8166 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

17.1. TABLE 17–1—DIAGNOSTIC TESTS REQUIRED AFTER VARIOUS REPAIRS—Continued 

Description of event 

Optical 

alignment 

Optical 

alignment 

indicator 

assessment 

(Note 1) 

Zero calibration 

check 

Clear 

path (offstack) 

zero assessment 

(Note 3) 

Upscale 

calibration 

check 

Calibration error 

check 

Fault status indicator 

check 

Averaging 

period 

calculation and 

recording 

7-Day 

zero and 

up-scale drift 

check 

(Note 2) 

Recertify per 

PS–1 

New 

MCOC 

per ASTM D 

6216–98, 07 

Comments 

(2) Replace or repair primary measurement light..X X X X X X X — — — — Light source uniformity and 

position are key source 

to many performance 

parameters. 

(3) Replace or repair components which are 

measurement noncritical..

X — X — X ................ X — — — — See text description, section 10.5(2). 

(4) Replace or repair components which are 

measurement critical..

X X X X X X X — X — — See test description, section 10.5(3). 

(5) Replace or repair components which are 

measurement critical but 

do not involve optical or 

electro-optical components..

— — X — X X X X — — — Includes changes of components involving data 

acquisition and recording. 

(6) Rebuild or substantially 

refurbish the analyzer..

— — — — — — — — — X — See text description, section 10.5(4). 

(7) Change to, or addition 

of, analyzer components 

which may affect MCOCspecified performance 

parameters..

— — — — — — — — — X X Significant changes which 

are not part of the 

MCOC-designated configuration. 

Notes: (1) Optical alignment indicator assessment requires the operator to verify during an off the stack clear path zero assessment that the beam is centered on the reflector/retro reflector 

when the alignment indicator indicates on-axis centered alignment. If not, the analyzer optical train must be adjusted until this condition is met. 

(2) 7-Day zero and upscale drift assessment. Opacity measurement data recorded prior to completion of the 7-day drift test will be considered as valid provided that the first 7-day drift test is 

successful, that it is completed within 14 days of completion of the repair, and that other QA requirements are met during this time period. 

(3) Requires verification of the external zero-jig response, or recalibration of the same, after the off-stack clear path zero has been re-established. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3379 Filed 2–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

48 CFR Parts 704, 713, 714, 715, 716, 

744, and 752 

RIN 0412–AA63 

Partner Vetting in USAID Acquisitions 

AGENCY: United States Agency for 

International Development. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID) is 

implementing a pilot for a Partner 

Vetting System for USAID assistance 

and acquisition awards. The purpose of 

the Partner Vetting System is to help 

ensure that USAID funds and other 

resources do not inadvertently benefit 

individuals or entities that are terrorists, 

supporters of terrorists or affiliated with 

terrorists, while also minimizing the 

impact on USAID programs and its 

implementing partners. We are 

amending the USAID Acquisition 

Regulations (AIDAR) regulations in 

order to apply the Partner Vetting 

System to USAID acquisitions for the 

pilot and any subsequent 

implementation of PVS that is 

determined appropriate. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 15, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Gushue, Telephone: 202–567– 

4678, Email: 

AIDARPartnerVetting@usaid.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

USAID’s final rule exempting portions 

of the Partner Vetting System (PVS) 

from provisions of the Privacy Act of 

1974 went into effect on August 4, 2009 

after several extensions, the most recent 

of which was published on May 6, 2009 

(74 FR 20871). Although USAID did not 

further extend the effective date, the 

agency did not implement PVS at that 

time in order to allow additional input 

from interested parties and to allow PVS 

to be applied to both assistance and 

acquisitions. Before the agency 

determines whether to implement PVS 

on a world-wide basis, USAID is 

launching a PVS pilot program to 

determine the costs and benefits of 

implementing PVS more broadly. At the 

conclusion of the pilot program, State 

and USAID will determine whether it is 

necessary to implement PVS more 

broadly, and/or make changes to the 

risk-based model it employs. In order to 

apply PVS to USAID acquisitions, 

USAID is amending 48 CFR Chapter 7, 

which is USAID’s procurement 

regulation. USAID published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the 

Federal Register on June 26, 2009 (74 

FR 30494) with a public comment 

period of 60 days, closing on August 25, 

2009. During the 60-day comment 

period, USAID received comments from 

five separate respondents. All 

respondents expressed concerns about 

USAID’s intent to implement PVS and 

reiterated objections raised during and 

after the public comment period when 

USAID established the PVS as a new 

system of records (72 FR 39042) and 

exempted portions of PVS from one or 

more provisions of the Privacy Act (74 

FR 9). However, since comments of this 

nature are outside the scope of the 

Proposed Rule, we are not addressing 

them in this Final Rule. Only those 

comments directly addressing the 

proposed amendments to the AIDAR 

and our responses are discussed below. 

