Past Performance Ratings for Small Business Joint Venture Members and Small Business First-Tier Subcontractors, 64410-64416 [2021-25002]
Download as PDF
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
64410
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 220 / Thursday, November 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules
by 1,000,000 cartons), an amount
insufficient to cover the Committee’s
anticipated expenditures of $43,900. By
increasing the assessment rate by $0.04,
assessment income would be
approximately $50,000 ($0.05
multiplied by 1,000,000 cartons). This
amount should provide sufficient funds
to meet 2021–22 anticipated expenses.
Prior to arriving at this budget and
assessment rate, the Committee
considered maintaining the current
assessment rate of $0.01. However,
leaving the assessment unchanged
would not generate sufficient revenue to
meet the Committee’s expenses for the
2021–22 budget of $43,900 and would
diminish reserves. Therefore, the
alternative was rejected.
A review of historical information and
preliminary information pertaining to
the upcoming fiscal period indicates
that the producer price for 2021–22
should be approximately $5.42 per 7/10bushel carton or equivalent of oranges
and grapefruit. Therefore, the estimated
assessment revenue for the 2021–22
fiscal period as a percentage of total
producer revenue would be
approximately 0.9 percent ($50,000
divided by $5.42 × 1,000,000 cartons).
This action would increase the
assessment obligation imposed on
handlers. While assessments impose
additional costs on handlers, costs are
minimal and uniform on all handlers,
and some portion of additional costs
may be passed through to producers.
However, these costs are expected to be
offset by benefits derived by the
operation of the Order.
The Committee’s meeting was widely
publicized throughout the Texas citrus
industry. All interested persons were
invited to attend the meeting and
participate in Committee deliberations
on all issues. Like all Committee
meetings, the July 14, 2021, meeting was
a public meeting and all entities, both
large and small, were able to express
views on this issue. Finally, interested
persons are invited to submit comments
on this proposed rule, including the
regulatory and informational impacts of
this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the Order’s information
collection requirements have been
previously approved by the OMB and
assigned OMB No. 0581–0189 Fruit
Crops. No changes in these
requirements would be necessary as a
result of this proposed rule. Should any
changes become necessary, they would
be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would not impose
any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 17, 2021
Jkt 256001
small or large Texas orange and
grapefruit handlers. As with all Federal
marketing order programs, reports and
forms are periodically reviewed to
reduce information requirements and
duplication by industry and public
sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act, promoting the
use of the internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services.
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this proposed rule.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/
rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses.
Any questions about the compliance
guide should be sent to Richard Lower
at the previously mentioned address in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposed rule. All written
comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination
is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 906
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements,
Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For reasons set forth in the preamble,
7 CFR part 906 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 906—ORANGES AND
GRAPEFRUIT GROWN IN LOWER RIO
GRANDE VALLEY IN TEXAS
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 906 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Section 906.235 is revised to read
as follows:
■
§ 906.235
Assessment rate.
On and after August 1, 2021, an
assessment rate of $0.05 per 7/10-bushel
carton or equivalent is established for
oranges and grapefruit grown in the
Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
Erin Morris,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–25116 Filed 11–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 125
RIN 3245–AH71
Past Performance Ratings for Small
Business Joint Venture Members and
Small Business First-Tier
Subcontractors
U.S. Small Business
Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Small Business
Administration is proposing to amend
its regulations to implement new
provisions of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) Fiscal Year
2021 (FY 2021). The proposed rule
would provide new methods for small
business government contractors to
obtain past performance ratings to be
used with offers on prime contracts with
the Federal Government. A small
business contractor may use a past
performance rating for work performed
as a member of a joint venture or for
work performed as a first-tier
subcontractor. This proposed rule
updates the requirements for small
business subcontracting plans to add a
requirement for prime contractors to
report past performance to a first-tier,
small business subcontractor when
requested by the small business that was
a first-tier subcontractor.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 18, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN: 3245–AH71, by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: Donna Fudge, Procurement
Analyst, Office of Policy Planning and
Liaison, Small Business Administration,
at Donna.Fudge@sba.gov.
SBA will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. If you wish
to submit confidential business
information (CBI), as defined in the User
Notice at https://www.regulations.gov,
please submit the information to Donna
Fudge, Small Business Administration
at Donna.Fudge@sba.gov. Highlight the
information that you consider to be CBI
and explain why you believe SBA
should hold this information as
confidential. SBA will review the
information and make the final
determination on whether it will
publish the information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Fudge, Procurement Analyst,
Office of Policy Planning and Liaison,
Small Business Administration, at
Donna.Fudge@sba.gov, (202) 205–6363.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18NOP1.SGM
18NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 220 / Thursday, November 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
Section 868 of NDAA FY21, Public
Law 116–283, addresses a common
obstacle that small businesses may face
when competing for prime Federal
Government contracts: Possessing
qualifying past performance. The
proposed rule implements section 868
by providing small businesses with two
new methods for obtaining qualifying
past performance. First, a small business
may use the past performance of a joint
venture of which it is a member,
provided that the small business worked
on the joint venture’s contract or
contracts. Second, a small business may
use past performance it obtained as a
first-tier subcontractor on a prime
contract with a subcontracting plan. For
this latter method, section 868
authorizes the small business to seek a
past performance rating from the prime
contractor and submit the rating with
the small business’ offer on a new prime
contract.
Section 868 added a new section
15(e)(5) to the Small Business Act, 15
U.S.C. 644(e)(5), to address past
performance ratings of joint ventures for
small business concerns. A small
business concern that previously
participated in a joint venture with
another business concern (whether or
not the other concern was small) may
use the past performance of the joint
venture with the small business’ offer
on a prime contract. Section 15(e)(5)
directs SBA to establish regulations to
allow the small business to elect to use
the joint venture’s past performance if
the small business has no relevant past
performance of its own. The small
business must: (i) Identify to the
contracting officer the joint venture of
which the small business was a
member; (ii) the contract(s) of the joint
venture the small business elects to use;
and (iii) inform the contracting officer
what duties and responsibilities the
small business carried out as part of the
joint venture. In turn, the contracting
officer shall consider the past
performance of the joint venture when
evaluating the past performance of the
small business concern, giving due
consideration to the information
submitted about the duties and
responsibilities that the small business
carried out.
To address first-tier small business
subcontractors, section 868 amended
section 8(d)(17) of the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. 637(d)(17), which
previously discussed a pilot program to
provide past performance ratings for
other small business subcontractors.
Under the section 868 program, small
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 17, 2021
Jkt 256001
business concerns may obtain past
performance ratings for performance as
a first-tier subcontractor on a prime
contract that included a subcontracting
plan. The proposed rule would require
the prime contractor on the prime
contract to provide a rating of the small
business’s past performance with
respect to that prime contract to the
small business within 15 days of the
request. If the small business elects to
use the past performance rating, the
contracting officer shall consider the
past performance rating when
evaluating the small business’s offer on
a prime contract.
Because section 868 replaced the
prior pilot program in section 8(d)(17),
SBA will no longer pursue the pilot
program as described in 83 FR 17583.
This proposed rule creates a separate
mechanism for first-tier subcontractors
to obtain past performance ratings. The
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
rule implementing this requirement will
account for the information collection,
and clearance for the information
collection will be obtained by the FAR
Council.
SBA requests comments on whether
small business subcontractors have been
negatively impacted in competing for
prime contracts due to not having a past
performance rating(s).
