General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Transactional Data Reporting, 24512-24516 [2019-11030]

Download as PDF 24512 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2019 / Notices Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 21, 2019. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 2019–10978 Filed 5–24–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210–01–P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (FTC). ACTION: Notice and request for comment. The FTC requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend for three years the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements contained in the agency’s Mail, internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (MITOR or Rule). The existing clearance expires on May 31, 2019. The public should address comments to this notice to the OMB. DATES: Comments must be received by June 27, 2019. ADDRESSES: Comments in response to this notice should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission within 30 days of this notice. You may submit comments using any of the following methods: Electronic: Write ‘‘MITOR: PRA Comment, P072108,’’ on your comment and file your comment online at https:// www.regulations.gov, by following the instructions on the web-based form. Email: Wendy_L._Liberante@ omb.eop.gov and Susan_M._Minson@ omb.eop.gov. Fax: (202) 395–5806. Mail: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jock Chung, 202–326–2984, Attorney, Enforcement Division, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Drop CC–9528, Washington, DC 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Mail, internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (MITOR or Rule), 16 CFR part 435. OMB Control Number: 3084–0106. Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Abstract: Generally, the MITOR requires a seller (or merchant) to: (1) jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:49 May 24, 2019 Jkt 247001 Have a reasonable basis for any express or implied shipment representation made in soliciting the sale (if no express time period is promised, the implied shipment representation is 30 days); (2) notify the buyer (or consumer) and obtain the buyer’s consent to any delay in shipment; and (3) make prompt and full refunds when the buyer exercises a cancellation option or the seller is unable to meet the Rule’s other requirements. On March 19, 2019, the FTC sought comment on the information collection requirements associated with the Rule. 84 FR 10072. The FTC received no comments during the public comment period. Pursuant to OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the Rule. For more details about the Rule requirements and the basis for the calculations summarized below, see 84 FR 10072. Likely Respondents: Businesses engaged in the sale of merchandise by mail, internet or telephone. Estimated Annual Hours Burden: 2,692,350 hours. Third Party Disclosure: [(44,946 established businesses × 50 hours) + (1,935 new entrants × 230 hours) = 2,692,350 hours. Estimated Annual Cost Burden: $66,501,045, which is derived from 2,692,350 hours × $24.70/hour.1 Request for Comment Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding at the https://www.regulations.gov website. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone’s Social Security number; date of birth; driver’s license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually 1 The hourly wage rates for sales and related workers are updated from the 60-Day Federal Register notice and are based on mean hourly wages found at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ ocwage.htm (‘‘Occupational Employment and Wages–May 2018,’’ U.S. Department of Labor, released March 2019, Table 1 (‘‘National employment and wage data from the Occupational Employment Statistics survey by occupation, May 2018’’). PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any ‘‘trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential’’—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)— including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names. Heather Hippsley, Deputy General Counsel. [FR Doc. 2019–10994 Filed 5–24–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–P GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 3090–0306; Docket No. 2019–0001; Sequence No. 4] General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; Information Collection; Transactional Data Reporting Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance. AGENCY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division is submitting a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clauses 552.216–75 Transactional Data Reporting and 552.238–80 Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting, Alternate I.1 GSA uses this information to establish price reasonableness on certain Government-wide contracts, inform category management activities, collect fees due from buying agencies, and administer the respective programs. DATES: Submit comments on or before: July 29, 2019. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090–0306, Transactional Data Reporting, by any of the following methods: • Regulations.gov: http:// www.regulations.gov. Submit comments SUMMARY: 1 This clause was formerly found at GSAR 552.238–74 but was amended to GSAR 552.238–80 per GSAR case 2016–G502, effective May 23, 2019. See 84 FR 17030 from April 23, 2019. E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2019 / Notices via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds with ‘‘Information Collection 3090–0306, Transactional Data Reporting.’’ Follow the instructions provided at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and ‘‘Information Collection 3090–0306, Transactional Data Reporting’’ on your attached document. • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Mandell/IC 3090–0306, Transactional Data Reporting. Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090–0306, Transactional Data Reporting, in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew McFarland, Office of Acquisition Policy, (301) 758–5880 or matthew.mcfarland@gsa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES A. Purpose Transactional data is generated when a transaction is made between a buyer and seller and shows details of transactions at the line-item level, such as descriptions, quantities, and the prices paid for the items purchased. The Government is increasingly using this data to gain insight into its purchasing patterns, allowing it to identify the most efficient solutions, channels, and sources to meet its mission critical needs. This data is particularly critical to the Government’s use of category management, the business practice of buying common goods and services as an enterprise to eliminate redundancies, increase efficiency, and deliver more value and savings from acquisition programs. Moreover, individual buyers benefit from this data when conducting market research, price analysis, and negotiations. Transactional data is typically possessed by the buyer and seller in a transaction. On the Government (buyer) side, this data is often found in contract writing systems and financial systems. However, these systems are not shared across agencies; in fact, some agencies use multiple versions of these systems. Hence, no mechanism currently exists to compile and analyze transactional data from a wide-range of purchases made across the Government. