[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 217 (Thursday, November 7, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57622-57623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-28635]
[[Page 57622]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1, 2, 14, 15, 36, 52, and 53
[FAR Case 95-029]
RIN 9000-AH21
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Part 15 Rewrite--Phase I
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Notice of public meeting and extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAR Council and the FAR Part 15 (Contracting By
Negotiation) Rewrite Committee are providing a forum for the exchange
of ideas and information with Government and industry personnel by
holding public meetings and soliciting public comments. The goal is to
ensure an open dialogue between the Government and the general public
on this important initiative. In order to provide a greater outreach to
small businesses and other interested parties for whom a public meeting
located in the Washington DC area is not convenient, a second public
meeting on the proposed rule has been scheduled. Interested parties are
invited to present statements or comments on the Phase I proposed Part
15 rewrite at the public meeting, scheduled for the date and location
set forth below. In order to permit time for public comments to be
submitted by those attending the second public meeting, the public
comment period for the proposed rule, which was published in the
Federal Register on September 12, 1996 (61 FR 48380), is extended
through November 26, 1996.
DATES: Public Meeting: A public meeting will be conducted at the
address shown from 9 a.m.--12 p.m., local time, on November 18, 1996.
Representatives of the FAR Part 15 Rewrite Committee will remain
available at the meeting site as long as members of the general public
wish to dialogue on topics relating to the proposed rewrite, including
proposed changes regarding the competitive range.
Statements: Statements from interested parties for presentation at
the public meeting should be submitted, to the extent feasible, to the
address below on or before November 15, 1996.
Comments: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in
writing to the GSA (address below) on or before November 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Public Meeting: The location of the public meeting is Ramada
Inn Benjamin Ranch, 6101 East 87th Street (I-435 and 87th Street Exit),
Kansas City, MO, Sierra Rooms 1, 2, and 3, telephone (816) 765-4331.
Individuals wishing to attend the meeting, including individuals
wishing to make presentations on the topic scheduled for discussion,
should contact Jill Dickey, telephone (816) 926-7203, facsimile (816)
823-1167.
Comments/Statements: Interested parties should submit written
comments/statements to: General Services Administration, FAR
Secretariat (VRS), Attention: Beverly Fayson, 18th and F Streets, NW,
Room 4037, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite FAR case 95-029 in all
correspondence related to this issue.
Electronic Access: This proposed rule is posted on the Acquisition
Reform Network (ARNET) at www.arnet.gov. Comments may be submitted
electronically at that address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For logistics information regarding
the public meeting contact Jill Dickey, telephone (816) 926-7203,
facsimile (816) 823-1167. For general information, contact the Part 15
Rewrite Committee Chair, Melissa Rider, telephone (703) 602-0131,
facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite FAR case 95-029.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAR Council is conducting a second
public meeting to discuss FAR Case 95-029, FAR Part 15 Rewrite--Phase I
which was published on September 12, 1996 (61 FR 48380).
The Phase I proposed rule is a rewrite of FAR Subparts 15.0, 15.1,
15.2, 15.3. 15.4, 15.6, and 15.10. The rule proposes to: Enhance
efficiency by reinforcing the contracting officer's ability to minimize
the cost of doing business with the Government; eliminate unnecessary
effort by both the Government and industry to support prices set by
free-market forces; ensure that firms seeking to do business with the
Government have an accurate understanding of the importance of
evaluation criteria; allow the Government to make informed decisions
about which offerors are truly most likely to receive award; allow both
industry and Government to rely more on agreements reached during
discussions without putting offerors through the expense of developing
revised proposals; and reinforce the concept of eliminating an offeror
without requiring a proposal revision, if discussions with the offeror
indicate that a proposal revision would waste the time and resources of
both the offeror and the Government.
Major policy shifts in the Phase I proposed rule include:
A narrower definition of ``discussions'' limited to
communications after establishment of the competitive range. This is a
much more narrow definition than the current one (which pre-dates CICA)
and very strictly conforms with the statute. This supports a much more
open and dynamic interchange between the Government and offerors before
establishment of the competitive range, thus allowing the Government to
make an informed decision when limiting the competitive range and is
the cornerstone of all of the rest of the major policy shifts.
