[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21346-21351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08160]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
[OMB Control No. 3090-0235; Docket No. 2015-0001; Sequence 13]
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation;
Submission for OMB Review; Federal Supply Schedule Pricing Disclosures
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 clause 552.238-
75, Price Reductions, otherwise known as the Price Reductions clause.
The requested extension has been renamed ``Federal Supply Schedule
Pricing Disclosures'' because it now includes a burden estimate for
Commercial Sales Practices disclosures. The information collected is
used to establish and maintain Federal Supply Schedule pricing and
price related terms and conditions. A notice was published in the
Federal Register at 80 FR 72060 on November 18, 2015. One comment was
received.
DATES: Submit comments on or before: May 11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington,
DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA 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 Collection 3090-0235, Federal Supply Schedule
Pricing Disclosures.'' Follow the instructions provided at the ``Submit
a Comment'' screen. Please include your name, company name (if any),
and ``Information Collection 3090-0235, Federal Supply Schedule Pricing
Disclosures'' on your attached document.
Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory
Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405.
ATTN: Ms. Hada Flowers/IC 3090-0235, Federal Supply Schedule Pricing
Disclosures.
Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information
Collection 3090-0235, Federal Supply Schedule Pricing Disclosures, in
all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received
generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal and/or business confidential information
provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check
www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission
to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments
submitted by mail).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew McFarland, General
Services Acquisition Policy Division, 202-690-9232 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 21347]]
A. Purpose
GSA's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program, commonly known as the
GSA Schedules program or Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program,
provides federal agencies with a simplified process for acquiring
commercial supplies and services. The FSS program is the Government's
preeminent contracting vehicle, accounting for approximately 10 percent
of all federal contract dollars, with approximately $33 billion in
purchases made through the program in fiscal year 2015.
GSA is requesting an extension of a previously approved information
collection requirement related to one of the major components of the
FSS program, General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation
(GSAR) clause 552.238-75, Price Reductions, otherwise known as the
Price Reductions clause. However, this requested extension has been
renamed ``Federal Supply Schedule Pricing Disclosures'' because it now
includes a burden estimate for Commercial Sales Practices disclosures.
FSS Pricing Practices
GSA establishes price reasonableness on its FSS contracts by
comparing a contractor's prices and price-related terms and conditions
with those offered to their other customers. Through analysis and
negotiations, GSA establishes a favorable pricing relationship in
comparison to one of the contractor's customers (or category of
customers) and then maintains that pricing relationship for the life of
the contract. In order to carry out this practice, GSA collects pricing
information through Commercial Sales Practices (CSP) disclosures and
enforces the pricing relationship through General Services
Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clause 552.238-75, Price
Reductions, commonly known as the Price Reductions clause (PRC).
Commercial Sales Practices (CSP): In accordance with GSAR
515.408(a)(2), offerors submit information in the Commercial Sales
Practices Format provided in the solicitation, following the
instructions at GSAR Figure 515.4-2, or submit information in their own
format. In addition to when an offer is submitted, CSP disclosures are
also collected prior to executing bilateral modifications for
exercising a contract option period, adding items to the contract, or
increasing pricing under the Economic Price Adjustment clause (GSAR
552.216-70).
Price Reductions Clause (PRC): GSAR 538.273(b)(2) prescribes the
PRC for use in all FSS solicitations and contracts. The clause is
intended to ensure the Government maintains its price/discount (and/or
term and condition) advantage in relation to the contractor's customer
(or category of customer) upon which the FSS contract is based. The
basis of award customer (or category of customer) is identified at the
conclusion of negotiations and noted in the contract. Thereafter, the
PRC requires FSS contractors to inform the contracting officer of price
reductions within 15 calendar days. Per GSAR 552.238-75(c)(1),
A price reduction shall apply to purchases under this contract
if, after the date negotiations conclude, the Contractor--
(i) Revises the commercial catalog, pricelist, schedule or other
document upon which contract award was predicated to reduce prices;
(ii) Grants more favorable discounts or terms and conditions
than those contained in the commercial catalog, pricelist, schedule
or other documents upon which contract award was predicated; or
(iii) Grants special discounts to the customer (or category of
customers) that formed the basis of award, and the change disturbs
the price/discount relationship of the Government to the customer
(or category of customers) that was the basis of award.