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:49 May 24, 2019 Jkt 247001 GSA sought to improve the Government’s access to this data through the Transactional Data Reporting final rule, published on June 23, 2016.2 The rule amended the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) by establishing two contract clauses requiring vendors to report transactional data from orders placed against GSA’s Government-wide contract vehicles: • Alternate I of GSAR clause 552.238–80 Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting has been introduced to the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program on a pilot basis, along with corresponding reductions to existing pricing disclosure requirements. • GSAR clause 552.216–75 Transactional Data Reporting is applicable to GSA’s Government-wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) and other Government-wide indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicles established after June 23, 2016.3 As of May 2019, Alliant 2 (unrestricted) is the only vehicle in this class that has been required to, and is using, the Transactional Data Reporting clause. This information collection primarily applies to GSA’s FSS contracts, commonly known as GSA Schedules or Multiple Award Schedules (MAS). These Government-wide contracts provide federal agencies with a simplified process for acquiring commercial supplies and services. The GSA FSS program is the Government’s preeminent commercial contracting vehicle, accounting for about 10 percent of all federal contract dollars with approximately $33 billion of purchases made through the program in fiscal year 2018. GSA establishes the pricing and terms of each GSA Schedule contract with commercial vendors. Federal agencies then follow GSA’s competitive procedures when placing orders against these contracts and thereby satisfy statutory competition requirements to provide ‘‘the lowest overall cost alternative to meet the needs of the Federal Government.’’ 4 In turn, those agencies must pay an Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) that covers GSA’s costs of operating the FSS program. The fee is currently set at 0.75% and is included in the prices ordering activities pay vendors when purchasing 2 See GSAR Case 2013–G504; Docket 2014–0020; Sequence 1 [81 FR 41104 (June 23, 2016)]. 3 The rule does not apply to FSS contracts administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 4 41 U.S.C. 152(3)(B) requires FSS ordering procedures to ‘‘result in the lowest overall cost alternative to meet the needs of the Federal Government.’’ PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24513 from an FSS contract.5 FSS vendors then report GSA Schedule sales data and remit the IFF collected from ordering activities to GSA once a quarter. There were a total of 16,215 FSS contracts in fiscal year 2018. This information collection pertains to the 2,063 contracts that participated in the Transactional Data Reporting pilot. The remaining 14,152 contracts are subject to legacy sales reporting requirements and pricing disclosure requirements associated with Commercial Sales Practices (CSP) and GSAR clause 552.238–81 Price Reductions, otherwise known as the Price Reductions Clause (PRC); those requirements are accounted for under separate information collection identified by OMB control number 3090–0235.6 GSA believes Transactional Data Reporting offers a meaningful burden reduction for FSS vendors. GSA estimates the combined burden of this information collection is 49% less per contract than the legacy sales reporting requirements and CSP and PRC disclosures associated with OMB control number 3090–0235. GSA estimates if all FSS vendors participated in Transactional Data Reporting, they would realize an estimated annual burden reduction of $30.8 million.7 On the other hand, GSA estimates ending the FSS pilot will cost participating vendors nearly $15 million and GSA approximately $3 million to transition to the legacy sales reporting and CSP and PRC disclosure requirements unless an alternate method is created to collect the IFF, monitor program sales and establish and monitor contract pricing.8 5 The IFF for Schedule 599, Special Item Number 599–2 is $1.50 per transaction. 6 The PRC was formerly found at GSAR 552.238– 75 but was amended to GSAR 552.238–81 per GSAR case 2016–G502, effective May 23, 2019. See 84 FR 17030 from April 23, 2019. 7 The estimated burden for this information collection, which applied to the 14,152 contracts not participating in the Transactional Data Reporting pilot, is estimated to be $94.2 million. This equates to a per-contract burden of $6,662/ year. The estimated burden for the Transactional Data Reporting information collection is $9.2 million/year for the 2,063 contracts participating in the FSS pilot; this equates to a per-contract the burden of $4,483/year. The estimated $30.8 million/ year burden reduction is calculated by taking the updated 3090–0235 burden estimate ($94.2 million/ year) and subtracting the product of the number of contracts included in 3090–0235 multiplied by the average per-contract burden of Transactional Data Reporting (14,152 contracts × $4,483), which equals $63.4 million/year ($94.2M¥$63.4M = $30.8M). More information about the Transactional Data Reporting burden can be found under Information Collection 3090–0306 at http://www.reginfo.gov/ public by searching ‘‘ICR’’ for ‘‘3090–0306’’. 8 Vendors transitioning back to the CSP/PRC framework would have to submit CSPs to establish E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM Continued 28MYN1 24514 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2019 / Notices The Paperwork Reduction Act generally requires information collections to be renewed every three years.9 Both this information collection (OMB control number 3090–0306) and the information collection associated with legacy sales reporting and CSP and PRC disclosure requirements (OMB control number 3090–0235) were last approved in 2016, so GSA is now obtaining extensions to both information collections.10 This request for comments only pertains to the information collection requirements associated with Transactional Data Reporting (OMB control number 3090–0306). GSA has also posted a separate notice requesting comments on the information collection associated with legacy sales reporting and CSP and PRC disclosure requirements (OMB control number 3090–0235). Information Collection Changes and Updates jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Adjustments for Actual Number of Contracts: The Transactional Data Reporting pilot had yet to launch when these burden estimates were previously calculated in 2016, so GSA based its estimates for the number of contracts that would participate on the total number of contracts under the Schedules and Special Item Numbers eligible for the pilot: • The ratio of GSA Schedule contracts that would continue to require legacy sales reporting and CSP and PRC disclosures was estimated to be 56.8%, which was based on the percentage of the program’s sales in fiscal year 2015 for contracts that would not be eligible to participate in the Transactional Data Reporting pilot. • The ratio of GSA Schedule contracts slated to be included in the Transactional Data Reporting pilot was estimated to account for the remaining 43.2%. basis of award pricing. As of December 2018, 2,158 vendors were participating in the Transactional Data Reporting pilot. Using the framework for new offer CSPs in this information collection, 2,158 new offer CSPs would equate to a burden of $11.5 million. This same framework would show increased costs of $3 million for GSA to process 2,158 new offer CSPs. Additionally, these vendors would also need to establish sales tracking systems to comply with the sales reporting requirements of the basic version of GSAR clause 552.238–80. Using the sales reporting cost estimation framework for establishing new systems from OMB control number 3090–0235, this would cost these vendors $3.1 million. 