SBA also seeks comment on whether
to prescribe a time frame within which
the subcontractor must make a request
to the prime contractor for a rating
under this proposed rule. If the prime
contractor is currently in the period of
performance for its contract, the prime
contractor would be bound by its
subcontracting plan to respond to the
subcontractor’s request. After the period
of performance, however, the prime
contractor would not necessarily be
required to respond, because the
contract would have ended. SBA seeks
comment on whether to recommend
that a subcontractor submit its request
for a rating within the period of
performance of the prime contractor’s
contract. If there might be a reasonable
period of time after the physical
completion of the prime contractor’s
contract in which the subcontractor
should or must submit its request, SBA
seeks comment on how to implement
that time period into the prime
contractor’s Federal contract and what
the time period might be. SBA also
seeks comment on if the prime
contractor and subcontractor might
negotiate time periods and procedures
by which the subcontractor can request
a rating, and, if so, how to recognize that
ability to negotiate in this regulatory
prescription. In particular, should SBA
recommend that the subcontractor
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64411
negotiate the procedures for submitting
a request and the time frames?
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
13 CFR 125.3
This proposed rule would add a
requirement to prime contractors’
subcontracting plans. The
subcontracting plan will require the
prime contractor to provide a rating of
a first-tier subcontractor’s past
performance within 15 days of the firsttier subcontractor’s request. The
requested rating would be prepared to
include, at a minimum, the following
evaluation factors in the requested
rating: (a) Technical (quality of product
or service); (b) Cost control (not
applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixedprice with economic price adjustment
arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness;
(d) Management or business relations;
and (e) Other (as applicable).
13 CFR 125.11
This proposed rule renumbers 13 CFR
125.11 and subsequent sections to create
a new § 125.11. New § 125.11(a)
provides general guidance to require
agencies to consider the past
performance of certain small business
offerors that have been members of joint
ventures or first-tier subcontractors. The
remainder of this proposed rule
addresses the two scenarios from NDAA
2021.
First, a small business concern may
receive past performance consideration
for the past performance of a joint
venture of which the small business was
a member. To receive past performance
consideration, where the small business
does not independently demonstrate
past performance necessary for award,
the small business may elect to use the
joint venture’s past performance and the
contracting officer shall consider the
joint venture past performance that the
small business has elected to use. In its
offer for a prime contract, the small
business must identify: (i) The joint
venture; (ii) the contract(s) of the joint
venture that the small business elects to
use; and (iii) describe to the agency
what duties or responsibilities the small
business carried out as a joint venture
member. The small business cannot,
however, claim past performance credit
for work performed exclusively by other
partners to the joint venture.
As required by NDAA 2021, the
contracting officer shall consider the
information that the small business
provided about its duties and
responsibilities carried out as part of the
joint venture. Where the small business
does not independently demonstrate
past performance necessary for award,
E:\FR\FM\18NOP1.SGM
18NOP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
64412
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 220 / Thursday, November 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules
agencies shall consider a small business’
successful rating of past performance
through a joint venture. For example, a
solicitation might require three past
performance examples. This proposed
rule would authorize the small business
offeror to submit two examples from
performance in its own name and one
example from performance of a joint
venture of which it was a member if the
small business cannot independently
provide the third example of past
performance on its own. This proposed
rule provides that the joint venture’s
past performance may supplement the
relevant past performance of the small
business when the small business
cannot independently demonstrate the
past performance on its own.
Second, a small business concern may
receive past performance consideration
for performance as a first-tier
subcontractor. NDAA FY21 directs that
this mechanism is limited to small
businesses that performed as first-tier
subcontractors on contracts that include
subcontracting plans. The small
business may request a rating of its
subcontractor past performance from the
prime contractor. Under the proposed
rule, the prime contractor must provide
a rating to the requesting small business
withinwith 15 days of the request.
Under this proposed rule, the
requested rating would be prepared to
include, at a minimum, the following
evaluation factors in the requested
rating: (a) Technical (quality of product
or service); (b) Cost control (not
applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixedprice with economic price adjustment
arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness;
(d) Management or business relations;
and (e) Other (as applicable). The
proposed rule clarifies that one scenario
where this applies is where the small
business lacks a rating in the Contractor
Performance Assessment Reporting
System (CPARS). In that case, the
agency shall consider the small
business’s subcontractor past
performance rating as being equivalent
to a CPARS rating.
This proposed rule clarifies that a
joint venture composed of small
businesses may receive past
performance consideration for work that
the joint venture performed as a first-tier
subcontractor. A small business member
of the joint venture subcontractor may
request a past performance rating from
the prime contractor for a contract that
included a subcontracting plan. The
prime contractor must provide the
requested rating to the joint venture
member within 15 days of the request.
The requested rating would be prepared
to include, at a minimum, the following
evaluation factors in the requested
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 17, 2021
Jkt 256001
record: (a) Technical (quality of product
or service); (b) Cost control (not
applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixedprice with economic price adjustment
arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness;
(d) Management or business relations;
(e) Other (as applicable). The small
business could then use that rating to
establish its past performance in
accordance with the prior provision on
submitting joint venture past
performance.
13 CFR 125.28
SBA is proposing to change the
reference from § 125.15(a) to § 125.18(a)
everywhere it appears in this section
due to renumbering of sections. Section
125.18(a) provides the requirements for
representation of service-disabled
veteran-owned (SDVO) small business
status.
13 CFR 125.29
SBA is proposed to change the
reference from § 125.8 to § 125.12
everywhere it appears in this section
due to renumbering of sections. Section
125.12 provides the definitions that are
important in the Service-Disabled
Veteran-Owned (SDVO) Small Business
Concern (SBC) program.
13 CFR 125.30
SBA is proposing to change the
reference from § 125.8 to § 125.12
everywhere it appears in this section
due to renumbering of sections. Section
125.12 provides the definitions that are
important in the SDVO SBC program.
III. Compliance With Executive Orders
12866, 12988, 13132, 13175, 13563, the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.,
Ch. 35), and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612)
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
a significant regulatory action for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the next section contains
SBA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis.
1. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Is
there a need for the regulatory action?
This rule is necessary to satisfy
statutory requirements to implement
section 868 of National Defense
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2021
(NDAA FY21). Section 868 (e) requires
the Administrator to issue rules to carry
out the section.
Absence of past performance has been
a limitation for small businesses when
pursuing procurement opportunities
that evaluate past performance. Small
businesses often have past performance
through work performed as a joint
venture partner or as a subcontractor,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
but this experience and past
performance is often not acknowledged
or credited to the relevant small
business in the evaluation process. This
proposed rule is necessary to address
that shortcoming in the evaluation of
past performance and experience.
The FAR states that ‘‘past
performance, except as set forth in
paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, shall
be evaluated in all source selections for
negotiated competitive acquisitions
expected to exceed the simplified
acquisition threshold.’’ See FAR
15.304(c)(3). Past performance is ‘‘one
indicator of an offeror’s ability to
perform the contract successfully.’’ See
FAR 15.305(a)(2). FAR 15.302(a)(2)(iv)
provides that, in the case of an offeror
without a record of relevant past
performance or for whom information
on past performance is not available, the
offeror may not be evaluated favorably
or unfavorably on past performance.
Because past performance may be
considered a responsibility factor or
because past performance affects an
offeror’s evaluation as compared to
other offerors, the ability of small
businesses that have been first-tier
subcontractors or participated in joint
ventures to demonstrate past
performance increases their
competitiveness in Federal contracting.
2. What is the baseline, and the
incremental benefits and costs of this
regulatory action?
OMB directs agencies to establish an
appropriate baseline to evaluate any
benefits, costs, or transfer impacts of
regulatory actions and alternative
approaches considered. The baseline
should represent the agency’s best
assessment of what the world would
look like absent the regulatory action.
For a regulatory action that modifies or
replaces an existing regulation, a
baseline assuming no change to the
regulation generally provides an
appropriate benchmark for evaluating
benefits, costs, or transfer impacts of
proposed regulatory changes and their
alternatives. This proposed rule would
implement the changes, by modifying
and expanding, the rating procedures of
the unimplemented pilot program in
8(d)(17) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 637(d)(17)), which was added by
section 1822 of the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2017.