B. Summary of the Final Rule 

USAID is issuing a final rule 

amending 48 CFR Chapter 7, as 

described in the proposed rule with 

some modifications in response to the 

public comments received. This final 

rule implements the partner vetting 

system for USAID acquisitions by 

adding a new subpart 704.70 to (48 CFR) 

AIDAR, with an associated solicitation 

provision and contract clause in (48 

CFR) AIDAR Part 752. Additionally, this 

final rule amends (48 CFR) AIDAR Parts 

713, 714, and 715, 716, and adds a new 

Part 744 to include reference to the 

requirements at (48 CFR) AIDAR 

Subpart 704.70. 

C. Discussion of Comments 

USAID received comments and 

suggestions from five organizations on 

its proposed rule to amend 48 CFR 

Chapter 7, which would enable USAID 

to apply the Partner Vetting System to 

USAID acquisitions. While some of the 

comments and suggestions received did 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 8167 

address the proposed amendments, 

many of the comments and suggestions 

focused instead on the Partner Vetting 

System itself. Most, if not all, of those 

comments and suggestions previously 

were responded to when USAID 

published in the Federal Register its 

Privacy Act final rule for the Partner 

Vetting System. See 74 FR 9 (January 2, 

2009). Although that final rule 

exempted from release under the 

Privacy Act only information from other 

government agencies and related to 

investigations, USAID’s discussion of all 

comments and suggestions received, 

beginning at 74 FR 10, addresses these 

general comments. 

While not required to respond to 

comments and suggestions which did 

not expressly address the proposed 

amendment to 48 CFR Chapter 7, 

USAID nevertheless would like to 

dispel one major misconception that 

was reiterated in many of those 

comments and suggestions. Some 

organizations that submitted comments 

and suggestions erroneously referred to 

the Privacy Act final rule as a rule 

applicable only to ‘‘non-profit, nongovernmental applicants to USAID.’’ 

That is not an accurate description of 

either the Privacy Act final rule or of 

any other Partner Vetting System 

notices published by USAID in the 

Federal Register. With the exception of 

the NPRM for 48 CFR Chapter 7, which 

is specific to acquisition, USAID’s 

notices pertaining to the Partner Vetting 

System were all applicable to all nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 

both for-profit and non-profit, whether 

they are applying for assistance awards 

or submitting offers/bids for acquisition 

instruments. The term ‘‘NGO’’ as used 

in the following notices was 

comprehensive, covering all 

organizations that were nongovernmental organizations. These 

notices established a system of records 

for the Partner Vetting System (72 FR 

39042), proposed to exempt portions of 

this system of records from one or more 

provisions of the Privacy Act (72 FR 

39768), proposed information collection 

procedures for the Partner Vetting 

System (72 FR 40110), and included a 

Partner Information Form for 

information collection purposes (72 FR 

56041). While USAID initially 

determined that it was not necessary to 

amend its regulation on assistance (22 

CFR 226) to implement the Partner 

Vetting System, we did determine, as 

reflected in the proposed rule to amend 

48 CFR Chapter 7, that it is necessary to 

amend the AIDAR. We have 

subsequently determined that 

rulemaking is appropriate for our 

assistance regulation, 22 CFR Part 226, 

and will publish separate Notices for 

that purpose. 

The following responses address 

comments that were specific to the 

proposed rule for Partner vetting in 

USAID Acquisitions: 

Source Selection vs. Vetting 

Comment 1: ‘‘USAID declares that 

‘regardless of the point at which vetting 

begins, source selection proceeds 

separately from vetting’ and the 

contracting officer only confirms with 

the vetting official whether an offeror 

has ‘passed’ the vetting process. We 

strongly concur and recommend that the 

declarative statement that ‘source 

selection proceeds separately from 

vetting’ be included in both the 

prescriptive provisions in Subpart 

704.70 as well as in the clauses.’’ 

Response: USAID concurs with this 

recommendation. Although the 

proposed rule already stated in sections 

704.7004–1(d) and 752.704–70(c) that 

the two processes are separate, we agree 

that the recommended declarative 

statements would strengthen the 

requirement. We have added the 

recommended statements. USAID also 

intends to provide its contracting 

officers and negotiators with detailed 

implementing procedures in the 

Agency’s Automated Directives System 

(ADS) that will emphasize the 

importance of keeping the two processes 

separate. 

Timing of Vetting 

Comment 2: The Professional Services 

Council (PSC) provided extensive 

discussion on the timing of vetting. It 

recommended that USAID establish an 

‘‘open season’’ on submissions of the 

Form to the USAID Office of Security 

(SEC). It also encouraged potential 

offerors to collect their information 

early and suggested that USAID should 

encourage early submission of the Form 

to SEC in order to allow for the 

maximum amount of time for vetting to 

occur. The PSC also suggested that 

untimely vetting could result in a 

constructive adverse ’’responsibility’’ 

determination. 