9 44 U.S.C. 3507(g). 10 GSA is consolidating a separate information collection for IFF and sales reporting (OMB control number 3090–0121) with the pricing disclosures information collection (OMB control number 3090– 0235) because the burdens are interdependent. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:49 May 24, 2019 Jkt 247001 However, pilot participation became optional in 2017 and the number of contracts that eventually joined the pilot was far lower than anticipated in 2016. Of the 16,215 contracts that were active in FY 2018— • 14,152 contracts, or 87.28% of the total, were required to conduct legacy sales reporting and provide CSP and PRC disclosures. • 2,063 contracts, or 12.72% of the total, participated in the Transactional Data Reporting pilot. Additionally, only one non-FSS contract vehicle, Alliant 2 (unrestricted), currently uses the nonFSS Transactional Data Reporting clause. The last revision of these burden estimates relied upon the total number of non-FSS contracts (537) that would be eligible had they been awarded after the Transactional Data Reporting rule was promulgated. As a result, the number of non-FSS contracts was lowered from 537 to the actual number of contracts using the applicable clause, 53. Accordingly, the revised participation figures resulted in significantly lower burden estimates for this information collection. On the other hand, the FSS pilot participation revisions resulted in significantly higher burden estimates for the information collection accounting for CSP and PRC disclosures and legacy sales reporting (OMB Control Number 3090–0235). Revised Labor Rates: The previous burden estimates used a fully burdened labor rate of $68/hour. This included a $50/hour base rate, which was based on professional judgment, and 36% for fringe benefits, which was rounded down from the 36.25% fringe benefit factor included in OMB Circular A–76. The revised burden estimates attempt to align with the Department of Defense’s Regulatory Cost Analysis Tool (RCAT), which was developed to prepare economic analyses in compliance with Executive Order 13771 and uses various Government labor category rates as the basis for cost estimates. As such, GSA determined— • The GS–12, Step 5 labor rate from the RCAT ($55.19/hour) was the most appropriate for the tasks performed by vendors to comply with monthly reporting requirements; and • The GS–14, Step 5 labor rate from the RCAT ($77.25/hour) was the most appropriate for the tasks performed by vendors to comply with the initial setup. B. Annual Reporting Burden This information collection applies to GSA FSS contracts that include GSAR clauses 552.216–75 Transactional Data PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Reporting and 552.238–80 Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting, Alternate I. In FY 2018, vendors held 53 Alliant 2 contracts subject to clause 552.216–75 and 2,063 GSA FSS contracts subject to Alternate I of GSAR clause 552.238–80. Both clauses require vendors to report the data elements outlined in each clause, such as item descriptions and prices paid, to a GSA website. This data must be reported monthly within 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar month, meaning vendors will furnish 12 reports over the course of a year for each contract containing one of these clauses. Vendors also remit applicable fees, such as the IFF for Schedule contracts, when submitting these reports. Cost Burden Calculation The two primary activities associated with this information collection are the initial setup and monthly reporting. GSA calculated the cost burden for each as follows: • Initial Setup: The duties required for these activities will generally be completely by a senior-level subject matter expert. For the purposes of establishing an hourly rate, GSA equates these duties to those of a GS–14, Step 5 employee, whose hourly rate in 2019 for the ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality is $56.92 an hour.11 When factoring a 36.25 percent overhead rate for fringe benefits, the fully burdened rate is $77.55 an hour.12 • Quarterly Reporting: The duties required for these activities will generally be completed by mid-level personnel. For the purposes of establishing an hourly rate, GSA equates these duties to those of a GS–12, Step 5 employee, whose hourly rate in 2019 for the ‘‘Rest of U.S.’’ locality is $40.51 an hour. When factoring a 36.25 percent overhead rate for fringe benefits, the fully burdened rate is $55.19 an hour. Categorization of Vendors by Monthly Sales Revenue: Transactional Data Reporting imposes a progressive burden—one that increases with a contractor’s sales volume. Monthly 11 General Schedule (GS) labor rates may be viewed on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under Pay & Leave: Salaries and Wages, SALARY TABLE 2019–RUS at https:// www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/ salaries-wages/salary-tables/19Tables/html/RUS_ h.aspx. 12 36.25% overhead rate was used in reference to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A–76. Circular A–76 requires agencies to use standard cost factors to estimate certain costs of Government performance. These cost factors ensure that specific government costs are calculated in a standard and consistent manner to reasonably reflect the cost of performing commercial activities with government personnel. E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 24515 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2019 / Notices reporting times increase with a vendor’s applicable sales volume, as vendors with lower to no reportable sales spend relatively little time on monthly reporting, while those with more reportable sales with face a higher reporting burden. GSA separated vendors into categories based on annual sales volume in order to account for the differences in reporting burden. These categories are: • Category 1: No sales activity (annual of $0) • Category 2: Annual sales between $0 and $25,000 • Category 3: Annual sales between $25,000 and $250,000 • Category 4: Annual sales between $250,000 and $1 million • Category 5: Annual sales over $1 million The distribution of vendors by sales category is as follows: FSS AND NON-FSS VENDORS BY SALES CATEGORY FSS vendors (count) Category Category Category Category Category 1 2 3 4 5 Non-FSS vendors (count) FSS vendors (percentage) Non-FSS vendors (percentage) Total vendor count by category ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... 318 197 619 407 522 15 10 30 20 25 37 0 0 2 14 70 0 0 4 26 355 197 619 409 536 Total .............................................................................. 