NDAA FY21 amended Section
8(d)(17) of the Act to allow small
businesses that performed as first tier
subcontractors to request a past
performance rating from the prime
contractor. The prime contractor must
provide a rating of the small business
past performance with respect to that
prime contract to the small business
E:\FR\FM\18NOP1.SGM
18NOP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 220 / Thursday, November 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules
within 15 days of the request. The
requested rating would be prepared to
include, at a minimum, the following
evaluation factors in the requested
rating: (a) Technical (quality of product
or service); (b) Cost control (not
applicable for firm-fixed price or fixedprice with economic price adjustment
arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness;
(d) Management or business relations;
(e) Other (as applicable). This proposed
rule would modify the pilot program, in
which a small business that had not
performed as a prime contractor could
request a past performance rating in the
Contractor Performance Assessment
Reporting System (CPARS), if the small
business is a first tier subcontractor
under a covered Federal Government
contract requiring a subcontracting plan.
Section 868(a) amends Section 15(e) of
the Small Business Act to direct the
establishment of regulations that allow
the use of past performance in joint
ventures in Federal contracting offers.
This amendment expands the
opportunities for past performance
consideration by including
consideration of the past performance of
a joint venture of which the small
business was a member.
The baseline is that which exists
without implementation of the pilot
program in section 8(d)(17) of the Small
Business Act. In this environment,
when a Federal agency creates a
procurement opportunity requiring an
offeror to provide examples of past
performance, a newer small business
concern may forego the opportunity
because it individually lacks the
required number of examples and then
opt to join an established prime
contractor’s team as a subcontractor.
The most significant benefit of this
proposed rule to small businesses is that
it would enhance of the small
businesses’ ability to compete in Federal
contracting opportunities. The FAR
states that ‘‘past performance, except as
set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this
section, shall be evaluated in all source
selections for negotiated competitive
acquisitions expected to exceed the
simplified acquisition threshold.’’ See
FAR 15.304(c)(3)(i). FAR 15.302(a)(2)(iv)
provides that, in the case of an offeror
without a record of relevant past
performance or for whom information
on past performance is not available, the
offeror may not be evaluated favorably
or unfavorably on past performance.
Nevertheless, small businesses without
past experience as prime contractors
may forego seeking some Federal
contracting opportunities. This
enhancement of Federal contracting
opportunities is consistent with the
amendment of the Small Business Act,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 17, 2021
Jkt 256001
which states that ‘‘procurement
strategies used by a Federal department
or agency having contract authority
shall facilitate the maximum
participation of small business concerns
as prime contractors, subcontractors,
and suppliers.’’ 15 U.S.C. 644(e)(1).
With more small businesses able to
demonstrate past performance, agencies
will have a larger pool of small
businesses competing for contracting
opportunities. This added competition
may result in lower prices to the
Government. SBA cannot quantify this
impact before proposal of applicable
FAR rules.
Costs of this proposed rule to the
private sector include the prime
contractor’s provision, upon request to
provide a past performance rating. The
time burden of this requirement to the
prime contractor is similar to that of the
pilot program’s past performance rating
requirement. SBA estimates the
fulfillment of a past performance
request to require about 30 minutes of
time. Assuming that a compilation of a
rating of past performance involves 30
minutes of work by an employee of the
prime contractor and valuing the time at
$93.44 per hour,1 SBA estimates that
each rating request costs a prime
contractor $46.72 in labor plus de
minimis costs of transmission of the
rating. There were approximately 34,000
individual subcontracting plans with
24,000 at the prime contract level in
fiscal year 2015 (81 FR 94249), but it is
not known how many small businesses
were involved in these subcontracting
plans or how many small businesses
were involved in multiple
subcontracting plans. SBA notes that
1,461 small businesses have active SBAapproved Mentor-Prote´ge´ agreements.2
SBA also notes that in FY2019, the
Electronic Subcontracting Reporting
System (eSRS) listed 2,082 commercial
plans with small businesses.
Assuming that half, or 731, of the
small businesses with active agreements
in the Mentor-Prote´ge´ program request a
rating of past performance each year, the
annual cost to the private sector of
fulfilling these requests for past
1 The median hourly wage for construction
managers is $46.72, according to 2020 Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) data, and the hourly rate of
$93.44 includes 100 percent more for benefits and
overhead. Source for hourly rate: https://
www.bls.gov/ooh/management/constructionmanagers.htm. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
2 One of the goals of the SBA’s Mentor-Prote
´ ge´
program is to promote the ability of small prote´ge´
businesses to successfully compete for government
contracting opportunities. Prote´ge´ small businesses
often form joint ventures with their mentors to
pursue specific procurement requirements in order
to gain experience and be able independently
perform similar requirements in the future.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64413
performance ratings would be $34,152
plus de minimis costs. Assuming that
small businesses with 10 percent of
24,000 subcontracting plans at the
prime contract level, in addition to
those in the Mentor-Prote´ge´ program,
request a rating of past performance
each year, the annual cost to the private
sector of fulfilling these requests is
$112,128. Assuming each of the 2,082
commercial plans has two to four
subcontracts, and half of the total
subcontracts represents small business
that would request a past performance
rating each year, then the annual cost to
the private sector of fulfilling these
requests would be $145,907 plus de
minimis costs. With these assumptions,
total annual costs to the private sector
of fulfilling requests is $292,187 plus de
minimis costs.
The requirement of small business
offerors that have been members of joint
ventures to identify the joint venture,
identify the contract(s) of the joint
venture, and describe duties or
responsibilities as a joint venture
member in order to receive
consideration of past performance
involves a resource cost to the small
business offerors that compile the
specified information. SBA notes that
this cost would be voluntarily incurred
by small businesses that assess the
enhancement of Federal contracting
opportunities from consideration of past
performance to be of greater value than
the incremental costs incurred.
If more small businesses meet past
performance standards and then submit
proposals to contracting agencies,
administrative costs to the Government
may increase when a contracting agency
reviews an increased number of
proposals and past performance ratings.
SBA cannot quantify these costs and
notes that increased competition may
offset these costs to the Government.
The ability of more small businesses
to demonstrate past performance may
redistribute some Federal contracts from
businesses that can demonstrate past
performance in the baseline scenario
that exists with no implementation of
the pilot program. This redistribution
would not affect overall economic
activity. This proposed rule and its
effects do not change the amount of
dollars in all available Federal contracts.
SBA cannot quantify the actual outcome
of the gains and losses from the
redistribution of contracts among
different groups of small businesses that
would result from an increased number
of small businesses with the ability to
demonstrate their experience and past
performance, but it expects that
competition from small businesses with
newly established past performance
E:\FR\FM\18NOP1.SGM
18NOP1
64414
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 220 / Thursday, November 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules
ratings may displace some small
businesses that had established ratings
in Federal contracting opportunities. A
partial offset of this transfer impact
among small businesses may occur with
increased numbers of contracts set aside
for small businesses through the Rule of
Two, which states there is a reasonable
expectation that the contracting officer
will obtain offers from at least two small
businesses and award will be made at
fair market price.
3. What are the alternatives to this
rule?
This proposed rule would implement
specific statutory provisions in Section
868 of the NDAA FY21. There are no
alternatives that would meet the
statutory requirements.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule meets applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden. The action does not have
retroactive or preemptive effect.
Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications as defined in
Executive Order 13132. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in the
Executive order. As such it does not
warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have
a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13563
This Executive order directs agencies
to, among other things: (a) Afford the
public a meaningful opportunity to
comment through the internet on
proposed regulations, with a comment
period that should generally consist of
not less than 60 days; (b) provide for an
‘‘open exchange’’ of information among
government officials, experts,
stakeholders, and the public; and (c)
seek the views of those who are likely
to be affected by the rulemaking, even
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 17, 2021
Jkt 256001
before issuing a notice of proposed
rulemaking. As far as practicable or
relevant, SBA considers these
requirements in developing this rule, as
discussed below.