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.'' CSP disclosures and the PRC ensure GSA meets this
objective by giving it insight into a contractor's pricing practices,
which is proprietary information that can only be obtained directly
from the contractor.
Information Collection Changes and Updates
GSA has revised this information collection by adding CSP
disclosure burden estimates, renaming the information collection, and
updating figures.
Including the CSP Disclosure Burden: GSA is adding CSP disclosure
burden estimates to this information collection because of comments
received for its Transactional Data Reporting proposed rule (GSAR case
2013-G504), published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 11619, on March
4, 2015. GSA proposed to amend the GSAR to include a clause that would
require FSS vendors to report transactional data from orders and prices
paid by ordering activities. The new clause would be paired with
changes to the basis of award monitoring, or ``tracking customer,''
requirement of the existing Price Reductions clause, resulting in a
burden reduction for participating FSS contractors. The proposed rule
also noted, ``. . . GSA would maintain the right throughout the life of
the FSS contract to ask a vendor for updates to the disclosures made on
its [CSP] format . . . if and as necessary to ensure that prices remain
fair and reasonable in light of changing market conditions.''
In comments received regarding the proposed rule, industry
respondents indicated retaining CSP disclosures would cancel out any
burden reduction achieved by eliminating the PRC tracking customer
requirement. Specifically, respondents were concerned that CSP
disclosures still force them to monitor their commercial prices, which
ultimately causes the associated burden for both disclosure
requirements. In response, GSA agrees the burden of the PRC and CSP is
related and is therefore including CSP disclosure burden estimates in
this information collection extension request.
Renaming the Information Collection: GSA is changing the
information collection name from ``Price Reductions Clause'' to
``Federal Supply Schedule Pricing Disclosures'' to more accurately
reflect the scope of the information collected.
Updated Figures: The following figures were updated for the current
information collection:
Increased the number of FSS contracts and vendors from
19,000 FSS contracts held by 16,000 vendors to 20,094 FSS contracts
were held by 17,302 vendors.
Increased the number of price reduction modifications from
1,560 to 2,148.
Decreased the number of GSA OIG pre-award audits from an
average of 70 to 59.
Increased the estimated annual time burden from 868,920
hours to 1,324,343 hours.
Increased the estimated annual cost burden; the new
estimated annual cost burden is $90,055,353. The 2012 information
collection did not provide a cost burden estimate, but if the same
hourly rate ($68) was applied to the 2012 time burden, the 2012 cost
burden would have been $59,086,560.
B. Annual Reporting Burden
This information collection applies to all companies that held, or
submitted offers for, FSS contracts. In fiscal year 2014:
20,094 contracts were active, including 1,411 contracts
that were awarded and 2,213 contracts that ended over that time period.
17,302 companies held FSS contracts (some companies held
more than one contract).
[[Page 21348]]
3,464 offers were submitted for FSS contracts.
However, the number of responses consists of the number of CSP
disclosures and price reduction notifications made in FY2014, as well
as the average number of GSA Office of Inspector General audits
performed between fiscal years 2012 and 2014.
Heavier Lifts and Lighter Lifts
FSS contracts are held by a diverse set of companies, which vary in
terms of business size, offerings, and FSS sales volume. For example,
in fiscal year 2014:
32.8 percent, or 5,673 companies, reported $0 in FSS
contracts.
5.6 percent, or 975 companies, accounted for 80 percent of
all FSS sales.
The top 20 percent of FSS contractors (in terms of FY2014
sales) accounted for 95.7 percent of FSS sales.
Only 2.6 percent of FSS contractors reported more than $1
million in FSS sales.