2,063 100 53 100 2,116 Automated vs. Manual Reporting Systems: Vendors subject to these clauses must create systems or processes to produce and report accurate data. Generally, vendors will use automated or manual systems to identify the transactional data to be reported each month. An automated system is one that relies on information technology, such as an accounting system or data management software, to identify and compile reportable data. These systems can tremendously streamline the reporting process but require upfront configuration to perform the tasks, such as coding the data elements to be retrieved. Conversely, a manual system is one that incorporates little to no automation and instead relies on personnel to manually identify and compile the reportable data. An example of a manual system would be an accountant reviewing invoices to identify the reportable data and then transferring the findings to a spreadsheet. In contrast to automation, a manual system requires relatively little setup time but the reporting effort will generally increase with the vendor’s sales volume. The likelihood of a vendor adopting an automated system increases with their applicable sales volume. Vendors with little to no reportable data are unlikely to expend the effort needed to establish an automated reporting system since it will be relatively easy to identify and report a limited amount of data. In fiscal year 2018, 15% of FSS contracts in the Transactional Data Reporting pilot had $0 sales, while another 10% reported annual sales between $1 and $25,000 per month. However, as a vendor’s applicable average monthly sales increase, it will be increasingly likely to establish an automated system to reduce the monthly reporting burden. Consequently, vendors with higher reportable sales will likely bear a higher setup burden to create an automated system, or absorb a high monthly reporting burden if they choose to rely on manual reporting methods. The following chart depicts the likelihood of the current population adopting manual and automated reporting systems: VENDORS BY REPORTING SYSTEM TYPE [Manual vs. Automated] Manual system (percentage) jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Category Category Category Category Category 1 2 3 4 5 Automated system (percentage) Manual system vendor count Automated system vendor count ....................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... 100 100 90 50 10 0 0 10 50 90 355 197 557 205 54 0 0 62 205 482 Total Count of Vendors by System Type ................................................. Percentage of Vendors by System Type ................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,367 65% 749 35% Initial Setup: Vendors complying with this rule will absorb a one-time setup burden to establish reporting systems. The estimated setup time varies between automated and manual reporting systems. Vendors implementing a manual system must acclimate themselves with the new VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:49 May 24, 2019 Jkt 247001 reporting requirements and train their staff accordingly, while those with automated systems must perform these tasks in addition to configuring information technology resources. GSA estimates the average one-time setup burden is 8 hours for vendors with a PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 manual system and 240 hours for those with an automated system. Monthly Reporting: After initial setup, vendors subject to these clauses are required to report sales within 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar month. The average reporting times vary by system type (manual or E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1 24516 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2019 / Notices automated) and by sales categories. GSA estimates vendors using a manual system will have average monthly reporting times ranging from 15 minutes (0.25 hours) for vendors with $0 sales to an average of 48 hours for vendors with monthly sales over $1 million. On the other hand, GSA projects vendors with automated systems will have reporting times of 2 hours per month, irrespective of monthly sales volume, as a result of efficiencies achieved through automated processes. The following table shows GSA’s projected monthly reporting times per sales category and system type: MONTHLY REPORTING HOURS BY SYSTEM TYPE AND CATEGORY Manual systems jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Category Category Category Category Category 1 2 3 4 5 ............................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................... Automated systems 0.25 2.00 4.00 16.00 48.00 Transactional Data Reporting, in all correspondence. FSS Burden Estimates: A total of 376 FSS contracts joined the Transactional Data Reporting pilot in FY 2018, including 139 newly awarded contracts and 237 existing contracts that voluntarily joined the pilot. The initial setup burden was split between manual and automated systems, the number of which was estimated based on the ratio for all pilot contracts (64% manual, 36% automated). The initial setup burden for those contracts is illustrated below: systems increases with their reported sales while the reporting burden for vendors using automated systems remains constant regardless of the reported sales volume. The reporting burden for those contracts is as follows: Jeffrey A. Koses, Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy. Quarterly Reporting [FR Doc. 2019–11030 Filed 5–24–19; 8:45 am] Initial Setup Annual Burden (Hours): 34,412. Annual Burden (Cost): $2,668,613. Transactional data was reported for 2,063 FSS contracts in FY 2018. As previously noted, the reporting burden for vendors using manual systems increases with their reported sales while the reporting burden for vendors using automated systems remains constant regardless of the reported sales volume. The reporting burden for those contracts is illustrated below: The total estimated burden imposed by Transactional Data Reporting is as follows: Quarterly Reporting Annual Burden (Hours): 119,207. Annual Burden (Cost): $6,579,023. Non-FSS Burden Estimates: The only non-FSS contract vehicle currently using the clause is the Alliant 2 unrestricted contract. 53 Alliant 2 contracts were awarded in FY 2018, meaning each of the contract holders incurred initial setup costs. The initial setup burden was split between manual and automated systems, the number of which was estimated based on the ratio for the Alliant 2 contracts (74% manual, 26% automated). The initial setup burden for those contracts is illustrated below: Initial Setup Annual Burden (Hours): 3,672. Annual Burden (Cost): $284,764. As previously noted, the reporting burden for vendors using manual VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:49 May 24, 2019 Jkt 247001 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 BILLING CODE 6820–61–P Annual Burden (Hours): 1,445. Annual Burden (Cost): $79,772. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Total Annual Burden Estimated Annual Time Burden (Hours) FSS Vendors: 153,619. Non-FSS Vendors: 5,117. Total Annual Time Burden: 158,736. Estimated Annual Cost Burden FSS Vendors: $9,247,636. Non-FSS Vendors: $364,535. Total Annual Cost Burden: $9,612,171. C. Public Comments Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202–501–4755. Please cite Information Collection 3090–0306, PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000–0073; Docket No. 2019–0003; Sequence No. 15] Submission for OMB Review; Advance Payments Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a revision and renewal of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding advanced payments. DATES: Submit comments on or before: June 27, 2019. ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000–0073 by any of the following methods: • Regulations.gov: http:// www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that corresponds with ‘‘Information SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM 28MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24512-24516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11030]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090-0306; Docket No. 2019-0001; Sequence No. 4]