1. Did the agency use the best
available techniques to quantify
anticipated present and future costs
when responding to E.O. 12866 (e.g.,
identifying changing future compliance
costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes)?
To the extent possible the agency
utilized the most recent data available
in the Federal Procurement Data
System-Next Generation, System for
Award Management, and Electronic
Subcontracting Reporting System.
2. Public participation: Did the
agency: (a) Afford the public a
meaningful opportunity to comment
through the internet on any proposed
regulation, with a comment period that
should generally consist of not less than
60 days; (b) provide for an ‘‘open
exchange’’ of information among
Government officials, experts,
stakeholders, and the public; (c) provide
timely online access to the rulemaking
docket on Regulations.gov; and (d) seek
the views of those who are likely to be
affected by rulemaking, even before
issuing a notice of proposed
rulemaking?
The proposed rule will have a 60-day
comment period and will be posted on
www.regulations.gov to allow the public
to comment meaningfully on its
provisions.
3. Flexibility: Did the agency identify
and consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public?
Yes, the proposed rule implements
statutory provisions that provide new
methods for small business government
contractors to obtain past performance
ratings to be used with offers on prime
contracts with the Federal Government.
The proposed rule would update the
requirements for small business
subcontracting plans to add a
requirement for prime contractors to
report past performance to a small
business, first-tier subcontractor when
requested by the small business first-tier
subcontractor. The proposed rule will
enhance the small business’ ability to
compete for Federal Government prime
contracting opportunities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule, if adopted in final form,
would update the requirements for
small business subcontracting plans to
add a requirement for prime contractors
to report past performance to a small
business, first-tier subcontractor when
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requested by the small business first-tier
subcontractor. The FAR rule
implementing this requirement will
account for this information collection,
and clearance for the information
collection will be obtained by the FAR
Council.
In this proposed rule, SBA also
proposes that a small business concern
may receive past performance
consideration for the past performance
of a joint venture of which the small
business was a member. This does not
require a new information collection
because the Government contracting
officer rates the joint venture entity.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative
agencies to consider the effect of their
actions on small entities, small
nonprofit enterprises, and small local
governments. Pursuant to the RFA,
when an agency issues a rulemaking,
the agency must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis which describes the
impact of the rule on small entities.
However, section 605 of the RFA allows
an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of
preparing an analysis if the rulemaking
is not expected to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The RFA
defines ‘‘small entity’’ to include ‘‘small
businesses,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ and
‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’
This proposed rule provides new
methods for small business contractors
to obtain past performance ratings to be
used with offers on prime contracts, as
such the rule relates to small business
concerns but would not affect ‘‘small
organizations’’ or ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions’’ because those programs
generally apply only to ‘‘business
concerns’’ as defined by SBA
regulations, in other words, to small
businesses organized for profit. ‘‘Small
organizations’’ or ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions’’ are non-profits or
governmental entities and do not
generally qualify as ‘‘business concerns’’
within the meaning of SBA’s
regulations.
There are approximately 1,431 active
SBA-approved Mentor-Prote´ge´
agreements and SBA estimates that half,
or 731, small businesses with active
agreements would request a past
performance rating from its prime
contractor in a year. Of the 24,000
subcontracting plans at the prime
contract level in fiscal year 2015, SBA
assumes for this analysis that up to
2,400 that are not in the Mentor-Prote´ge´
program may request a past performance
rating each year. Additionally, in
FY2019 there were 2,082 commercial
E:\FR\FM\18NOP1.SGM
18NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 220 / Thursday, November 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules
plans with small businesses. Assuming
two to four subcontracts for each
commercial plan, and half of them
request a past performance rating, SBA
estimates that up to 3,123 small
businesses involved in commercial
plans may request a past performance
rating each year. The proposed changes
allow small business contractors to
request a past performance rating from
a prime contractor for whom they
performed work as a first-tier
subcontractor or as a member of a joint
venture. In addition, the proposed rule
updates the requirements for small
business subcontracting plans to add a
responsibility for prime contractors to
report past performance of the first-tier
when requested by that first-tier
subcontractor.
As a result, SBA does not believe the
proposed rule would have a disparate
impact on small businesses or would
impose any additional significant costs.
For the reasons discussed, SBA certifies
that this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business
concerns.
PART 125—GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTING PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for part 125
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632(p), (q), 634(b)(6),
637, 644, 657f, 657q, 657r, and 657s; 38
U.S.C. 501 and 8127.
2. Amend § 125.3 by:
a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the
ends of pargarphs (c)(1)(ix) and (x);
■ b. Removing the period at the end of
paragraph (c)(1)(xi) and adding ‘‘; and’’
in its place; and
■ c. Adding paragraph (c)(1)(xii).
The addition reads as follows:
■
■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 125.3 What types of subcontracting
assistance are available to small
businesses?
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(xii)(A) The prime contractor, upon
request from a first-tier small business
subcontractor, shall provide the
subcontractor with a rating of the
subcontractor’s past performance. The
prime contractor must provide the small
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 17, 2021
Jkt 256001
§ § 125.11 through 125.14 [Redesignated
as §§ 125.12 through 125.15]
3. Redesignate §§ 125.11 through
125.14 as §§ 125.12 through 125.15.4.
Add new § 125.11 before subpart A to
read as follows:
■
§ 125.11 Past performance ratings for
certain small business concerns.
List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 125
Government contracts, Government
procurement, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses, Small business
subcontracting.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, SBA proposes to amend 13
CFR part 125 as follows:
*
business subcontractor the requested
rating within 15 days of the request. If
the subcontractor will use the rating for
an offer on a prime contract it must
include, at a minimum, the following
evaluation factors in the requested
rating:
(1) Technical (quality of product or
service);
(2) Cost control (not applicable for
firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with
economic price adjustment
arrangements);
(3) Schedule/timeliness;
(4) Management or business relations;
and
(5) Other (as applicable).
(B) The requirement in paragraph
(c)(1)(xii)(A) of this section is not
subject to the flowdown in paragraph
(c)(1)(x) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) General. In accordance with
sections 15(e)(5) and 8(d)(17) of the
Small Business Act, agencies are
required to consider the past
performance of certain small business
offerors that have been members of joint
ventures or have been first-tier
subcontractors. The agencies shall
consider the small business’ past
performance for the completion of the
performance of the evaluated contract or
order.
(b) Small business concerns that have
been members of joint ventures—(1)
Joint venture past performance. (i)
When submitting an offer for a prime
contract, a small business concern that
has been a member of a joint venture
may elect to use the experience and past
performance of the joint venture
(whether or not the other joint venture
partners were small business concerns)
where the small business does not
independently demonstrate past
performance necessary for award. The
small business concern, when making
such an election, shall:
(A) Identify to the contracting officer
the joint venture of which the small
business concern is or was a member;
(B) Identify the contract or contracts
of the joint venture that the small
business elects to use for its experience
and past performance for the prime
contract offer; and,
(C) Inform the contracting officer what
duties and responsibilities the concern
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64415
carried out or is carrying out as part of
the joint venture.
(ii) A small business cannot identify
and use as its own experience and past
performance work that was performed
exclusively by other partners to the joint
venture.
(2) Evaluation. When evaluating the
past performance of a small business
concern that has submitted an offer on
a prime contract, the contracting officer
shall consider the joint venture past
performance that the concern elected to
use under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, giving due consideration to the
information provided under paragraph
(b)(1)(i)(C) of this section for the
performance of the evaluated contract or
order. This includes where the small
business concern lacks a past
performance rating as a prime contractor
in the Contractor Performance
Assessment Reporting System, or
successor system used by the Federal
Government to monitor or rate
contractor past performance.
(c) Small business concerns that have
performed as first-tier subcontractors—
(1) Responsibility of prime contractors.