Response: USAID appreciates the 

concern expressed in these comments 

about the need to carefully time vetting 

and would like to reassure all 

prospective offerors that we share this 

concern. As stated in the NPRM, for 

FAR Part 15 competitive negotiations, 

we determined that vetting should 

typically be done at the competitive 

range stage (see 48 CFR 15.306(c)), after 

we carefully weighed the need to allow 

as much time as possible for vetting 

against the burden to offerors and 

USAID staff, especially SEC, of 

collecting information from offerors 

who may have no chance of receiving an 

award. Discussions would therefore 

occur concurrently with vetting. The 

Rule does allow for contracting officers 

to still have the discretion to request 

offerors to submit the Form at a different 

stage. And, for procurements using 

other procedures, including IQC task 

orders, contracting officers will have 

full discretion to decide the most 

appropriate time, and the Rule allows 

for this flexibility. We considered an 

‘‘open season’’ approach of allowing 

prospective offerors to decide for 

themselves when to submit the vetting 

form, but because of the possible impact 

on the SEC’s workload and the burden 

on offerors, we determined that early 

submission may not be practical. 

We also recognize that for many 

contractors, the key individuals who are 

part of the company’s management team 

are unlikely to change from one 

procurement to another, so most likely 

these key individuals’ passing initial 

vetting will expedite subsequent vetting. 

For this reason, submitting the Vetting 

Form for key management individuals is 

unlikely to make much difference to the 

overall amount of time needed for 

vetting. Offerors and contractors may 

collect the vetting information at the 

time they consider more practical, but 

USAID will request submission at the 

time the contracting officer considers 

most appropriate, as stated in the 

solicitation. 

Regarding the comment that should 

the Office of Security workload affect 

timing and potentially lead to a 

‘‘constructive adverse ‘responsibility’ 

determination outside the acquisition 

process,’’ we disagree with any 

characterization of a vetting 

determination as a responsibility 

determination, constructively or 

otherwise. USAID views vetting as an 

eligibility requirement. 

Finally, USAID is formalizing plans 

for a joint pilot conducted with the 

Department of State. This pilot will 

implement PVS in 5 countries with 

varying levels of risk. The pilot will 

help the Agency determine the resource 

requirements for both the vetting 

officials and the Office of Security, as 

well as testing our assumptions about 

vetting and its impact on our programs. 

If the results of the pilot indicate that 

adjustments to improve timing will 

improve the vetting process, then we 

will certainly make those adjustments, 

including through rule-making if 

appropriate. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8168 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Definitions of ‘‘Key Individuals’’ and 

‘‘Key Personnel’’ 

Comment 3: ‘‘USAID differentiates 

between ‘key individuals’ and ‘key 

personnel,’ noting that ‘the terms are not 

synonymous; all key personnel will be 

key individuals but not all key 

individuals will be key personnel.’ Both 

the Background information 

accompanying the rule, the definition 

section in Part 704.7002 and the 

752.204–71 clause define the terms ‘key 

individuals’ and ‘key personnel.’ All key 

personnel, whether or not they are 

employees of the offeror, are considered 

key individuals and must be vetted 

* * * As a technical matter, we believe 

the phrase ‘key individuals, including 

all key personnel’ should be modified to 

read ‘all key individuals’ since the term 

‘key individual’ is specifically defined 

in the clause and incorporates all ‘key 

personnel.’’’ 

Response: USAID agrees with this 

comment and has revised the final rule 

accordingly. 

Subpart 704.7004–2: Post-award 

Requirements—Annual Vetting 

Comment 4: ‘‘This subpart imposes 

both a new annual vetting submission, 

as well as a continuous vetting 

submission if there are changes in (1) 

any key individual, including all key 

personnel, and (2) subcontractors for 

which vetting is required. Neither of 

these factors has been addressed in the 

Agency’s prior paperwork clearance 

forms or in the discussion of the PVS 

program. Nevertheless, while we can 

appreciate the importance of vetting 

new key individuals who were not part 

of any prior vetting to achieving the 

objectives of the PVS program, we see 

little value to USAID, and considerable 

burden to both USAID and its 

implementing partners, in requiring an 

annual re-submission of the PVS Form 

from those that have already ‘passed’ 

the vetting process. If USAID 

determines that new issues arise that 

should trigger another review, or if 

USAID determines to randomly sample 

recipients, we recommend that the 

regulations reserve for USAID, through 

the contracting officer, the right to 

require key individuals of a specific 

contractor and/or its covered 

subcontractors to submit the PVS Form 

for one-time vetting.’’ 

Response: USAID agrees with this 

comment and we have revised the rule 

to remove annual submittal of the Form. 

Contractors will still be required to 

submit the Form any time key 

individuals change and before issuance 

of covered subcontractors, but will not 

be required to resubmit the form 

annually if no information has changed. 

Instead, USAID will conduct post-award 

vetting based on the latest submittal. 

Ambiguity Regarding Which 

Subcontractor Personnel Must Be Vetted 

Comment 5: Subpart 704.7004–2 

‘‘provides that vetting is required for all 

subcontracts for which consent to 

subcontract is required under FAR 

52.244–2 and the contracting officer 

may not consent until the subcontractor 

has ‘passed’ vetting. The Background 

information accompanying the rule 

makes it clear that ‘the contracting 

officer will not consent to a subcontract 

until the subcontractor’s key individuals 

have passed vetting’ (emphasis added), 

but the rule itself is silent on the vetting 

of subcontractors. We have assumed, 

and strongly recommend that the rule 

explicitly state, that subcontractors are 

required to vet only ‘key individuals’ as 

that term is defined in the proposed 

rule.’’ 

