
2306a(b)(1)(A)(i)).
*
*
*
*
*
15.404–1
[Amended]
4. Amend section 15.404–1 by
removing from paragraph (b)(2)(i) ‘‘(see
15.403–1(c)(1)(i))’’ and adding ‘‘(see
15.403–1(c)(1)(i) and (ii))’’ in its place.
■
[FR Doc. 2018–12539 Filed 6–11–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 180202124–8124–01]
RIN 0648–BH59
International Fisheries; Eastern Pacific
Tuna Fisheries; Western and Central
Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory
Species; Area of Overlap Between the
Convention Areas of the InterAmerican Tropical Tuna Commission
and the Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking; request for comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS is considering whether
to continue, or to revise, the
management regime for fishing vessels
that target tuna and other highly
migratory fish species (HMS) in the area
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27305
of overlapping jurisdiction between the
Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC) and the
Commission for the Conservation and
Management of Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks in the Western and Central
Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) in the tropical
Pacific Ocean. To that end, we are
issuing this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking to seek public input about
whether U.S. fishing vessels fishing in
that area should be governed by
conservation measures adopted by
IATTC or conservation measures
adopted by WCPFC.
DATES: Comments on this advance
notice of proposed rulemaking must be
submitted in writing by July 12, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2018–0049, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=
NOAA-NMFS-2018-0049, click the
‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete the
required fields, and enter or attach your
comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Michael D. Tosatto, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Pacific Islands
Regional Office, 1845 Wasp Blvd.,
Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.
• Fax: (808) 725–5215; Attn: Michael
D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator,
NMFS, Pacific Islands Regional Office.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, might not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name and address),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The United States is a member of both
the IATTC and WCPFC. The convention
areas for the IATTC and WCPFC overlap
in the Pacific Ocean waters within a
rectangular area bounded by 50° S
latitude, 150° W longitude, 130° W
longitude, and 4° S latitude (‘‘overlap
area’’). Historically, regulations
implementing the conservation
measures adopted by the IATTC (see 50
E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM
12JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27303-27305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12539]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 15
[FAR Case 2017-006; Docket No. 2017-0006, Sequence No. 1]
RIN 9000-AN53
Federal Acquisition Regulation: Exception From Certified Cost or
Pricing Data Requirements--Adequate Price Competition
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to provide guidance to DoD, NASA, and the
Coast Guard, consistent with a section of the National Defense
Authorization Act for
[[Page 27304]]
Fiscal Year 2017 that addresses the exception from certified cost or
pricing data requirements when price is based on adequate price
competition.
DATES: Interested parties should submit written comments to the
Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addresses shown below on or before
August 13, 2018 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2017-006 by any of
the following methods:
Regulations.gov: https://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via
the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering ``FAR Case 2017-006'' under
the heading ``Enter Keyword or ID'' and selecting ``Search''. Select
the link ``Submit a Comment'' that corresponds with ``FAR Case 2017-
006''. Follow the instructions provided at the ``Submit a Comment''
screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and ``FAR Case
2017-006'' on your attached document.
Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(MVCB), ATTN: Lois Mandell, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC
20405-0001.
Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite ``FAR Case 2017-
006'' in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal and/or business confidential information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael O. Jackson, Procurement
Analyst, at 202-208-4949 for clarification of content. For information
pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory
Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2017-006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to provide a separate standard for
``adequate price competition'' in the FAR, applicable only to DoD,
NASA, and the Coast Guard, consistent with the requirements of section
822 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2017 (Pub. L. 114-328). Setting forth the separate standard for
DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard in the FAR provides a top-level
framework to facilitate consistent implementation of section 822 at the
agency level by DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard. Section 822 modifies 10
U.S.C. 2306a, the Truth in Negotiations Act, which is applicable only
to DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard. Section 822 limits the exception for
price based on adequate price competition to circumstances in which
there is adequate competition that results in at least two or more
responsive and viable competing bids.
II. Discussion and Analysis
This proposed rule modifies the standard for adequate price
competition at FAR 15.403-1(c)(1), to provide a separate standard for
DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard. There are also conforming changes to
the cross references at FAR 15.305(a)(1) and 15.404-1(b)(2)(i).
III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition
Threshold and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available
Off-the-Shelf Items
This rule does not contain any provision or clause that applies to
contracts or subcontracts at or below the simplified acquisition
threshold or contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of
commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.