A shift in competitive range policy to encourage retaining
only the offerors with the greatest likelihood of award and allowing
the contracting officer to further limit the competitive range in the
interest of efficiency. This is an evolutionary step from our authority
to award without discussions. We believe this will focus an offeror's
attention on providing their best deal in the initial proposal.
Encouragement of communication with industry throughout
the solicitation process to ensure competitive range determinations are
informed decisions. The rule allows disclosure of perceived
deficiencies before establishment of the competitive range to resolve
ambiguities and other concerns. These communications are not
``discussions.''
Elimination of ``minor clarifications'' except for use in
award without discussions, once again in strict compliance with
statute.
Revision of the ``late'' rules for negotiated acquisitions
to make the offeror responsible for timely delivery of its offer, and
to allow late offers to be considered if doing so is in the best
interests of the Government. This was done to clarify the
responsibility of the offeror to get the offer to the location
specified, yet allow the Government to take advantage of the ``best
deal'' in each situation.
The proposed rule also specifically authorizes practices currently
in use at some agencies including:
Comparison of one offer to another, after the proposals
have been evaluated against the criteria in the solicitation;
Release of the Government estimate to all offerors, when
it makes sense to do so; and
[[Page 57623]]
Amendment of the solicitation, at any time prior to award,
including amendment of the evaluation factors and subfactors.
Changes have been proposed to support streamlined source
selections including:
A new definition of ``best value'' at Part 2, to remove
confusion that may arise from several slightly different definitions.
This supports the concept of presenting a single face to industry.
A description of two common source selection processes-
award to the low cost technically acceptable offeror, and trade-offs
among cost and other factors. The intent is to emphasize that a variety
of processes can be used, that source selection need not be complex,
and to promote tailoring of processes to match the complexity of the
instant requirement. We hope this will allow field contracting
activities to put resources where they will get the biggest pay-off and
not make source selections more complicated than necessary.
Authorization to use techniques such as multi-phase
proposals or oral presentations, once again to allow tailoring of the
source selection process to match the requirement.
Guidance on communications between the Government and
industry prior to release of the solicitation. Within the limitations
of the prohibition on giving information necessary to prepare a
proposal to one interested party without sharing the information with
all other interested parties, agencies are encouraged to share
information freely with industry. The improved communications should
make it easier for potential offerors to make more aggressive bid/no
bid decisions, thereby allowing them to apply their limited bid and
proposal dollars where they will get the best potential pay-off.
A new Model Contract Format (MCF), based on an Army/Air
Force proposal, that will replace the uniform contract format. The MCF
format has only six sections, which focus on usefulness to the customer
at all levels by highlighting tailored information and locating all
financial and contract administration data together. We hope this will
improve the payment process and make the document more ``user-
friendly.''
A related proposed rule, FAR case 96-303, Competitive
Range Determinations, was published in the Federal Register on July 31,
1996 (61 FR 40116). Since it is important to consider the proposed rule
for FAR Case 96-303, Competitive Range Determinations, in the broader
context of FAR Part 15 as a whole, the FAR Council has determined that
comments about both cases may be entertained during the second public
meeting for the Part 15 Rewrite--Phase I. However, note that there are
differences between the Competitive Range case and the FAR Part 15
Rewrite--Phase I case that are due primarily to the different baselines
used. The Competitive Range case uses the baseline of the current FAR
Parts 15 and 52, while the FAR Part 15 Rewrite--Phase I case proposes
to reorganize and revise Parts 15 and 52. A final rule for the
Competitive Range case will be issued well in advance of the final rule
for the Part 15 Rewrite. Therefore, it may be viewed as an evolutionary
step in a process that will culminate in the pending broader revision.
Notwithstanding the minor differences between the cases, we encourage
interested parties to express their positions on this rule as part of
the second public meeting.
Dated: November 1, 1996.
Jeremy Olson,
Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 96-28635 Filed 11-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P