Response: USAID agrees with this 

comment and revised the final rule 

accordingly, in sections 704.7004–2(b), 

704.7004–3(a), and 704.7004–3(c). 

Classes of Items Requiring Sub-tier 

Vetting Should Be Specific 

Comment 6: ‘‘However, subsection (c) 

of subpart 7004–3 also authorizes 

vetting for subcontracts at any tier (for 

subcontractors not otherwise subject to 

consent) for ‘certain classes of items 

(supplies and services)’ that the 

contracting officer identifies in the 

solicitation. While we recognize the 

flexibility the Agency must have to 

require vetting of any additional ‘classes 

of items’ based on the Agency’s internal 

risk-based assessment, it is also 

important that any of these selected 

classes of items are described with 

specificity and, if they remain 

appropriate for vetting at the time of 

award, that these designated ‘classes of 

items’ are also carried over into the 

resulting contracts—because only if 

these additional classes of items are 

included in the resulting contract will 

there be a post-award requirement for 

vetting. 

Response: USAID agrees that a 

contract must specifically identify the 

classes of items subject to sub-tier 

vetting and considers Alternate I to the 

clause at 752.204–71 to adequately 

address this. Further, we will emphasize 

in the separate internal guidance in the 

ADS to contracting officers the need to 

be specific about the class of 

subcontracts that are subject to vetting 

at any tier. 

Coverage of Subcontractors in the 

Definition of ‘Key Individuals’ 

Comment 7: ‘‘In addition, there is no 

coverage for subcontractors under the 

definition of the term ‘key individual’ in 

704.7002 or in the 204–71 clause. The 

‘policy’ statement in Subpart 704.7003 

notes that USAID will require vetting of 

first tier subcontractors only, although 

the coverage for subcontractors in 

Subpart 704.7004–3(c) provides that 

vetting may be required at any tier for 

certain classes of items identified in the 

solicitation; yet neither of the clauses 

address the scope of coverage for 

subcontractors except in terms of 

submissions to the vetting official and 

through the requirement in 204–71(i) 

that the prime contractor flow down 

certain provisions of the 204–71 clause 

to ‘all subcontracts under this contract.’ 

Furthermore, there is no provision in 

the clauses for the contracting officer to 

designate any additional ‘classes of 

items’ as authorized in 704.7003. The 

gaps create considerable confusion 

between the policy and the clause and 

the actions that prime contractors 

should take during the solicitation 

process and after source selection.’’ 

Response: USAID agrees in part and 

disagrees in part. We revised the policy 

statement in section 704.7003 to apply 

vetting to subcontracts for specified 

classes of items if these subcontracts are 

not subject to contracting officer 

consent. We did not revise the 

definition of key individual in section 

704.7002 since it is not specific to the 

prime offeror, contractor or first tier 

subcontractor; it uses the term 

‘‘organization’’ which applies to the 

prime offeror, contractor and any 

subcontractors when vetting applies to 

such subcontractors through subsection 

(h) of the base clause 752.704–71 and its 

Alternate I. In fact, regarding the 

comments that neither clause addresses 

the ‘‘scope of coverage for 

subcontractors’’ or that there is no 

provision for the contracting officer to 

designate any classes of items, we 

disagree since subsection (h) in the base 

and Alt. I specifically applies vetting to 

subcontracts, and Alt. I provides for the 

contracting officer to designate classes 

of items subject to vetting at any 

subcontract tier. 

Lack of Coverage for Schedules 

Purchases Under FAR Part 8.4 

Comment 8: ‘‘While the rule 

addresses the PVS treatment for 

contracts awarded under AIDAR Parts 

713 (Simplified Acquisition 

Procedures), 714 (Sealed Bidding), and 

715 (Contracting by Negotiation), there 

is no coverage in the proposed rule for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 8169 

contracts awarded under Schedules 

purchases under FAR Part 8.4. While 

there is no current coverage in the 

AIDAR regarding Schedules purchases, 

and while we cannot foresee that any 

such awards might be subject to the PVS 

requirements, we believe it easier to 

address this contract type and not use 

it than to need this contract type and 

not have the appropriate coverage.’’ 

Response: USAID does not envision 

applying PVS to GSA Schedule Orders 

as the basic contract would not include 

the vetting clause and the contractors 

would not have been made aware of the 

requirement to vet prior to award. 

Should GSA and USAID determine that 

vetting is appropriate for purchases 

made under FAR Part 8.4, appropriate 

action will be taken at that time. 