IV. 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.
V. Executive Order 13771
This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory
action, because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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.
However, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been
performed and is summarized as follows:
This rule proposes to provide a separate standard for ``adequate
price competition'' in the FAR for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard,
consistent with the requirements of section 822 of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 (Pub. L.
114-328).
The objective of this rule is to clarify that there is a
different standard applicable to DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, and
to provide a top-level framework to facilitate consistent
implementation of section 822 at the agency level by DoD, NASA, and
the Coast Guard. The statutory basis is 10 U.S.C. 2306a, as amended
by section 822 of the NDAA for FY 2017.
This rule only provides a statement of internal guidance to DoD,
NASA, and the Coast Guard, i.e., ``For DoD, NASA, and the Coast
Guard, a price is based on adequate price competition only if two or
more offerors, competing independently, submit responsive and viable
offers.'' This principle will not have impact on small entities
until implemented at the agency level by DoD, NASA, and the Coast
Guard.
There are no projected reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements of the rule. The rule amends the standards
for adequate price competition for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard.
However, the corollary of this FAR change is that DoD, NASA, and the
Coast Guard will be required to obtain certified cost or pricing
data from an offeror when only one offer is received and no other
exception applies. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with any other Federal rules.
Since this rule does not impose a burden on small entities, DoD,
GSA, and NASA were unable to identify any alternatives that would
reduce burden on small business and still meet the requirements of
the statute.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the
IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory
Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small
business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact
of this rule on small entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities
concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule
consistent with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such
comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (FAR Case 2017-006),
in correspondence.
VII. 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).
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 15
Government procurement.
[[Page 27305]]
Dated: June 6, 2018.
William F. Clark,
Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of
Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA proposes to amend 48 CFR part 15 as
set forth below:
PART 15--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 15 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51
U.S.C. 20113.
15.305 [Amended]
0
2. Amend section 15.305 by removing from paragraph (a)(1) in the fourth
sentence ``(see 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)(B))'' and adding ``(see 15.403-
1(c)(1)(i)(A)(2))'' in its place.
0
3. Amend section 15.403-1 by--
0
a. Revising the heading of paragraph (c); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
15.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data (10
U.S.C. 2306a and 41 U.S.C. chapter 35).
* * * * *
(c) Standards for exceptions from certified cost or pricing data
requirements.
(1) Adequate price competition. (i) For agencies other than DoD,
NASA, and the Coast Guard, a price is based on adequate price
competition if--
(A) Two or more responsible offerors, competing independently,
submit priced offers that satisfy the Government's expressed
requirement and if--
(1) Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the
best value (see 2.101) where price is a substantial factor in source
selection; and
(2) There is no finding that the price of the otherwise successful
offeror is unreasonable. Any finding that the price is unreasonable
must be supported by a statement of the facts and approved at a level
above the contracting officer;
(B) There was a reasonable expectation, based on market research or
other assessment, that two or more responsible offerors, competing
independently, would submit priced offers in response to the
solicitation's expressed requirement, even though only one offer is
received from a responsible offeror and if--
(1) Based on the offer received, the contracting officer can
reasonably conclude that the offer was submitted with the expectation
of competition, e.g., circumstances indicate that--
(i) The offeror believed that at least one other offeror was
capable of submitting a meaningful offer; and
(ii) The offeror had no reason to believe that other potential
offerors did not intend to submit an offer; and
(2) The determination that the proposed price is based on adequate
price competition and is reasonable has been approved at a level above
the contracting officer; or
(C) Price analysis clearly demonstrates that the proposed price is
reasonable in comparison with current or recent prices for the same or
similar items, adjusted to reflect changes in market conditions,
economic conditions, quantities, or terms and conditions under
contracts that resulted from adequate price competition.
(ii) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, a price is based on
adequate price competition only if two or more responsible offerors,
competing independently, submit responsive and viable offers. (10
U.S.C. 2306a(b)(1)(A)(i)).
* * * * *
15.404-1 [Amended]
0
4. Amend section 15.404-1 by removing from paragraph (b)(2)(i) ``(see
15.403-1(c)(1)(i))'' and adding ``(see 15.403-1(c)(1)(i) and (ii))'' in
its place.
[FR Doc. 2018-12539 Filed 6-11-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