In general, a contractor's FSS sales volume will have the greatest
effect on the associated burden of these requirements, although the
number and type of offerings, and business structure, can also be
significant factors. As shown by the above figures, a relatively small
number of FSS contractors account for the vast majority of FSS sales
and accordingly, likely bear a heavier burden for these requirements.
Conversely, the majority of FSS vendors, which are typically small
businesses with lower sales volume, absorb a lighter burden for these
requirements.
To account for the differences among FSS contractors, GSA is
utilizing the Pareto principle, or ``80/20 rule,'' which states 80
percent of effects comes from 20 percent of the population.
Accordingly, GSA is separating FSS contractors among those that have a
``heavier lift'' (20 percent) from those that have a ``lighter lift''
(80 percent). Contractors with heavier lifts are those with the
characteristics that lead to increased burden--more sales volume,
higher number of contract items, more complex offerings, more
transactions, more complex transactions, and/or intricate business
structures. This methodology is used for several components of the
burden analysis.
Cost Burden Calculation
The estimated cost burden for respondents was calculated by
multiplying the burden hours by an estimated cost of $68/hour ($50/hour
with a 36 percent overhead rate).
Price Reductions Clause
For this information collection clearance, GSA attributes the PRC-
related burden to training, compliance systems, and audits, as well as
a burden associated with notifying GSA of price reductions within 15
calendar days after their occurrence.
Training: FSS contractors provide training to their employees to
ensure compliance with FSS pricing disclosure requirements. In FY2014,
there were 17,302 contractors, 3,460 (20 percent) with a heavier lift
and 13,842 (80 percent) with a lighter lift. Contractors within the
heavier lift category may need to develop formal training programs and
conduct training for numerous divisions and offices, while contractors
in the lighter lift category may have no need for training design and
administration due to having as few as one person responsible for PRC
compliance.
Training--Heavier Lift
Total Annual Responses: 3,460
Average Hours per Response: 40
Total Time Burden (Hours): 138,400
Total Cost Burden: $9,411,200
Training--Lighter Lift
Total Annual Responses: 13,842
Average Hours per Response: 20
Total Time Burden (Hours): 276,840
Total Cost Burden: $18,825,120
Compliance Systems: FSS contractors must develop systems to control
discount relationships with other customers/categories of customer to
ensure the basis of award pricing relationship is not disturbed. In
response to the 2012 information collection request, the Coalition for
Government Procurement provided the results from a survey it conducted
among its members regarding the PRC burden. The Coalition survey
results attributed 1,100 burden hours to developing compliance systems.
However, GSA believes this figure is only attributable to heavier lift
contractors and should be allocated over the 20-year life of an FSS
contract because a significant part of a burden is the effort to
establish a compliance system that will be used over the life of the
contract. GSA is attributing a total of 600 burden hours to compliance
systems for contractors with a lighter lift and is also allocating that
burden over a 20-year period. The results are an annual 55-hour burden
for heavier lift contractors (1,100 hours divided by 20 years) and an
annual 30-hour burden for lighter lift contractors (600 hours divided
by 20 years).
In FY2014, there were 17,302 contractors, 3,460 (20 percent) with a
heavier lift and 13,842 (80 percent) with a lighter lift:
Compliance Systems--Heavier Lift
Total Annual Responses: 3,460
Average Hours per Response: 55
Total Time Burden (Hours): 190,322
Total Cost Burden: $12,940,400
Compliance Systems--Lighter Lift
Total Annual Responses: 13,842
Average Hours per Response: 30
Total Time Burden (Hours): 415,248
Total Cost Burden: $28,237,680
Audits: The GSA Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an
average of 59 pre-award audits of FSS contracts between FY2012 and
FY2014, according to the OIG's Semiannual Congressional Reports over
that time period. Respondents to a 2012 Coalition for Government
Procurement survey estimated that approximately 440-470 hours were
spent preparing for audits involving the PRC; the 455 hour figure is
the median point in the range:
GSA OIG Audits
Total Annual Responses: 59
Average Hours per Response: 455
Total Time Burden (Hours): 26,845
Total Cost Burden: $1,825,460
Price Reduction Notifications: 2,148 price reduction modifications
were completed in FY14, with each modification requiring a notification
from the contractor. In a survey conducted among GSA FSS contracting
officers, respondents estimated it took an average of 4.25 hours to
complete a price reduction modification. GSA believes FSS contractors
bear a similar burden for this task and is therefore using the same
burden estimate.