Lack of Coverage for Commercial Items 

Awarded Under Part 712 

Comment 9: ‘‘While the rule 

addresses the PVS treatment for 

contracts awarded under AIDAR Parts 

713 (Simplified Acquisition 

Procedures), 714 (Sealed Bidding), and 

715 (Contracting by Negotiation), there 

is no coverage in the proposed rule for 

contracts awarded for commercial items 

under FAR Part 12 (Commercial Items), 

even though there is no current coverage 

in the AIDAR regarding commercial 

items. In our view, given the policy 

approach USAID recommends—that 

‘key personnel’ of the prime contractor 

and for all subcontracts for which 

consent to subcontract is required under 

FAR 52.244–2 (but see our comments 

above), we believe it appropriate and 

consistent with USAID’s policy to 

exempt from the PVS requirements 

solicitations and resulting awards 

entered into pursuant to FAR Part 12 

and subcontracts for commercial items 

regardless of the method of procurement 

of the prime contract. Again, while we 

cannot foresee that any such awards 

might be subject to the PVS 

requirements, we believe it easier to 

address this contract type and not use 

it than to need this contract type and 

not have the appropriate coverage.’’ 

Response: In preparing the Proposed 

Rule, USAID considered the need to 

address commercial item procurements 

but determined that such coverage was 

unnecessary since commercial 

purchases are made through either FAR 

Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, or Part 16.5 

(indefinite delivery contracts, see 

Comment 10) procedures. There is no 

contracting process that is unique to 

commercial items, so we do not 

consider it necessary to address vetting 

in AIDAR Part 712. 

Lack of Coverage for IQCs Awarded 

Under Part 716 

Comment 10: ‘‘While the rule 

addresses the PVS treatment for 

contracts awarded under AIDAR Parts 

713 (Simplified Acquisition 

Procedures), 714 (Sealed Bidding), and 

715 (Contracting by Negotiation), there 

is no coverage for contracts awarded 

under Part 716 (relating to IQCs). While 

the background information recognizes 

that PVS could apply to task orders 

under IQCs, there are no special 

procedures called out for contracting 

officers or IQC holders to follow when 

PVS is required after the award of the 

underlying IQC but during the 

competitive solicitation, evaluation and 

subsequent award of a task order under 

an IQC. This type of contract still 

dominates USAID contracting and 

should be specifically addressed.’’ 

Response: USAID agrees with this 

comment and has revised AIDAR 

Subpart 716.5 and added a contract 

clause at 752.216–70 to address the 

procedures for vetting indefinitedelivery contracts and orders placed 

against them. This revised subpart may 

appear to be a substantial addition to 

the rule but since it merely clarifies 

procedures we intended under the 

proposed rule and is consistent with the 

overall approach we are taking with 

PVS, we consider the added coverage to 

be within the scope of the proposed 

rule. As noted in the comment, the 

proposed rule was clear about applying 

vetting to IQCs, so this added coverage 

addresses the concern expressed in the 

comment. 

Location of the Treatment of Indefinite 

Quantity Contracts and Task Orders 

Comment 11: ‘‘Task order 

competitions under Indefinite Quantity 

Contracts (IQC) always come ‘postaward’ of the underlying contracts but 

are more likely to trigger a new vetting 

requirement. Subpart 7004–1(c) is the 

only other place in the proposed rule 

where IQCs are addressed, but it covers 

only ‘potential awardee(s)’ and does not 

address competition for task orders 

under awarded contracts or 

modifications to existing contracts. We 

strongly recommend that the treatment 

of task orders under IQCs be addressed 

in this post-award requirements section. 

Here, too, we strongly support an ‘open 

season’ for submission of the Form to 

USAID’s Office of Security to minimize 

the risk that vetting will not be 

completed in a timely manner to meet 

the timeliness requirements of the 

acquisition process.’’ 

Response: Regarding the timing of 

vetting for IQC task orders, we stand by 

our position discussed above (Comment 

2) and will allow the task order 

contracting officer to determine the 

appropriate stage to vet. However, 

USAID agrees that the rule must more 

clearly address how partner vetting will 

apply to IQC task orders. Task orders are 

placed after the basic IQC has been 

awarded, but the task orders themselves 

are ‘‘awards’’ in their own right and for 

that reason we included them in the 

pre-award section. The process for 

vetting task orders is more similar to 

pre-award vetting for contracts rather 

than to post-award vetting, since the key 

individuals for each task order must 

pass vetting before the contracting 

officer may place the order. However, in 

acknowledgement of the ‘‘post-award’’ 

nature of task orders, we have added a 

contract clause at 752.216–70 which 

includes the standard post award 

vetting requirements and also addresses 

the procedures for vetting orders against 

Indefinite Delivery contracts. 

D. Impact Assessment 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

Under Executive Orders (E.O.) 13563 

and 12866, USAID must determine 

whether a regulatory action is 

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to 

the requirements of the E.O. and subject 

to review by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

USAID has determined that this Rule 

is not an ‘‘economically significant 

regulatory action’’ under Section 3(f)(1) 

of E.O.12866. The application of the 

Partner Vetting System to USAID 

acquisitions will not have an economic 

impact of $100 million or more. The 

regulation will not adversely affect the 

economy or any sector thereof, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, nor public health or safety 

in a material way. However, as this rule 

is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Section 3(f)(4) of the E.O., USAID 

submitted it to OMB for review. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), USAID has 

considered the economic impact of the 

rule and has certified that its provisions 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The changes to the (48 CFR) AIDAR 

use information collected via USAID 

Partner Information Form, USAID Form 

500–13, which was approved in 

accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3501 by the 

Office of Management and Budget on 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8170 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

August 19, 2015 (OMB Control Number 

0412–0577). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 704, 

713, 714, 715, 744, and 752 

Government procurement. 

