[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34820-34822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15355]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 5, 42, and 52
[FAR Case 2017-014; Docket No. 2017-0014; Sequence No. 1]
RIN 9000-AN43
Federal Acquisition Regulations: Use of Acquisition 360 To
Encourage Vendor Feedback
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are considering an amendment to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to establish a standard survey for
obtaining voluntary feedback from actual and potential offerors on
Government contracts and solicitations. DoD, GSA, and NASA are seeking
public input, particularly from Government contractors on the potential
benefits and burdens of voluntary feedback surveys.
DATES: Interested parties should submit written comments to the
Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on
or before September 21, 2018 to be considered in the formulation of a
proposed rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments identified by FAR Case 2017-014 by any of
the following methods:
Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit
comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering ``FAR Case
2017-014'' under the heading ``Enter Keyword or ID'' and selecting
``Search''. Select the link ``Comment Now'' that corresponds with ``FAR
Case 2017-014''. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please
include your name, company name (if any), and ``FAR Case 2017-014'' on
your attached document.
Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory
Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, Second floor, ATTN: Lois
Mandell, Washington, DC 20405.
Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite ``FAR case 2017-
014'' in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received
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 http://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. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement
Analyst, at 202-501-1448 for clarification of content. For information
pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory
Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite ``FAR case 2017-
014''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In 2015, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) issued
guidance to test use of a standard survey that allowed offerors,
whether or not they received award, to rate the agency's pre-award and
debriefing processes for specific solicitations. See ``Acquisition
360--Improving the Acquisition Process through Timely Feedback from
External and Internal Stakeholders'' (March 2015) (available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/procurement/memo/acquisition-360-improving-acquisition-process-timely-feedback-external-internal-stakeholders.pdf). Under the guidance, interested
offerors were invited, at their discretion, to rate and provide
comments regarding the issuance of solicitations covering a wide range
of requirements, including information technology, medical equipment,
and management support services. Survey questions asked for input
regarding satisfaction with the pre-solicitation activities,
solicitation documents, evaluation criteria, and the debriefing
process. To view the online survey tool with the survey questions, go
to https://www.acquisition.gov/360.
Even though the data was limited in scope some trends did emerge.
For example, contractors rated the robustness of agency debriefings
with the lowest satisfaction scores in both iterations. This informed
OFPP's education and outreach efforts and a memorandum, `` `Myth-
busting 3' Further Improving Industry Communication with Effective
[[Page 34821]]
Debriefings'', was ultimately issued in 2017.
OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA believe that establishing a standard
process in the FAR for obtaining voluntary feedback following a
contract award will provide more meaningful insight on ways to
strengthen the contracting process than can be derived by relying on ad
hoc or periodic agency satisfaction surveys. Accordingly, language is
being considered to encourage contracting officers, in accordance with
agency policy, to invite interested sources--actual and potential
offerors--to provide feedback on various aspects of the pre-award
acquisition process and debriefings, with a particular emphasis on how
information is communicated. Submissions are intended to be anonymous
and for internal Government improvements only. Voluntary participation
would not bestow respondents any direct benefits or protections in the
acquisition process or any subsequent protests. In addition, OFPP, DoD,
GSA, and NASA are considering language that would encourage Government
acquisition officials to elicit feedback from their contractors on the
agency's performance of its contract administration responsibilities.
II. Request for Public Comments
The FAR Council welcomes input on any matters related to vendor
feedback, including specific examples of industry standards,
alternative regulatory approaches, and legal definitions that work well
in other areas. The Council also invites comment on the overall cost of
complying with the Council's existing regulations and any specific
regulatory requirements that are particularly burdensome. The specific
survey questions to be used in conjunction with a rulemaking are posted
on https://www.acquisition.gov/360.
Respondents are encouraged to offer their feedback on the above
language--as well as the underlying survey questions--in addition to
the following additional questions:
(1) What are the benefits to industry in providing actual and
potential offerors with increased opportunity to submit feedback on how
well the Government is performing its pre- and post-award activities?
What are the benefits to the Government?
(2) Is the approach discussed in this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking the most effective way to elicit feedback about the
Government's pre-award activities? If not, how might effectiveness be
improved? What is the best way the Government can obtain honest and
open feedback on the contract administration process?
(3) Approximately, how long would you estimate it will take to
complete the survey at https://www.acquisition.gov/360? What is a
reasonable estimate of an organization's costs to complete the survey
and what are the elements of this cost (e.g., personnel involved and
time to complete)?
(4) How would you quantify or otherwise describe the benefits or
burdens of this type of feedback mechanism to actual and potential
offerors?
(5) Should any of the information provided by industry be available
for industry review? How should the FAR Council work proactively with
industry to consider changes based on any data submitted?
(6) Is there different information which should be collected on the
survey based on the type of company or the type of acquisition?
(7) Would you view the voluntary opportunity to provide input as
burden? If so, are there modifications which would decrease the burden
associated with the Government collecting this information?
(8) Would you be more likely to complete the survey if it were
available as a hyperlinked button within each solicitation page of
https://www.fedbizopps.gov?
(9) What measures would help assure you that answers would remain
anonymous? For example: Should the solicitation number itself and/or
the specific Product Service Code (PSC) be stripped from the data
agencies review? Should there be a time delay in agencies receiving
survey responses? Should the Government discard survey submissions when
two or fewer responses are received for a solicitation or would you
prefer that the Government reviews data from all responses?
(10) What recommendations would you advise to ensure data quality?
Similar to the example above, should the Government discard survey
submissions when a minimal number are received for a particular
solicitation or contracting office or would you view this effort more
as a forum to provide comments?
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking was determined to be
significant for the purposes of E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 5, 42, and 52
Government procurement.
Dated: July 13, 2018.
Cecelia Davis,
Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office
of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR parts
5, 42, and 52 to read as follows:
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 5, 42, and 52 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51
U.S.C. 20113.
PART 5--PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS
0
2. Add section 5.407 to read as follows:
5.407 Feedback on the Pre-Award Process and Debriefings
(a) Agencies are encouraged to seek regular voluntary feedback from
interested sources that participate in an agency's acquisitions to
understand strengths and weaknesses in how information is communicated,
how acquisition techniques and methodologies were executed, and
consider this feedback, as appropriate, to improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of the acquisition process.
(b) The contracting officer should insert the provision 52.XXX-XX,
Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey, in accordance with agency
procedures.
PART 42--CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES
0
3. Add section 42.1401 to read as follows:
42.1401 Policy.
(a) Agencies are encouraged to seek regular and voluntary feedback
from their contractors on the agency's performance of its contract
administration responsibilities.
(b) Feedback might be sought on matters such as the contractor's
evaluation of the agency in terms of--
(1) Adherence to contract terms, including the administrative
aspects of performance;
(2) Reasonable and cooperative behavior in responding to contractor
communications and addressing contractor requests; and
(3) Business-like concern for the interest of the contractor.
(c) Agencies should consider this feedback, as appropriate, to
better understand strengths and weaknesses and improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of their contract administration
activities.
[[Page 34822]]
PART 52--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
0
4. Add section 52.XXX-XX to read as follows:
52.XXX-XX Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey
As prescribed in 5.407(b), insert the following provision:
Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey (DATE)
(a) All actual or prospective offerors are encouraged to provide
feedback on the pre-award process, including debriefings. Feedback
may be made anonymously by going to https://www.acquisition.gov/360.
(b) None of the information provided will be reviewed until
after contract award and will not be considered in nor impact source
selection in any way.
(End of provision)
[FR Doc. 2018-15355 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-14-P