Price Reduction Notifications
Total Annual Responses: 2,148
Average Hours per Response: 4.25
Total Time Burden (Hours): 9,129
Total Cost Burden: $620,772
Commercial Sales Practices Disclosures
The CSP burden results from disclosures required of any contractor
submitting an offer for an FSS contract or modifying an FSS contract to
increase prices, add items and Special Item Numbers, or exercise
options. GSA attributed a negotiations burden to the PRC in the
previous information collection, but is now including that burden
within the CSP disclosure estimates.
The burden estimates for CSP disclosures are based upon the
estimates provided by respondents to the GSA FSS contracting officer
survey. While the 77 survey respondents provided estimates regarding
the amount of time it takes FSS contracting officers to complete CSP-
related tasks, GSA believes FSS contractors bear a similar
[[Page 21349]]
burden for these tasks and is therefore using the same burden
estimates.
Pre-award Disclosures: In FY2014, contractors submitted 3,464
offers for FSS contracts, with 693 (20 percent) offerors having a
heavier lift (20 percent) and 2,771 (80 percent) with a lighter lift:
Pre-award Disclosures--Heavier Lift
Total Annual Responses: 693
Average Hours per Response: 41.48
Total Time Burden (Hours): 28,746
Total Cost Burden: $1,954,704
Pre-award Disclosures--Lighter Lift
Total Annual Responses: 2,771
Average Hours per Response: 32.41
Total Time Burden (Hours): 89,808
Total Cost Burden: $6,106,951
Price Increase Modifications: In FY2014, 2,509 price increase
modifications were processed, including 502 (20 percent) with a heavier
lift and 2,007 (80 percent) with a lighter lift:
Price Increases--Heavier Lift
Total Annual Responses: 502
Average Hours per Response: 10.45
Total Time Burden (Hours): 5,246
Total Cost Burden: $356,721
Price Increases--Lighter Lift
Total Annual Responses: 2,007
Average Hours per Response: 9.71
Total Time Burden (Hours): 18,404
Total Cost Burden: $1,251,485
Adding Items and Special Item Numbers (SINs): In FY2014, 6,861
modifications to add contract items or SINs were processed, including
1,372 (20 percent) with a heavier lift and 5,489 (80 percent) with a
lighter lift:
Addition Modifications--Heavier Lift
Total Annual Responses: 1,372
Average Hours per Response: 11.13
Total Time Burden (Hours): 15,270
Total Cost Burden: $1,038,384
Addition Modifications--Lighter Lift
Total Annual Responses: 5,489
Average Hours per Response: 10.65
Total Time Burden (Hours): 58,458
Total Cost Burden: $3,975,134
Exercising Options: In FY2014, 2,237 modifications to exercise
options were processed, including 447 (20 percent) with a heavier lift
and 1,790 (80 percent) with a lighter lift:
Option Modifications--Heavier Lift
Total Annual Responses: 447
Average Hours per Response: 26.14
Total Time Burden (Hours): 11,685
Total Cost Burden: $794,551
Option Modifications--Lighter Lift
Total Annual Responses: 1,790
Average Hours per Response: 22.32
Total Time Burden (Hours): 39,953
Total Cost Burden: $2,716,790
Total Annual Burden
The total estimated burden imposed by Federal Supply Schedule
pricing disclosures is as follows:
Estimated Annual Time Burden (Hours)
Price Reductions Clause: 1,056,774
CSP Disclosures: 267,569
Total Annual Time Burden: 1,324,343
Estimated Annual Cost Burden
Price Reductions Clause: $71,860,632
CSP Disclosures: $18,194,721
Total Annual Cost Burden: $90,055,353
C. Discussion and Analysis
A notice of request for comments regarding the extension of
Information Collection 3090-0235, Federal Supply Schedule Pricing
Disclosures, was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 72060 on
November 18, 2015. One respondent provided comments on (1) whether FSS
pricing disclosures are necessary and have practical utility, and (2)
if GSA's estimates of the collection burden are accurate, and based on
valid assumptions and methodology. The following are summaries of those
comments and GSA's responses:
Comment: The respondent stated these pricing disclosures no longer