Regulatory Text 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the U. S. Agency for 

International Development amends 48 

CFR chapter 7 as follows: 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

Parts 704, 713, 714, 715, 744, and 752 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87–195, 75 

Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 

12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; 3 CFR 

1979 Comp., p. 435. 

PART 704—ADMINISTRATIVE 

MATTERS 

■ 2. Add Subpart 704.70 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart 704.70—Partner Vetting 

Sec. 

704.7001 Scope of subpart. 

704.7002 Definitions. 

704.7003 Policy. 

704.7004 Procedures. 

704.7004–1 Preaward requirements. 

704.7004–2 Post award requirements. 

704.7004–3 Subcontracts. 

704.7005 Solicitation provision and 

contract clause. 

Subpart 704.70—Partner Vetting 

704.7001 Scope of subpart. 

This subpart prescribes the policies 

and procedures to apply partner vetting 

to USAID acquisitions. 

704.7002 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart— 

Key individual means: 

(1) Principal officers of the 

organization’s governing body (e.g., 

chairman, vice chairman, treasurer and 

secretary of the board of directors or 

board of trustees); 

(2) The principal officer and deputy 

principal officer of the organization 

(e.g., executive director, deputy director, 

president, vice president); 

(3) The program manager or chief of 

party for the USG-financed program; 

and 

(4) Any other person with significant 

responsibilities for administration of the 

USG-financed activities or resources, 

such as key personnel as described in 

Automated Directives System Chapter 

302. Key personnel, whether or not they 

are employees of the prime contractor, 

must be vetted. 

Vetting official means the USAID 

employee identified in the solicitation 

or contract as having responsibility for 

receiving vetting information, 

responding to questions about 

information to be included on the 

Partner Information Form, coordinating 

with the USAID Office of Security 

(SEC), and conveying the vetting 

determination to each offeror, potential 

subcontractors subject to vetting, and 

the contracting officer. The vetting 

official is not part of the contracting 

office and has no involvement in the 

source selection process. 

704.7003 Policy. 

In the interest of national security, 

USAID may determine that a particular 

acquisition is subject to vetting. In that 

case, USAID will require vetting of all 

key individuals of offerors, first tier 

subcontractors, and any other class of 

subcontracts if identified in the 

solicitation and resulting contract. 

When USAID conducts partner vetting, 

it will not award a contract to any 

offeror who does not pass vetting. 

704.7004 Procedures. 

704.7004–1 Preaward requirements. 

(a) When USAID determines an 

acquisition to be subject to vetting, the 

contracting officer determines the 

appropriate stage of the acquisition 

cycle to require offerors to submit the 

completed USAID Partner Information 

Form, USAID Form 500–13, to the 

vetting official identified in the 

solicitation. The contracting officer 

must specify in the solicitation the stage 

at which the offerors will be required to 

submit the USAID Partner Information 

Form. 

(b) For negotiated procurements using 

FAR part 15, this stage will typically be 

when the contracting officer establishes 

the competitive range (48 CFR 

15.306(c)). However, the contracting 

officer may determine that vetting is 

more appropriate at a different stage of 

the source selection process, such as 

immediately prior to award, and then 

require only the apparently successful 

offeror to submit the completed USAID 

Partner Information Form. 

(c) For Indefinite Delivery contracts 

under FAR subpart 16.5, vetting will 

occur prior to award of the basic 

contract if the contracting officer 

anticipates placing orders subject to 

vetting under that contract. Vetting will 

also occur before USAID places any 

orders subject to vetting. The 

contracting officer will notify awardees 

of the appropriate timing for vetting in 

the request for task or delivery order 

proposals. See AIDAR subpart 716.5 for 

vetting procedures for task and delivery 

orders. 

(d) For all other acquisitions, 

including those under FAR parts 13 and 

14, the contracting officer determines 

the appropriate time to require potential 

awardee(s) to submit the completed 

USAID Partner Information Form to the 

vetting official. 

(e) Source selection proceeds 

separately from vetting. The source 

selection authority makes the source 

selection determination separately from 

the vetting process and without 

knowledge of vetting-related 

information other than that the 

apparently successful offeror has passed 

or not passed vetting. 

(f) The contracting officer may only 

award to an offeror who has passed 

vetting. 

704.7004–2 Post award requirements. 

(a) For those contracts and task orders 

the agency has determined are subject to 

vetting, the contractor must submit the 

completed USAID Partner Information 

Form any time it changes: 

(1) Key individuals, and 

(2) Subcontractors for which vetting is 

required. 

(b) USAID may vet key individuals of 

the contractor and any required 

subcontractors periodically during 

contract performance using the 

information already submitted on the 

Form. 

704.7004–3 Subcontracts. 

(a) When the prime contract is subject 

to vetting, vetting is required for key 

individuals of all subcontracts under 

that contract for which consent is 

required under FAR clause 52.244–2, 

Subcontracts. 