General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; 
Information Collection; Transactional Data Reporting

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration 
(GSA).

ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an 
existing OMB clearance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 
Regulatory Secretariat Division is submitting a request to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) to review and approve an extension of a 
previously approved information collection requirement regarding 
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clauses 
552.216-75 Transactional Data Reporting and 552.238-80 Industrial 
Funding Fee and Sales Reporting, Alternate I.\1\ GSA uses this 
information to establish price reasonableness on certain Government-
wide contracts, inform category management activities, collect fees due 
from buying agencies, and administer the respective programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This clause was formerly found at GSAR 552.238-74 but was 
amended to GSAR 552.238-80 per GSAR case 2016-G502, effective May 
23, 2019. See 84 FR 17030 from April 23, 2019.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Submit comments on or before: July 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-
0306, Transactional Data Reporting, by any of the following methods:
     Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit 
comments

[[Page 24513]]

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. 
Select the link ``Submit a Comment'' that corresponds with 
``Information Collection 3090-0306, Transactional Data Reporting.'' 
Follow the instructions provided at the ``Submit a Comment'' screen. 
Please include your name, company name (if any), and ``Information 
Collection 3090-0306, Transactional Data Reporting'' on your attached 
document.
     Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory 
Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405. 
ATTN: Ms. Mandell/IC 3090-0306, Transactional Data Reporting.
    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information 
Collection 3090-0306, Transactional Data Reporting, in all 
correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will 
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal and/or business confidential information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew McFarland, Office of 
Acquisition Policy, (301) 758-5880 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Purpose