A small business concern may request a
rating of its subcontractor past
performance from the prime contractor
for a contract on which the concern was
a first-tier subcontractor and which
included a subcontracting plan. The
prime contractor shall provide the rating
to the small business concern within 15
days of the request. The prime
contractor must include, at a minimum,
the following evaluation factors in the
requested rating:
(i) Technical (quality of product or
service);
(ii) Cost control (not applicable for
firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with
economic price adjustment
arrangements);
(iii) Schedule/timeliness;
(iv) Management or business
relations; and
(v) Other (as applicable).
(2) Joint ventures that performed as
first-tier subcontractors. A small
business member of a joint venture may
request a past performance rating under
pararaph (c)(1) of this section, where a
joint venture performed as a first-tier
subcontractor. The joint venture
member may then submit the
subcontractor past performance rating to
a procuring agency in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) Evaluation. When evaluating the
past performance of a small business
concern that elected to use a rating for
its offer on a prime contract, a
contracting officer shall consider the
concern’s experience and rating of past
performance as a first-tier subcontractor
E:\FR\FM\18NOP1.SGM
18NOP1
64416
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 220 / Thursday, November 18, 2021 / Proposed Rules
and that is within three years (six for
construction and architect-engineering)
of the completion of performance of the
evaluated contract or order. This
includes where the small business
concern lacks a past performance rating
as a prime contractor in the Contractor
Performance Assessment Reporting
System, or successor system used by the
Federal Government to monitor or rate
contractor past performance.
§ 125.28
[Amended]
5. Amend § 125.28(a) by removing
‘‘§ 125.15(a)’’ and adding ‘‘§ 125.18(a)’’
in its place.
■
§§ 125.29 and 125.30
[Amended]
6. In addition to the amendments set
forth above, in 13 CFR part 125, remove
‘‘§ 125.8’’ and add ‘‘§ 125.12’’ in its
place in the following places:
■ a. § 125.29(a); and
■ b. § 125.30(g)(4).
■
Isabella Casillas Guzman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021–25002 Filed 11–17–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026–03–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2021–1006; Project
Identifier MCAI–2021–00700–T]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to
supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2019–26–01, which applies to certain
Airbus SAS Model A350–941 and –1041
airplanes. AD 2019–26–01 requires
repetitive detailed inspections, and
applicable corrective actions, and
provides an optional modification that
would terminate the inspections. Since
the FAA issued AD 2019–26–01, a
determination was made that a related
production modification was not
properly installed on certain airplanes.
This proposed AD would retain the
requirements of AD 2019–26–01, and,
for certain airplanes, would add a onetime detailed inspection of the
modification for proper installation, and
applicable corrective actions if
necessary, as specified in a European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Nov 17, 2021
Jkt 256001
AD, which is proposed for incorporation
by reference. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by January 3, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For the material that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact the EASA, KonradAdenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000;
email ADs@easa.europa.eu; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may view this
IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 206–231–3195. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2021–
1006.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2021–
1006; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this NPRM, any
comments received, and other
information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax 206–231–3225; email
dan.rodina@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FAA–2021–1006; Project Identifier
MCAI–2021–00700–T’’ at the beginning
of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of
the proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend the proposal
because of those comments.
Except for Confidential Business
Information (CBI) as described in the
following paragraph, and other
information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments
received, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this proposed
AD.
Confidential Business Information
CBI is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt
from public disclosure. If your
comments responsive to this NPRM
contain commercial or financial
information that is customarily treated
as private, that you actually treat as
private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important
that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each
page of your submission containing CBI
as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such
marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and they will not be
placed in the public docket of this
NPRM. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch,
FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA 98198; telephone and fax 206–231–
3225; email dan.rodina@faa.gov. Any
commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as
CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.
Background
The FAA issued AD 2019–26–01,
Amendment 39–21023 (85 FR 4199,
January 24, 2020) (AD 2019–26–01),
which applies to certain Airbus SAS
Model A350–941 and –1041 airplanes.
AD 2019–26–01 requires repetitive
detailed inspections, and applicable
corrective actions, and provides an
optional modification that would
terminate the inspections. The FAA
issued AD 2019–26–01 to address
possible water ingress due to sealant
bead damage, which could result in
E:\FR\FM\18NOP1.SGM
18NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64410-64416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25002]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Part 125
RIN 3245-AH71
Past Performance Ratings for Small Business Joint Venture Members
and Small Business First-Tier Subcontractors
AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Small Business Administration is proposing to amend its
regulations to implement new provisions of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) Fiscal Year 2021 (FY 2021). The proposed rule
would provide new methods for small business government contractors to
obtain past performance ratings to be used with offers on prime
contracts with the Federal Government. A small business contractor may
use a past performance rating for work performed as a member of a joint
venture or for work performed as a first-tier subcontractor. This
proposed rule updates the requirements for small business
subcontracting plans to add a requirement for prime contractors to
report past performance to a first-tier, small business subcontractor
when requested by the small business that was a first-tier
subcontractor.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 18, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN: 3245-AH71, by
any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Email: Donna Fudge, Procurement Analyst, Office of Policy
Planning and Liaison, Small Business Administration, at
[email protected].
SBA will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. If you
wish to submit confidential business information (CBI), as defined in
the User Notice at https://www.regulations.gov, please submit the
information to Donna Fudge, Small Business Administration at
[email protected]. Highlight the information that you consider to be
CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this information as
confidential. SBA will review the information and make the final
determination on whether it will publish the information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Fudge, Procurement Analyst,
Office of Policy Planning and Liaison, Small Business Administration,
at [email protected], (202) 205-6363.
[[Page 64411]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
Section 868 of NDAA FY21, Public Law 116-283, addresses a common
obstacle that small businesses may face when competing for prime
Federal Government contracts: Possessing qualifying past performance.
The proposed rule implements section 868 by providing small businesses
with two new methods for obtaining qualifying past performance. First,
a small business may use the past performance of a joint venture of
which it is a member, provided that the small business worked on the
joint venture's contract or contracts. Second, a small business may use
past performance it obtained as a first-tier subcontractor on a prime
contract with a subcontracting plan. For this latter method, section
868 authorizes the small business to seek a past performance rating
from the prime contractor and submit the rating with the small
business' offer on a new prime contract.
Section 868 added a new section 15(e)(5) to the Small Business Act,
15 U.S.C. 644(e)(5), to address past performance ratings of joint
ventures for small business concerns. A small business concern that
previously participated in a joint venture with another business
concern (whether or not the other concern was small) may use the past
performance of the joint venture with the small business' offer on a
prime contract. Section 15(e)(5) directs SBA to establish regulations
to allow the small business to elect to use the joint venture's past
performance if the small business has no relevant past performance of
its own. The small business must: (i) Identify to the contracting
officer the joint venture of which the small business was a member;
(ii) the contract(s) of the joint venture the small business elects to
use; and (iii) inform the contracting officer what duties and
responsibilities the small business carried out as part of the joint
venture. In turn, the contracting officer shall consider the past
performance of the joint venture when evaluating the past performance
of the small business concern, giving due consideration to the
information submitted about the duties and responsibilities that the
small business carried out.
To address first-tier small business subcontractors, section 868
amended section 8(d)(17) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
637(d)(17), which previously discussed a pilot program to provide past
performance ratings for other small business subcontractors. Under the
section 868 program, small business concerns may obtain past
performance ratings for performance as a first-tier subcontractor on a
prime contract that included a subcontracting plan. The proposed rule
would require the prime contractor on the prime contract to provide a
rating of the small business's past performance with respect to that
prime contract to the small business within 15 days of the request. If
the small business elects to use the past performance rating, the
contracting officer shall consider the past performance rating when
evaluating the small business's offer on a prime contract.
Because section 868 replaced the prior pilot program in section
8(d)(17), SBA will no longer pursue the pilot program as described in
83 FR 17583. This proposed rule creates a separate mechanism for first-
tier subcontractors to obtain past performance ratings. The Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rule implementing this requirement will
account for the information collection, and clearance for the
information collection will be obtained by the FAR Council.