have practical utility because pricing under the FSS program is
primarily driven by order-level competition. In regards to the Price
Reductions clause (PRC), the respondent stated the following:
GSA's notice of proposed rulemaking for GSAR case 2013-
G504, Transactional Data Reporting, which stated ``only about 3 percent
of the total price reductions received under the price reductions
clause were tied to the `tracking customer' feature. The vast majority
(approximately 78 percent) came as a result of commercial pricelist
adjustments and market rate changes, with the balance for other
reasons.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See GSAR Case 2013-G504; Docket 2014-0020; Sequence 1 [80 FR
11619 (Mar. 4, 2015)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The respondent's member organizations ``overwhelmingly
reported that competition in response to known requirements is the most
significant driver of reduced pricing for customer agencies.''
The PRC limits contractors in their ability to offer
discounts to certain commercial clients, which undermines competition
in the commercial marketplace.
In regards to Commercial Sales Practices (CSP) disclosures, the
respondent stated:
``The current CSP format for disclosures does not provide
for consideration of the existing GSA Schedule ordering procedures,
creates ambiguity in disclosure requirements, and requires the release
of data that exceeds the needs of the government to negotiate fair and
reasonable prices.''
The CSP was developed at a time when the commercial
marketplace was less volatile and contractors generally had standard
prices and pricelists. However, this is no longer the case,
particularly for the service and high-tech industry sectors. As a
result, the respondent's members report ``it is difficult to determine
how to respond to and appropriately disclose information requested in
the CSP format.''
Response: The PRC and CSP disclosures are a means for GSA to meet
its obligation under 41 U.S.C. 152(3)(B), which requires FSS ordering
procedures to ``result in the lowest overall cost alternative to meet
the needs of the Federal Government.'' However, GSA is exploring
alternatives to these practices. For example, GSA's Transactional Data
Reporting proposed rule would require FSS contractors to report to GSA
transactional data--including descriptions of the items purchased,
quantities, and prices paid--on orders placed under their FSS
contracts. GSA's experience with transactional data has shown it can
lead to better contract-level and order-level prices. As part of GSA's
Transactional Data Reporting proposed rule, GSA proposed removing the
basis of award requirement of the PRC when FSS contractors agreed to
report transactional data to GSA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The respondent stated the ``higher lift'' versus ``lighter
lift'' assumptions are not appropriate because its member organizations
consisting of both small businesses and large businesses, and both
types use consultants and attorneys to assist in completing pre-award
CSP disclosures, which aligns both types closer to the higher lift
burden estimates.
Response: GSA used this approach to account for the vast disparity
in burden among FSS contractors. The amount of ``lift'' required by a
contractor can be affected by factors such as business size, sales
volume, and contract-type. The following illustrations show how the
burden can vary by each factor:
A larger business will encounter more obstacles in meeting
these requirements, such as coordinating between multiple offices and
business lines, than a smaller business with fewer customers.
Schedule contractors with higher sales volume will likely
encounter more situations that require pricing disclosures than those
with no sales.
A higher number of FSS contract line-items require more
expansive CSP
[[Page 21350]]
disclosures and broader PRC basis of award customer monitoring.
Typically, product-oriented contracts have more line-items than a
service contract and therefore face a higher burden.