    Transactional data is generated when a transaction is made between 
a buyer and seller and shows details of transactions at the line-item 
level, such as descriptions, quantities, and the prices paid for the 
items purchased. The Government is increasingly using this data to gain 
insight into its purchasing patterns, allowing it to identify the most 
efficient solutions, channels, and sources to meet its mission critical 
needs. This data is particularly critical to the Government's use of 
category management, the business practice of buying common goods and 
services as an enterprise to eliminate redundancies, increase 
efficiency, and deliver more value and savings from acquisition 
programs. Moreover, individual buyers benefit from this data when 
conducting market research, price analysis, and negotiations.
    Transactional data is typically possessed by the buyer and seller 
in a transaction. On the Government (buyer) side, this data is often 
found in contract writing systems and financial systems. However, these 
systems are not shared across agencies; in fact, some agencies use 
multiple versions of these systems. Hence, no mechanism currently 
exists to compile and analyze transactional data from a wide-range of 
purchases made across the Government.
    GSA sought to improve the Government's access to this data through 
the Transactional Data Reporting final rule, published on June 23, 
2016.\2\ The rule amended the General Services Administration 
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) by establishing two contract clauses 
requiring vendors to report transactional data from orders placed 
against GSA's Government-wide contract vehicles:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See GSAR Case 2013-G504; Docket 2014-0020; Sequence 1 [81 FR 
41104 (June 23, 2016)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Alternate I of GSAR clause 552.238-80 Industrial Funding 
Fee and Sales Reporting has been introduced to the Federal Supply 
Schedule (FSS) program on a pilot basis, along with corresponding 
reductions to existing pricing disclosure requirements.
     GSAR clause 552.216-75 Transactional Data Reporting is 
applicable to GSA's Government-wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) and 
other Government-wide indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) 
contract vehicles established after June 23, 2016.\3\ As of May 2019, 
Alliant 2 (unrestricted) is the only vehicle in this class that has 
been required to, and is using, the Transactional Data Reporting 
clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The rule does not apply to FSS contracts administered by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This information collection primarily applies to GSA's FSS 
contracts, commonly known as GSA Schedules or Multiple Award Schedules 
(MAS). These Government-wide contracts provide federal agencies with a 
simplified process for acquiring commercial supplies and services. The 
GSA FSS program is the Government's preeminent commercial contracting 
vehicle, accounting for about 10 percent of all federal contract 
dollars with approximately $33 billion of purchases made through the 
program in fiscal year 2018.
    GSA establishes the pricing and terms of each GSA Schedule contract 
with commercial vendors. Federal agencies then follow GSA's competitive 
procedures when placing orders against these contracts and thereby 
satisfy statutory competition requirements to provide ``the lowest 
overall cost alternative to meet the needs of the Federal Government.'' 
\4\ In turn, those agencies must pay an Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) 
that covers GSA's costs of operating the FSS program. The fee is 
currently set at 0.75% and is included in the prices ordering 
activities pay vendors when purchasing from an FSS contract.\5\ FSS 
vendors then report GSA Schedule sales data and remit the IFF collected 
from ordering activities to GSA once a quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 41 U.S.C. 152(3)(B) requires FSS ordering procedures to 
``result in the lowest overall cost alternative to meet the needs of 
the Federal Government.''
    \5\ The IFF for Schedule 599, Special Item Number 599-2 is $1.50 
per transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were a total of 16,215 FSS contracts in fiscal year 2018. 
This information collection pertains to the 2,063 contracts that 
participated in the Transactional Data Reporting pilot. The remaining 
14,152 contracts are subject to legacy sales reporting requirements and 
pricing disclosure requirements associated with Commercial Sales 
Practices (CSP) and GSAR clause 552.238-81 Price Reductions, otherwise 
known as the Price Reductions Clause (PRC); those requirements are 
accounted for under separate information collection identified by OMB 
control number 3090-0235.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The PRC was formerly found at GSAR 552.238-75 but was 
amended to GSAR 552.238-81 per GSAR case 2016-G502, effective May 
23, 2019. See 84 FR 17030 from April 23, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GSA believes Transactional Data Reporting offers a meaningful 
burden reduction for FSS vendors. GSA estimates the combined burden of 
this information collection is 49% less per contract than the legacy 
sales reporting requirements and CSP and PRC disclosures associated 
with OMB control number 3090-0235. GSA estimates if all FSS vendors 
participated in Transactional Data Reporting, they would realize an 
estimated annual burden reduction of $30.8 million.\7\ On the other 
hand, GSA estimates ending the FSS pilot will cost participating 
vendors nearly $15 million and GSA approximately $3 million to 
transition to the legacy sales reporting and CSP and PRC disclosure 
requirements unless an alternate method is created to collect the IFF, 
monitor program sales and establish and monitor contract pricing.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The estimated burden for this information collection, which 
applied to the 14,152 contracts not participating in the 
Transactional Data Reporting pilot, is estimated to be $94.2 
million. This equates to a per-contract burden of $6,662/year. The 
estimated burden for the Transactional Data Reporting information 
collection is $9.2 million/year for the 2,063 contracts 
participating in the FSS pilot; this equates to a per-contract the 
burden of $4,483/year. The estimated $30.8 million/year burden 
reduction is calculated by taking the updated 3090-0235 burden 
estimate ($94.2 million/year) and subtracting the product of the 
number of contracts included in 3090-0235 multiplied by the average 
per-contract burden of Transactional Data Reporting (14,152 
contracts x $4,483), which equals $63.4 million/year ($94.2M-$63.4M 
= $30.8M). More information about the Transactional Data Reporting 
burden can be found under Information Collection 3090-0306 at http://www.reginfo.gov/public by searching ``ICR'' for ``3090-0306''.
    \8\ Vendors transitioning back to the CSP/PRC framework would 
have to submit CSPs to establish basis of award pricing. As of 
December 2018, 2,158 vendors were participating in the Transactional 
Data Reporting pilot. Using the framework for new offer CSPs in this 
information collection, 2,158 new offer CSPs would equate to a 
burden of $11.5 million. This same framework would show increased 
costs of $3 million for GSA to process 2,158 new offer CSPs. 
Additionally, these vendors would also need to establish sales 
tracking systems to comply with the sales reporting requirements of 
the basic version of GSAR clause 552.238-80. Using the sales 
reporting cost estimation framework for establishing new systems 
from OMB control number 3090-0235, this would cost these vendors 
$3.1 million.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24514]]

    The Paperwork Reduction Act generally requires information 
collections to be renewed every three years.\9\ Both this information 
collection (OMB control number 3090-0306) and the information 
collection associated with legacy sales reporting and CSP and PRC 
disclosure requirements (OMB control number 3090-0235) were last 
approved in 2016, so GSA is now obtaining extensions to both 
information collections.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(g).
    \10\ GSA is consolidating a separate information collection for 
IFF and sales reporting (OMB control number 3090-0121) with the 
pricing disclosures information collection (OMB control number 3090-
0235) because the burdens are interdependent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This request for comments only pertains to the information 
collection requirements associated with Transactional Data Reporting 
(OMB control number 3090-0306). GSA has also posted a separate notice 
requesting comments on the information collection associated with 
legacy sales reporting and CSP and PRC disclosure requirements (OMB 
control number 3090-0235).

Information Collection Changes and Updates

    Adjustments for Actual Number of Contracts: The Transactional Data 
Reporting pilot had yet to launch when these burden estimates were 
previously calculated in 2016, so GSA based its estimates for the 
number of contracts that would participate on the total number of 
contracts under the Schedules and Special Item Numbers eligible for the 
pilot:
     The ratio of GSA Schedule contracts that would continue to 
require legacy sales reporting and CSP and PRC disclosures was 
estimated to be 56.8%, which was based on the percentage of the 
program's sales in fiscal year 2015 for contracts that would not be 
eligible to participate in the Transactional Data Reporting pilot.
     The ratio of GSA Schedule contracts slated to be included 
in the Transactional Data Reporting pilot was estimated to account for 
the remaining 43.2%.
    However, pilot participation became optional in 2017 and the number 
of contracts that eventually joined the pilot was far lower than 
anticipated in 2016. Of the 16,215 contracts that were active in FY 
2018--
     14,152 contracts, or 87.28% of the total, were required to 
conduct legacy sales reporting and provide CSP and PRC disclosures.
     2,063 contracts, or 12.72% of the total, participated in 
the Transactional Data Reporting pilot.
    Additionally, only one non-FSS contract vehicle, Alliant 2 
(unrestricted), currently uses the non-FSS Transactional Data Reporting 
clause. The last revision of these burden estimates relied upon the 
total number of non-FSS contracts (537) that would be eligible had they 
been awarded after the Transactional Data Reporting rule was 
promulgated. As a result, the number of non-FSS contracts was lowered 
from 537 to the actual number of contracts using the applicable clause, 
53.
    Accordingly, the revised participation figures resulted in 
significantly lower burden estimates for this information collection. 
On the other hand, the FSS pilot participation revisions resulted in 
significantly higher burden estimates for the information collection 
accounting for CSP and PRC disclosures and legacy sales reporting (OMB 
Control Number 3090-0235).
    Revised Labor Rates: The previous burden estimates used a fully 
burdened labor rate of $68/hour. This included a $50/hour base rate, 
which was based on professional judgment, and 36% for fringe benefits, 
which was rounded down from the 36.25% fringe benefit factor included 
in OMB Circular A-76. The revised burden estimates attempt to align 
with the Department of Defense's Regulatory Cost Analysis Tool (RCAT), 
which was developed to prepare economic analyses in compliance with 
Executive Order 13771 and uses various Government labor category rates 
as the basis for cost estimates. As such, GSA determined--
     The GS-12, Step 5 labor rate from the RCAT ($55.19/hour) 
was the most appropriate for the tasks performed by vendors to comply 
with monthly reporting requirements; and
     The GS-14, Step 5 labor rate from the RCAT ($77.25/hour) 
was the most appropriate for the tasks performed by vendors to comply 
with the initial setup.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