SBA requests comments on whether small business subcontractors have
been negatively impacted in competing for prime contracts due to not
having a past performance rating(s).
SBA also seeks comment on whether to prescribe a time frame within
which the subcontractor must make a request to the prime contractor for
a rating under this proposed rule. If the prime contractor is currently
in the period of performance for its contract, the prime contractor
would be bound by its subcontracting plan to respond to the
subcontractor's request. After the period of performance, however, the
prime contractor would not necessarily be required to respond, because
the contract would have ended. SBA seeks comment on whether to
recommend that a subcontractor submit its request for a rating within
the period of performance of the prime contractor's contract. If there
might be a reasonable period of time after the physical completion of
the prime contractor's contract in which the subcontractor should or
must submit its request, SBA seeks comment on how to implement that
time period into the prime contractor's Federal contract and what the
time period might be. SBA also seeks comment on if the prime contractor
and subcontractor might negotiate time periods and procedures by which
the subcontractor can request a rating, and, if so, how to recognize
that ability to negotiate in this regulatory prescription. In
particular, should SBA recommend that the subcontractor negotiate the
procedures for submitting a request and the time frames?
II. Section-by-Section Analysis
13 CFR 125.3
This proposed rule would add a requirement to prime contractors'
subcontracting plans. The subcontracting plan will require the prime
contractor to provide a rating of a first-tier subcontractor's past
performance within 15 days of the first-tier subcontractor's request.
The requested rating would be prepared to include, at a minimum, the
following evaluation factors in the requested rating: (a) Technical
(quality of product or service); (b) Cost control (not applicable for
firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment
arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness; (d) Management or business
relations; and (e) Other (as applicable).
13 CFR 125.11
This proposed rule renumbers 13 CFR 125.11 and subsequent sections
to create a new Sec. 125.11. New Sec. 125.11(a) provides general
guidance to require agencies to consider the past performance of
certain small business offerors that have been members of joint
ventures or first-tier subcontractors. The remainder of this proposed
rule addresses the two scenarios from NDAA 2021.
First, a small business concern may receive past performance
consideration for the past performance of a joint venture of which the
small business was a member. To receive past performance consideration,
where the small business does not independently demonstrate past
performance necessary for award, the small business may elect to use
the joint venture's past performance and the contracting officer shall
consider the joint venture past performance that the small business has
elected to use. In its offer for a prime contract, the small business
must identify: (i) The joint venture; (ii) the contract(s) of the joint
venture that the small business elects to use; and (iii) describe to
the agency what duties or responsibilities the small business carried
out as a joint venture member. The small business cannot, however,
claim past performance credit for work performed exclusively by other
partners to the joint venture.
As required by NDAA 2021, the contracting officer shall consider
the information that the small business provided about its duties and
responsibilities carried out as part of the joint venture. Where the
small business does not independently demonstrate past performance
necessary for award,
[[Page 64412]]
agencies shall consider a small business' successful rating of past
performance through a joint venture. For example, a solicitation might
require three past performance examples. This proposed rule would
authorize the small business offeror to submit two examples from
performance in its own name and one example from performance of a joint
venture of which it was a member if the small business cannot
independently provide the third example of past performance on its own.
This proposed rule provides that the joint venture's past performance
may supplement the relevant past performance of the small business when
the small business cannot independently demonstrate the past
performance on its own.
Second, a small business concern may receive past performance
consideration for performance as a first-tier subcontractor. NDAA FY21
directs that this mechanism is limited to small businesses that
performed as first-tier subcontractors on contracts that include
subcontracting plans. The small business may request a rating of its
subcontractor past performance from the prime contractor. Under the
proposed rule, the prime contractor must provide a rating to the
requesting small business withinwith 15 days of the request.
Under this proposed rule, the requested rating would be prepared to
include, at a minimum, the following evaluation factors in the
requested rating: (a) Technical (quality of product or service); (b)
Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with
economic price adjustment arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness; (d)
Management or business relations; and (e) Other (as applicable). The
proposed rule clarifies that one scenario where this applies is where
the small business lacks a rating in the Contractor Performance
Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In that case, the agency shall
consider the small business's subcontractor past performance rating as
being equivalent to a CPARS rating.
This proposed rule clarifies that a joint venture composed of small
businesses may receive past performance consideration for work that the
joint venture performed as a first-tier subcontractor. A small business
member of the joint venture subcontractor may request a past
performance rating from the prime contractor for a contract that
included a subcontracting plan. The prime contractor must provide the
requested rating to the joint venture member within 15 days of the
request. The requested rating would be prepared to include, at a
minimum, the following evaluation factors in the requested record: (a)
Technical (quality of product or service); (b) Cost control (not
applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price
adjustment arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness; (d) Management or
business relations; (e) Other (as applicable). The small business could
then use that rating to establish its past performance in accordance
with the prior provision on submitting joint venture past performance.
13 CFR 125.28
SBA is proposing to change the reference from Sec. 125.15(a) to
Sec. 125.18(a) everywhere it appears in this section due to
renumbering of sections. Section 125.18(a) provides the requirements
for representation of service-disabled veteran-owned (SDVO) small
business status.
13 CFR 125.29
SBA is proposed to change the reference from Sec. 125.8 to Sec.
125.12 everywhere it appears in this section due to renumbering of
sections. Section 125.12 provides the definitions that are important in
the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned (SDVO) Small Business Concern (SBC)
program.
13 CFR 125.30
SBA is proposing to change the reference from Sec. 125.8 to Sec.
125.12 everywhere it appears in this section due to renumbering of
sections. Section 125.12 provides the definitions that are important in
the SDVO SBC program.
III. Compliance With Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13132, 13175,
13563, the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C., Ch. 35), and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612)
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the next section contains SBA's Regulatory
Impact Analysis.
1. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Is there a need for the regulatory
action?
This rule is necessary to satisfy statutory requirements to
implement section 868 of National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
Year 2021 (NDAA FY21). Section 868 (e) requires the Administrator to
issue rules to carry out the section.
Absence of past performance has been a limitation for small
businesses when pursuing procurement opportunities that evaluate past
performance. Small businesses often have past performance through work
performed as a joint venture partner or as a subcontractor, but this
experience and past performance is often not acknowledged or credited
to the relevant small business in the evaluation process. This proposed
rule is necessary to address that shortcoming in the evaluation of past
performance and experience.
The FAR states that ``past performance, except as set forth in
paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section, shall be evaluated in all source
selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed
the simplified acquisition threshold.'' See FAR 15.304(c)(3). Past
performance is ``one indicator of an offeror's ability to perform the
contract successfully.'' See FAR 15.305(a)(2). FAR 15.302(a)(2)(iv)
provides that, in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant
past performance or for whom information on past performance is not
available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on
past performance. Because past performance may be considered a
responsibility factor or because past performance affects an offeror's
evaluation as compared to other offerors, the ability of small
businesses that have been first-tier subcontractors or participated in
joint ventures to demonstrate past performance increases their
competitiveness in Federal contracting.
2. What is the baseline, and the incremental benefits and costs of
this regulatory action?
OMB directs agencies to establish an appropriate baseline to
evaluate any benefits, costs, or transfer impacts of regulatory actions
and alternative approaches considered. The baseline should represent
the agency's best assessment of what the world would look like absent
the regulatory action. For a regulatory action that modifies or
replaces an existing regulation, a baseline assuming no change to the
regulation generally provides an appropriate benchmark for evaluating
benefits, costs, or transfer impacts of proposed regulatory changes and
their alternatives. This proposed rule would implement the changes, by
modifying and expanding, the rating procedures of the unimplemented
pilot program in 8(d)(17) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637(d)(17)), which was added by section 1822 of the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2017.