(b) The contracting officer must not 

consent to a subcontract with any 

subcontractor subject to vetting until 

that subcontractor has passed vetting. 

(c) Vetting may be required for key 

individuals of subcontracts at any tier 

for certain classes of items (supplies and 

services). The contracting officer must 

identify these classes of items in the 

solicitation. 

(d) The contractor may instruct 

prospective subcontractors who are 

subject to vetting to submit the USAID 

Partner Information Form to the vetting 

official as soon as the contractor submits 

the USAID Partner Information Form for 

its key individuals. 

704.7005 Solicitation provision and 

contract clause. 

(a) The contracting officer will insert 

the provision at 752.204–70 Partner 

Vetting Pre–Award Requirements, in all 

solicitations USAID identifies as subject 

to vetting. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 8171 

(b) Except for awards made under 

FAR part 16, the contracting officer 

will— 

(1) Insert the clause at 752.204–71 

Partner Vetting, in all solicitations and 

contracts USAID identifies as subject to 

vetting, or 

(2) Use the clause with its Alternate 

I when USAID determines that 

subcontracts at any tier for certain 

classes of supplies or services are 

subject to vetting. 

(c) For awards made under FAR part 

16, see (48 CFR) subpart 716.5. 

PART 713—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION 

PROCEDURES 

■ 3. Add section 713.106–370 to subpart 

713.1 to read as follows: 

713.106–370 Partner vetting. 

If an acquisition is identified as 

subject to vetting, see (48 CFR) AIDAR 

704.70 for the applicable procedures 

and requirements. 

PART 714—SEALED BIDDING 

■ 4. Add section 714.408–170 to subpart 

714.4 to read as follows: 

714.408–170 Partner vetting. 

If an acquisition is identified as 

subject to vetting, see (48 CFR) AIDAR 

704.70 for the applicable procedures 

and requirements. 

PART 715—CONTRACTING BY 

NEGOTIATION 

■ 5. Add subpart 715.70 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart 715.70—Partner Vetting 

715.70 Partner vetting. 

If an acquisition is identified as 

subject to vetting, see (48 CFR) AIDAR 

704.70 for the applicable procedures 

and requirements. 

PART 716—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 

■ 6. Add subpart 716.5 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart 716.5 Indefinite-Delivery 

Contracts 

Sec. 

716.501–270 Partner vetting—indefinitedelivery contracts. 

716.505–70 Vetting orders under indefinite 

delivery contracts. 

716.506 Solicitation provision and contract 

clause. 

716.501–270 Partner vetting—indefinitedelivery contracts. 

If a task order or delivery order under 

an indefinite-delivery contract has the 

potential to be subject to vetting, then 

the contract itself will be subject to the 

applicable procedures and requirements 

for partner vetting in (48 CFR) AIDAR 

704.70. 

716.505–70 Vetting orders under indefinite 

delivery contracts. 

(a) The task order contracting officer 

will specify in the request for task or 

delivery order proposals whether the 

order is subject to vetting and when 

awardees must submit the USAID 

Partner Information Form. 

(b) For orders under multiple award 

contracts, fair opportunity selection 

procedures are conducted separately 

from vetting. The contracting officer for 

the order must follow the ordering 

procedures in the contract to select the 

order awardee without knowledge of 

vetting-related information, other than 

that the contractor has passed or not 

passed vetting. 

(c) The contracting officer may only 

place an order subject to vetting with an 

awardee that has passed vetting for that 

order. 

716.506 Solicitation provision and 

contract clause. 

(a) As prescribed in 48 CFR 

704.7005(a), the contracting officer will 

insert the provision at 752.204–70 

Partner Vetting Pre–Award 

Requirements, in solicitations for 

indefinite delivery contracts when 

USAID anticipates that any orders 

placed under the contract will be 

subject to vetting. 

(b)(1) The contracting officer will 

insert the clause at 752.216–71 Partner 

Vetting, in those solicitations and 

contracts for indefinite-delivery 

contracts that USAID identifies as 

subject to vetting. 

(2) The contracting officer will use the 

clause with its Alternate I when USAID 

determines that subcontracts at any tier 

for certain classes of supplies or services 

are subject to vetting. 

■ 7. Add Part 744 to read as follows: 

PART 744—SUBCONTRACTING 

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 

Subpart 744.2—Consent to 

Subcontracts 

Sec. 

744.202–170 Partner vetting. 

Authority: Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87–195, 75 

Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 

12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; 3 CFR 

1979 Comp., p. 435. 

744.202–170 Partner vetting. 

If an acquisition is identified as 

subject to partner vetting, see (48 CFR) 

AIDAR 704.70 for the applicable 

procedures and requirements. 

PART 752—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 8. Amend Part 752 by adding sections 

752.204–70 and 752.204–71 to subpart 

752.2 to read as follows: 

752.204–70 Partner vetting pre-award 

requirements. 