    This information collection applies to GSA FSS contracts that 
include GSAR clauses 552.216-75 Transactional Data Reporting and 
552.238-80 Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting, Alternate I. In 
FY 2018, vendors held 53 Alliant 2 contracts subject to clause 552.216-
75 and 2,063 GSA FSS contracts subject to Alternate I of GSAR clause 
552.238-80.
    Both clauses require vendors to report the data elements outlined 
in each clause, such as item descriptions and prices paid, to a GSA 
website. This data must be reported monthly within 30 calendar days 
after the end of each calendar month, meaning vendors will furnish 12 
reports over the course of a year for each contract containing one of 
these clauses. Vendors also remit applicable fees, such as the IFF for 
Schedule contracts, when submitting these reports.

Cost Burden Calculation

    The two primary activities associated with this information 
collection are the initial setup and monthly reporting. GSA calculated 
the cost burden for each as follows:
     Initial Setup: The duties required for these activities 
will generally be completely by a senior-level subject matter expert. 
For the purposes of establishing an hourly rate, GSA equates these 
duties to those of a GS-14, Step 5 employee, whose hourly rate in 2019 
for the ``Rest of U.S.'' locality is $56.92 an hour.\11\ When factoring 
a 36.25 percent overhead rate for fringe benefits, the fully burdened 
rate is $77.55 an hour.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ General Schedule (GS) labor rates may be viewed on the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under Pay & Leave: Salaries and 
Wages, SALARY TABLE 2019-RUS at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/19Tables/html/RUS_h.aspx.
    \12\ 36.25% overhead rate was used in reference to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-76. Circular A-76 
requires agencies to use standard cost factors to estimate certain 
costs of Government performance. These cost factors ensure that 
specific government costs are calculated in a standard and 
consistent manner to reasonably reflect the cost of performing 
commercial activities with government personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Quarterly Reporting: The duties required for these 
activities will generally be completed by mid-level personnel. For the 
purposes of establishing an hourly rate, GSA equates these duties to 
those of a GS-12, Step 5 employee, whose hourly rate in 2019 for the 
``Rest of U.S.'' locality is $40.51 an hour. When factoring a 36.25 
percent overhead rate for fringe benefits, the fully burdened rate is 
$55.19 an hour.
    Categorization of Vendors by Monthly Sales Revenue: Transactional 
Data Reporting imposes a progressive burden--one that increases with a 
contractor's sales volume. Monthly

[[Page 24515]]

reporting times increase with a vendor's applicable sales volume, as 
vendors with lower to no reportable sales spend relatively little time 
on monthly reporting, while those with more reportable sales with face 
a higher reporting burden.
    GSA separated vendors into categories based on annual sales volume 
in order to account for the differences in reporting burden. These 
categories are:

 Category 1: No sales activity (annual of $0)
 Category 2: Annual sales between $0 and $25,000
 Category 3: Annual sales between $25,000 and $250,000
 Category 4: Annual sales between $250,000 and $1 million
 Category 5: Annual sales over $1 million

    The distribution of vendors by sales category is as follows:

                                    FSS and Non-FSS Vendors by Sales Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Non-FSS         Non-FSS      Total vendor
                                    FSS vendors     FSS vendors       vendors         vendors        count by
                                      (count)      (percentage)       (count)      (percentage)      category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1......................             318              15              37              70             355
Category 2......................             197              10               0               0             197
Category 3......................             619              30               0               0             619
Category 4......................             407              20               2               4             409
Category 5......................             522              25              14              26             536
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           2,063             100              53             100           2,116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Automated vs. Manual Reporting Systems: Vendors subject to these 
clauses must create systems or processes to produce and report accurate 
data. Generally, vendors will use automated or manual systems to 
identify the transactional data to be reported each month. An automated 
system is one that relies on information technology, such as an 
accounting system or data management software, to identify and compile 
reportable data. These systems can tremendously streamline the 
reporting process but require upfront configuration to perform the 
tasks, such as coding the data elements to be retrieved. Conversely, a 
manual system is one that incorporates little to no automation and 
instead relies on personnel to manually identify and compile the 
reportable data. An example of a manual system would be an accountant 
reviewing invoices to identify the reportable data and then 
transferring the findings to a spreadsheet. In contrast to automation, 
a manual system requires relatively little setup time but the reporting 
effort will generally increase with the vendor's sales volume.
    The likelihood of a vendor adopting an automated system increases 
with their applicable sales volume. Vendors with little to no 
reportable data are unlikely to expend the effort needed to establish 
an automated reporting system since it will be relatively easy to 
identify and report a limited amount of data. In fiscal year 2018, 15% 
of FSS contracts in the Transactional Data Reporting pilot had $0 
sales, while another 10% reported annual sales between $1 and $25,000 
per month. However, as a vendor's applicable average monthly sales 
increase, it will be increasingly likely to establish an automated 
system to reduce the monthly reporting burden. Consequently, vendors 
with higher reportable sales will likely bear a higher setup burden to 
create an automated system, or absorb a high monthly reporting burden 
if they choose to rely on manual reporting methods.
    The following chart depicts the likelihood of the current 
population adopting manual and automated reporting systems:

                                        Vendors by Reporting System Type
                                             [Manual vs. Automated]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Automated                       Automated
                                                  Manual  system      system      Manual  system  system  vendor
                                                    (percentage)   (percentage)     vendor count       count
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1......................................             100               0             355               0
Category 2......................................             100               0             197               0
Category 3......................................              90              10             557              62
Category 4......................................              50              50             205             205
Category 5......................................              10              90              54             482
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Count of Vendors by System Type.......  ..............  ..............           1,367             749
    Percentage of Vendors by System Type........  ..............  ..............             65%             35%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Initial Setup: Vendors complying with this rule will absorb a one-
time setup burden to establish reporting systems. The estimated setup 
time varies between automated and manual reporting systems. Vendors 
implementing a manual system must acclimate themselves with the new 
reporting requirements and train their staff accordingly, while those 
with automated systems must perform these tasks in addition to 
configuring information technology resources. GSA estimates the average 
one-time setup burden is 8 hours for vendors with a manual system and 
240 hours for those with an automated system.
    Monthly Reporting: After initial setup, vendors subject to these 
clauses are required to report sales within 30 calendar days after the 
end of each calendar month. The average reporting times vary by system 
type (manual or

[[Page 24516]]

automated) and by sales categories. GSA estimates vendors using a 
manual system will have average monthly reporting times ranging from 15 
minutes (0.25 hours) for vendors with $0 sales to an average of 48 
hours for vendors with monthly sales over $1 million. On the other 
hand, GSA projects vendors with automated systems will have reporting 
times of 2 hours per month, irrespective of monthly sales volume, as a 
result of efficiencies achieved through automated processes. The 
following table shows GSA's projected monthly reporting times per sales 
category and system type:

           Monthly Reporting Hours by System Type and Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Automated
                                          Manual systems      systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1..............................            0.25            2.00
Category 2..............................            2.00            2.00
Category 3..............................            4.00            2.00
Category 4..............................           16.00            2.00
Category 5..............................           48.00            2.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FSS Burden Estimates: A total of 376 FSS contracts joined the 
Transactional Data Reporting pilot in FY 2018, including 139 newly 
awarded contracts and 237 existing contracts that voluntarily joined 
the pilot. The initial setup burden was split between manual and 
automated systems, the number of which was estimated based on the ratio 
for all pilot contracts (64% manual, 36% automated). The initial setup 
burden for those contracts is illustrated below:

Initial Setup

    Annual Burden (Hours): 34,412.
    Annual Burden (Cost): $2,668,613.
    Transactional data was reported for 2,063 FSS contracts in FY 2018. 
As previously noted, the reporting burden for vendors using manual 
systems increases with their reported sales while the reporting burden 
for vendors using automated systems remains constant regardless of the 
reported sales volume. The reporting burden for those contracts is 
illustrated below:

Quarterly Reporting

    Annual Burden (Hours): 119,207.
    Annual Burden (Cost): $6,579,023.
    Non-FSS Burden Estimates: The only non-FSS contract vehicle 
currently using the clause is the Alliant 2 unrestricted contract. 53 
Alliant 2 contracts were awarded in FY 2018, meaning each of the 
contract holders incurred initial setup costs. The initial setup burden 
was split between manual and automated systems, the number of which was 
estimated based on the ratio for the Alliant 2 contracts (74% manual, 
26% automated). The initial setup burden for those contracts is 
illustrated below:

Initial Setup

    Annual Burden (Hours): 3,672.
    Annual Burden (Cost): $284,764.
    As previously noted, the reporting burden for vendors using manual 
systems increases with their reported sales while the reporting burden 
for vendors using automated systems remains constant regardless of the 
reported sales volume. The reporting burden for those contracts is as 
follows:

Quarterly Reporting

    Annual Burden (Hours): 1,445.
    Annual Burden (Cost): $79,772.

Total Annual Burden

    The total estimated burden imposed by Transactional Data Reporting 
is as follows:

Estimated Annual Time Burden (Hours)

    FSS Vendors: 153,619.
    Non-FSS Vendors: 5,117.
    Total Annual Time Burden: 158,736.

Estimated Annual Cost Burden

    FSS Vendors: $9,247,636.
    Non-FSS Vendors: $364,535.
    Total Annual Cost Burden: $9,612,171.

C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this 
collection of information is necessary and whether it will have 
practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this 
collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions 
and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information to be collected.
    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the 
information collection documents from the General Services 
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street 
NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite 
Information Collection 3090-0306, Transactional Data Reporting, in all 
correspondence.

Jeffrey A. Koses,
Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of 
Government-wide Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-11030 Filed 5-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6820-61-P