Since a single factor alone does not determine a contractor's lift,
as these factors are independent of each other (e.g. business size does
not determine sales volume or contract-type), it would be inappropriate
to categorize vendors along business or contract attributes. On the
other hand, it is appropriate to separate the burden between heavier
lift and lighter lift because there are marked differences in the
compliance burden. While many contractors do absorb a higher compliance
burden, they are not representative of the Schedules program. The
following fiscal year 2014 figures illustrate why most vendors would
not fall into the heavier lift category:
Other-than-small businesses accounted for 63% of the total
sales but only held 20% of the FSS contracts.
The top 20 percent of FSS contractors, in terms of FY2014
sales, accounted for 95.7 percent of the overall FSS sales volume.
82% of sales were under Schedules that had a majority of
sales under service-related SINs, while 18% of sales were made under
Schedules that had a majority of sales under product-related SINs.
Typically, majority-product contracts have more line items and require
a higher burden for FSS pricing disclosure requirements. Some of the
majority-service Schedules contain product-related SINs, meaning the
service-related sales portion could be under 82%, but service-related
sales still undoubtedly account for a majority of the overall FSS sales
volume.
Comment: The PRC burden does not account for monitoring activities
beyond establishing electronic systems to track pricing. The
respondent's members indicated this burden could potentially be 2,000
hours a year for a heavy lift contractor.
Response: GSA's compliance system burden estimate is the highest of
the various PRC components because it included monitoring activities. A
compliance system encompasses how a contractor maintains compliance
with the PRC. Some contractors may invest in an electronic system that
requires high upfront investments but automates ongoing monitoring,
while others may opt to manually compare their GSA prices to other
classes of customers. Accordingly, GSA considered monitoring activities
when evaluating the compliance system burden. GSA's annual compliance
system burden estimates consist of annual monitoring activities and an
allocated portion of the burden for establishing a compliance system.
However, GSA is interested in additional comments on whether monitoring
activities would take place outside of a compliance system.
Comment: The compliance systems burden of 1,100 hours was taken
from the respondent's comments regarding the 2012 information
collection extension but incorrectly spread the burden across a 20-year
period. Accordingly, the burden should be 20 times larger than GSA's
estimates.
Response: GSA allocated the burden over the full 20-year FSS
contract life-cycle because contractors will not establish a new
compliance system each year. Typically, a contractor will establish a
compliance ``system''--which may entail electronic tools or simply be a
procedure to manually review pricing--and then commence monitoring
activities. Since the compliance system will not be reestablished each
year, it should be allocated over the life of the contract. However,
GSA invites comments on whether the compliance system burden should be
allocated over the full contract life-cycle or another amount of time,
such as a single year or a 5-year option period.
Comment: The CSP burden is underestimated because it does not
account for the work that contractors do to prepare a CSP before it is
presented to a contracting officer.
Response: GSA considered the upfront work needed to prepare CSPs
before they are presented to the contracting officer. However, the
contracting officer also spends a considerable amount of time
evaluating the CSPs. As such, GSA believes the contractor preparation
and contracting officer review burdens are comparable. However, GSA
encourages commenters to provide estimates regarding the amount of
upfront work needed to prepare a pre-award CSP.
Comment: Several of the respondent's members, most of who fall
under the heavy lift category, stated the pre-award CSP burden could
exceed 400 hours and the modification preparation burden could be as
much as 185 hours.
Response: GSA based its CSP burden estimates on the results of a
survey it conducted among its FSS contracting officers. Those results
showed a wide variance in the amount of time needed to complete CSP-
related activities. For example, FSS contracting officer CSP estimates
were as high as 2,400 hours for pre-award CSPs and 206 hours for
requests to add items or SINs to the contract. Consequently,
statistical methods were used to account for outliers within the
responses and provide a reliable average estimate for each component.
Specifically, the final averages were calculated using an interquartile
mean, derived from an interquartile range (IQR) multiplied by 1.5.