NDAA FY21 amended Section 8(d)(17) of the Act to allow small
businesses that performed as first tier subcontractors to request a
past performance rating from the prime contractor. The prime contractor
must provide a rating of the small business past performance with
respect to that prime contract to the small business
[[Page 64413]]
within 15 days of the request. The requested rating would be prepared
to include, at a minimum, the following evaluation factors in the
requested rating: (a) Technical (quality of product or service); (b)
Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed price or fixed-price with
economic price adjustment arrangements); (c) Schedule/timeliness; (d)
Management or business relations; (e) Other (as applicable). This
proposed rule would modify the pilot program, in which a small business
that had not performed as a prime contractor could request a past
performance rating in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting
System (CPARS), if the small business is a first tier subcontractor
under a covered Federal Government contract requiring a subcontracting
plan. Section 868(a) amends Section 15(e) of the Small Business Act to
direct the establishment of regulations that allow the use of past
performance in joint ventures in Federal contracting offers. This
amendment expands the opportunities for past performance consideration
by including consideration of the past performance of a joint venture
of which the small business was a member.
The baseline is that which exists without implementation of the
pilot program in section 8(d)(17) of the Small Business Act. In this
environment, when a Federal agency creates a procurement opportunity
requiring an offeror to provide examples of past performance, a newer
small business concern may forego the opportunity because it
individually lacks the required number of examples and then opt to join
an established prime contractor's team as a subcontractor.
The most significant benefit of this proposed rule to small
businesses is that it would enhance of the small businesses' ability to
compete in Federal contracting opportunities. The FAR states that
``past performance, except as set forth in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of
this section, shall be evaluated in all source selections for
negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified
acquisition threshold.'' See FAR 15.304(c)(3)(i). FAR 15.302(a)(2)(iv)
provides that, in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant
past performance or for whom information on past performance is not
available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on
past performance. Nevertheless, small businesses without past
experience as prime contractors may forego seeking some Federal
contracting opportunities. This enhancement of Federal contracting
opportunities is consistent with the amendment of the Small Business
Act, which states that ``procurement strategies used by a Federal
department or agency having contract authority shall facilitate the
maximum participation of small business concerns as prime contractors,
subcontractors, and suppliers.'' 15 U.S.C. 644(e)(1).
With more small businesses able to demonstrate past performance,
agencies will have a larger pool of small businesses competing for
contracting opportunities. This added competition may result in lower
prices to the Government. SBA cannot quantify this impact before
proposal of applicable FAR rules.
Costs of this proposed rule to the private sector include the prime
contractor's provision, upon request to provide a past performance
rating. The time burden of this requirement to the prime contractor is
similar to that of the pilot program's past performance rating
requirement. SBA estimates the fulfillment of a past performance
request to require about 30 minutes of time. Assuming that a
compilation of a rating of past performance involves 30 minutes of work
by an employee of the prime contractor and valuing the time at $93.44
per hour,\1\ SBA estimates that each rating request costs a prime
contractor $46.72 in labor plus de minimis costs of transmission of the
rating. There were approximately 34,000 individual subcontracting plans
with 24,000 at the prime contract level in fiscal year 2015 (81 FR
94249), but it is not known how many small businesses were involved in
these subcontracting plans or how many small businesses were involved
in multiple subcontracting plans. SBA notes that 1,461 small businesses
have active SBA-approved Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements.\2\
SBA also notes that in FY2019, the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting
System (eSRS) listed 2,082 commercial plans with small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The median hourly wage for construction managers is $46.72,
according to 2020 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, and the
hourly rate of $93.44 includes 100 percent more for benefits and
overhead. Source for hourly rate: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/construction-managers.htm. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
\2\ One of the goals of the SBA's Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute]
program is to promote the ability of small prot[eacute]g[eacute]
businesses to successfully compete for government contracting
opportunities. Prot[eacute]g[eacute] small businesses often form
joint ventures with their mentors to pursue specific procurement
requirements in order to gain experience and be able independently
perform similar requirements in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming that half, or 731, of the small businesses with active
agreements in the Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] program request a rating
of past performance each year, the annual cost to the private sector of
fulfilling these requests for past performance ratings would be $34,152
plus de minimis costs. Assuming that small businesses with 10 percent
of 24,000 subcontracting plans at the prime contract level, in addition
to those in the Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] program, request a rating
of past performance each year, the annual cost to the private sector of
fulfilling these requests is $112,128. Assuming each of the 2,082
commercial plans has two to four subcontracts, and half of the total
subcontracts represents small business that would request a past
performance rating each year, then the annual cost to the private
sector of fulfilling these requests would be $145,907 plus de minimis
costs. With these assumptions, total annual costs to the private sector
of fulfilling requests is $292,187 plus de minimis costs.
The requirement of small business offerors that have been members
of joint ventures to identify the joint venture, identify the
contract(s) of the joint venture, and describe duties or
responsibilities as a joint venture member in order to receive
consideration of past performance involves a resource cost to the small
business offerors that compile the specified information. SBA notes
that this cost would be voluntarily incurred by small businesses that
assess the enhancement of Federal contracting opportunities from
consideration of past performance to be of greater value than the
incremental costs incurred.
If more small businesses meet past performance standards and then
submit proposals to contracting agencies, administrative costs to the
Government may increase when a contracting agency reviews an increased
number of proposals and past performance ratings. SBA cannot quantify
these costs and notes that increased competition may offset these costs
to the Government.
The ability of more small businesses to demonstrate past
performance may redistribute some Federal contracts from businesses
that can demonstrate past performance in the baseline scenario that
exists with no implementation of the pilot program. This redistribution
would not affect overall economic activity. This proposed rule and its
effects do not change the amount of dollars in all available Federal
contracts. SBA cannot quantify the actual outcome of the gains and
losses from the redistribution of contracts among different groups of
small businesses that would result from an increased number of small
businesses with the ability to demonstrate their experience and past
performance, but it expects that competition from small businesses with
newly established past performance
[[Page 64414]]
ratings may displace some small businesses that had established ratings
in Federal contracting opportunities. A partial offset of this transfer
impact among small businesses may occur with increased numbers of
contracts set aside for small businesses through the Rule of Two, which
states there is a reasonable expectation that the contracting officer
will obtain offers from at least two small businesses and award will be
made at fair market price.
3. What are the alternatives to this rule?
This proposed rule would implement specific statutory provisions in
Section 868 of the NDAA FY21. There are no alternatives that would meet
the statutory requirements.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule meets applicable standards set forth in sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action
does not have retroactive or preemptive effect.
Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications as defined
in Executive Order 13132. It will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, as specified in the Executive order.
As such it does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
Executive Order 13563
This Executive order directs agencies to, among other things: (a)
Afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment through the
internet on proposed regulations, with a comment period that should
generally consist of not less than 60 days; (b) provide for an ``open
exchange'' of information among government officials, experts,
stakeholders, and the public; and (c) seek the views of those who are
likely to be affected by the rulemaking, even before issuing a notice
of proposed rulemaking. As far as practicable or relevant, SBA
considers these requirements in developing this rule, as discussed
below.
1. Did the agency use the best available techniques to quantify
anticipated present and future costs when responding to E.O. 12866
(e.g., identifying changing future compliance costs that might result
from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes)?
To the extent possible the agency utilized the most recent data
available in the Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation,
System for Award Management, and Electronic Subcontracting Reporting
System.
2. Public participation: Did the agency: (a) Afford the public a
meaningful opportunity to comment through the internet on any proposed
regulation, with a comment period that should generally consist of not
less than 60 days; (b) provide for an ``open exchange'' of information
among Government officials, experts, stakeholders, and the public; (c)
provide timely online access to the rulemaking docket on
Regulations.gov; and (d) seek the views of those who are likely to be
affected by rulemaking, even before issuing a notice of proposed
rulemaking?
The proposed rule will have a 60-day comment period and will be
posted on www.regulations.gov to allow the public to comment
meaningfully on its provisions.