Comment: Contractors that do not maintain standardized pricelists
have a more difficult time preparing CSP disclosures and often obtain
additional training and/or hire consultants to meet the CSP
requirements.
Response: As previously noted, GSA recognized there are several
factors that affect the burden and therefore separated contractors into
those with heavier lifts and lighter lifts. Contractors that have a
difficult time preparing CSP disclosures and therefore choose to obtain
additional training and/or hire consultants may fall into the heavier
lift category.
Comment: The heavier lift versus lighter lift methodology may not
capture all of the heavier lift contractors because many small
businesses that would fall in the lighter lift category due to their
sales volume still endure a high compliance burden.
Response: As noted above, the heavier lift and lighter lift
categories are not determined by a single factor like FSS sales volume;
they are reflective of the overall compliance burden. Small businesses
with a high compliance burden would fall into the heavier lift
category. Conversely, many larger service providers with a high sales
volume concentrated in a small number of contracts and fewer contract
line-items may fall in the lighter lift category.
Comment: The respondent's small business members report compliance
with these disclosure requirements is particularly challenging because
unlike larger contractors, they do not have the resources to invest in
compliance. This results in a barrier to entry to the FSS program for
small innovative firms.
Response: GSA requires these disclosures as one method of meeting
its statutory obligations to provide the ``lowest cost alternative,''
but is exploring options to lower burden. As part of GSA's
Transactional Data Reporting proposed rule, GSA proposed removing the
basis of award requirement of the PRC when FSS contractors agreed to
report transactional data to GSA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The hourly rate GSA used for its estimates ($68/hour) is
understated. For example, some outside consultants hired by contractors
to assist with the disclosures may be paid
[[Page 21351]]
as much as $200 an hour. The respondent recommends GSA measure the
burden by the number of hours or determine a more accurate hourly rate.
Response: The $68/hour rate consists of a $50/hour base rate and
$18/hour (36% above the base rate) for fringe benefits. The 36% fringe
benefit rate was taken from Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular No. A-76, which recommends cost factors to 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. The standard A-76 cost factor for
fringe benefits is 36.25%; GSA opted to round to the nearest whole
number for the basis of its burden estimates.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Circular A-76 Figure C1, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a076_a76_incl_tech_correction/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the base rate, GSA believes these disclosure functions
are typically performed by contract administrators with occasional
assistance from higher-paid professionals, such as attorneys and
consultants. The most comparable labor category to a contract
administrator that was analyzed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
is a buyer and purchasing agent, whose responsibilities include
negotiating contracts. BLS's most recently published hourly rate for
this type of professional was $28.14/hour;\5\ incorporating the 36%
fringe benefit factor, the total rate is $38.27/hour. However, GSA
chose to use the higher $68/hour rate to account for the occasional
involvement of higher-paid professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook
Handbook for Buyers and Purchasing Agents, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/buyers-and-purchasing-agents.htm#tab-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The respondent calculates the annual PRC burden to be $850
million when applying GSA's hourly rate ($68/hour) to their estimate of
12.5 million hours a year. As a result, the value of price reductions
should exceed $850 million in order for the PRC's benefits to outweigh
its costs.
Response: GSA requires these disclosures as one method of meeting
its statutory obligations to provide the ``lowest cost alternative,''
but GSA is exploring alternative methods. As part of GSA's
Transactional Data Reporting proposed rule,\6\ GSA proposed removing
the basis of award requirement of the PRC when FSS contractors agreed
to report transactional data to GSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See GSAR Case 2013-G504; Docket 2014-0020; Sequence 1 [80 FR
11619 (Mar. 4, 2015)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The respondent provided comments in opposition to GSAR
case 2013-G504, Transactional Data Reporting.
Response: GSA is not providing responses to comments on
Transactional Data Reporting because they are not directly related to
this information collection request.
D. 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 OMB
Control No. 3090-0235, FSS Pricing Disclosures, in all correspondence.
Jeffrey A. Koses,
Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-08160 Filed 4-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-61-P