3. Flexibility: Did the agency identify and consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public?
Yes, the proposed rule implements statutory provisions that provide
new methods for small business government contractors to obtain past
performance ratings to be used with offers on prime contracts with the
Federal Government. The proposed rule would update the requirements for
small business subcontracting plans to add a requirement for prime
contractors to report past performance to a small business, first-tier
subcontractor when requested by the small business first-tier
subcontractor. The proposed rule will enhance the small business'
ability to compete for Federal Government prime contracting
opportunities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule, if adopted in final form, would update the requirements
for small business subcontracting plans to add a requirement for prime
contractors to report past performance to a small business, first-tier
subcontractor when requested by the small business first-tier
subcontractor. The FAR rule implementing this requirement will account
for this information collection, and clearance for the information
collection will be obtained by the FAR Council.
In this proposed rule, SBA also proposes that a small business
concern may receive past performance consideration for the past
performance of a joint venture of which the small business was a
member. This does not require a new information collection because the
Government contracting officer rates the joint venture entity.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires
administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on
small entities, small nonprofit enterprises, and small local
governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking,
the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, section
605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing
an analysis if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA
defines ``small entity'' to include ``small businesses,'' ``small
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
This proposed rule provides new methods for small business
contractors to obtain past performance ratings to be used with offers
on prime contracts, as such the rule relates to small business concerns
but would not affect ``small organizations'' or ``small governmental
jurisdictions'' because those programs generally apply only to
``business concerns'' as defined by SBA regulations, in other words, to
small businesses organized for profit. ``Small organizations'' or
``small governmental jurisdictions'' are non-profits or governmental
entities and do not generally qualify as ``business concerns'' within
the meaning of SBA's regulations.
There are approximately 1,431 active SBA-approved Mentor-
Prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements and SBA estimates that half, or 731,
small businesses with active agreements would request a past
performance rating from its prime contractor in a year. Of the 24,000
subcontracting plans at the prime contract level in fiscal year 2015,
SBA assumes for this analysis that up to 2,400 that are not in the
Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] program may request a past performance
rating each year. Additionally, in FY2019 there were 2,082 commercial
[[Page 64415]]
plans with small businesses. Assuming two to four subcontracts for each
commercial plan, and half of them request a past performance rating,
SBA estimates that up to 3,123 small businesses involved in commercial
plans may request a past performance rating each year. The proposed
changes allow small business contractors to request a past performance
rating from a prime contractor for whom they performed work as a first-
tier subcontractor or as a member of a joint venture. In addition, the
proposed rule updates the requirements for small business
subcontracting plans to add a responsibility for prime contractors to
report past performance of the first-tier when requested by that first-
tier subcontractor.
As a result, SBA does not believe the proposed rule would have a
disparate impact on small businesses or would impose any additional
significant costs. For the reasons discussed, SBA certifies that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business concerns.
List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 125
Government contracts, Government procurement, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses, Small business
subcontracting.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA proposes to amend 13
CFR part 125 as follows:
PART 125--GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING PROGRAMS
0
1. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 632(p), (q), 634(b)(6), 637, 644, 657f,
657q, 657r, and 657s; 38 U.S.C. 501 and 8127.
0
2. Amend Sec. 125.3 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the ends of pargarphs (c)(1)(ix) and
(x);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (c)(1)(xi) and adding
``; and'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(1)(xii).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 125.3 What types of subcontracting assistance are available to
small businesses?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(xii)(A) The prime contractor, upon request from a first-tier small
business subcontractor, shall provide the subcontractor with a rating
of the subcontractor's past performance. The prime contractor must
provide the small business subcontractor the requested rating within 15
days of the request. If the subcontractor will use the rating for an
offer on a prime contract it must include, at a minimum, the following
evaluation factors in the requested rating:
(1) Technical (quality of product or service);
(2) Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-
price with economic price adjustment arrangements);
(3) Schedule/timeliness;
(4) Management or business relations; and
(5) Other (as applicable).
(B) The requirement in paragraph (c)(1)(xii)(A) of this section is
not subject to the flowdown in paragraph (c)(1)(x) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. Sec. 125.11 through 125.14 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 125.12
through 125.15]
0
3. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 125.11 through 125.14 as Sec. Sec. 125.12
through 125.15.4. Add new Sec. 125.11 before subpart A to read as
follows:
Sec. 125.11 Past performance ratings for certain small business
concerns.
(a) General. In accordance with sections 15(e)(5) and 8(d)(17) of
the Small Business Act, agencies are required to consider the past
performance of certain small business offerors that have been members
of joint ventures or have been first-tier subcontractors. The agencies
shall consider the small business' past performance for the completion
of the performance of the evaluated contract or order.
(b) Small business concerns that have been members of joint
ventures--(1) Joint venture past performance. (i) When submitting an
offer for a prime contract, a small business concern that has been a
member of a joint venture may elect to use the experience and past
performance of the joint venture (whether or not the other joint
venture partners were small business concerns) where the small business
does not independently demonstrate past performance necessary for
award. The small business concern, when making such an election, shall:
(A) Identify to the contracting officer the joint venture of which
the small business concern is or was a member;
(B) Identify the contract or contracts of the joint venture that
the small business elects to use for its experience and past
performance for the prime contract offer; and,
(C) Inform the contracting officer what duties and responsibilities
the concern carried out or is carrying out as part of the joint
venture.
(ii) A small business cannot identify and use as its own experience
and past performance work that was performed exclusively by other
partners to the joint venture.
(2) Evaluation. When evaluating the past performance of a small
business concern that has submitted an offer on a prime contract, the
contracting officer shall consider the joint venture past performance
that the concern elected to use under paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
giving due consideration to the information provided under paragraph
(b)(1)(i)(C) of this section for the performance of the evaluated
contract or order. This includes where the small business concern lacks
a past performance rating as a prime contractor in the Contractor
Performance Assessment Reporting System, or successor system used by
the Federal Government to monitor or rate contractor past performance.
(c) Small business concerns that have performed as first-tier
subcontractors--(1) Responsibility of prime contractors. A small
business concern may request a rating of its subcontractor past
performance from the prime contractor for a contract on which the
concern was a first-tier subcontractor and which included a
subcontracting plan. The prime contractor shall provide the rating to
the small business concern within 15 days of the request. The prime
contractor must include, at a minimum, the following evaluation factors
in the requested rating:
(i) Technical (quality of product or service);
(ii) Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-
price with economic price adjustment arrangements);
(iii) Schedule/timeliness;
(iv) Management or business relations; and
(v) Other (as applicable).
(2) Joint ventures that performed as first-tier subcontractors. A
small business member of a joint venture may request a past performance
rating under pararaph (c)(1) of this section, where a joint venture
performed as a first-tier subcontractor. The joint venture member may
then submit the subcontractor past performance rating to a procuring
agency in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) Evaluation. When evaluating the past performance of a small
business concern that elected to use a rating for its offer on a prime
contract, a contracting officer shall consider the concern's experience
and rating of past performance as a first-tier subcontractor
[[Page 64416]]
and that is within three years (six for construction and architect-
engineering) of the completion of performance of the evaluated contract
or order. This includes where the small business concern lacks a past
performance rating as a prime contractor in the Contractor Performance
Assessment Reporting System, or successor system used by the Federal
Government to monitor or rate contractor past performance.
Sec. 125.28 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 125.28(a) by removing ``Sec. 125.15(a)'' and adding
``Sec. 125.18(a)'' in its place.
Sec. Sec. 125.29 and 125.30 [Amended]
0
6. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 13 CFR part 125,
remove ``Sec. 125.8'' and add ``Sec. 125.12'' in its place in the
following places:
0
a. Sec. 125.29(a); and
0
b. Sec. 125.30(g)(4).
Isabella Casillas Guzman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-25002 Filed 11-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P