As prescribed in (48 CFR) AIDAR 

704.7005(a), insert the following 

provision in all solicitations subject to 

vetting: 

PARTNER VETTING PRE–AWARD 

REQUIREMENTS (FEB 2012) 

(a) USAID has determined that any 

contract resulting from this solicitation is 

subject to vetting. Terms used in this 

provision are defined in paragraph (b) of the 

AIDAR clause at 752.204–71 Partner Vetting, 

of this solicitation. An offeror that has not 

passed vetting is ineligible for award. 

(b) The following are the vetting 

procedures for this solicitation: 

(1) Prospective offerors review the attached 

USAID Partner Information Form, USAID 

Form 500–13, and submit any questions 

about the USAID Partner Information Form 

or these procedures to the contracting officer 

by the deadline for questions in the 

solicitation. 

(2) The contracting officer notifies the 

offeror when to submit the USAID Partner 

Information Form. For this solicitation, 

USAID will vet at [insert in the provision the 

applicable stage of the source selection 

process at which the Contracting Officer will 

notify the offeror(s) who must be vetted]. 

Within the timeframe set by the contracting 

officer in the notification, the offeror must 

complete and submit the information on the 

USAID Partner Information Form in 

accordance with instructions from the vetting 

official named in paragraph (d) of the AIDAR 

clause at 752.204–71 Partner Vetting, of this 

solicitation. 

Note: Offerors who submit using nonsecure methods of transmission do so at their 

own risk. 

(3) The offerors must notify proposed 

subcontractors of this requirement when the 

subcontractors are subject to vetting. 

(c) Source selection proceeds separately 

from vetting. Vetting is conducted 

independently from any discussions the 

contracting officer may have with an offeror. 

The offeror and any subcontractor subject to 

vetting must not provide vetting information 

to other than the vetting official. The offeror 

and any subcontractor subject to vetting will 

communicate only with the vetting official 

regarding their vetting submission(s) and not 

with any other USAID or USG personnel, 

including the contracting officer or his/her 

representatives. Exchanges between the 

Government and an offeror about vetting 

information submitted by the offeror or any 

proposed subcontractor are clarifications in 

accordance with FAR 15.306(a) (48 CFR 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8172 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

15.306(a)). The contracting officer designates 

the vetting official as the only individual 

authorized to clarify the offeror’s and 

proposed subcontractor’s vetting information. 

(d)(1) The vetting official notifies the 

offeror that it: 

(i) Has passed vetting, 

(ii) Has not passed vetting, or 

(iii) Must provide additional information, 

and resubmit the USAID Partner Information 

Form with the additional information within 

the number of days the vetting official 

specified in the notification. 

(2) The vetting official will include in the 

notification any information that USAID’s 

Office of Security(SEC) determines 

releasable. In its determination, SEC will take 

into consideration the classification or 

sensitivity of the information, the need to 

protect sources and methods, or status of 

ongoing law enforcement and intelligence 

community investigations or operations. 

(e) Reconsideration. (1) Within 7 calendar 

days after the date of the vetting official’s 

notification, an offeror that has not passed 

vetting may request in writing to the vetting 

official that the Agency reconsider the vetting 

determination. The request should include 

any written explanation, legal documentation 

and any other relevant written material for 

reconsideration. 

(2) Within 7 calendar days after the vetting 

official receives the request for 

reconsideration, the Agency will determine 

whether the offeror’s additional information 

warrants a revised decision. 

(3) The Agency’s determination of whether 

reconsideration is warranted is final. 

(f) Revisions to vetting information. (1) 

Offerors who change key individuals, 

whether the offeror has previously passed 

vetting or not, must submit a revised USAID 

Partner Information Form to the vetting 

official. This includes changes to key 

personnel resulting from revisions to the 

technical proposal. 

(2) The vetting official will follow the 

vetting process in paragraph (d) of this clause 

for any revision of the offeror’s Form. 

(g) Award. At the time of award, the 

contracting officer will confirm with the 

vetting official that the apparently successful 

offeror has passed vetting. The contracting 

officer may award only to an apparently 

successful offeror that has passed vetting. 

752.204–71 Partner vetting. 

As prescribed in (48 CFR) AIDAR 

704.7005(b)(1) and 716.506(a), insert the 

following clause in all contracts subject 

to vetting: 

PARTNER VETTING (FEB 2012) 

(a) The contractor must comply with the 

vetting requirements for key individuals 

under this contract. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this provision— 

Key individual means: 

(i) Principal officers of the organization’s 

governing body (e.g., chairman, vice 

chairman, treasurer and secretary of the 

board of directors or board of trustees); 

(ii) The principal officer and deputy 

principal officer of the organization (e.g., 

executive director, deputy director, 

president, vice president); 

(iii) The program manager or chief of party 

for the USG-financed program; and 

(iv) Any other person with significant 

responsibilities for administration of the 

USG-financed activities or resources, such as 

key personnel as described in Automated 

Directives System Chapter 302. Key 

personnel, whether or not they are employees 

of the prime contractor, must be vetted. 

Vetting official means the USAID employee 

identified in paragraph (d) of this clause as 

having responsibility for receiving vetting 

information, responding to questions about 

information to be included on the USAID 

Partner Information Form, USAID Form 500– 

13, coordinating with the USAID Office of 

Security, and conveying the vetting 

determination to each offeror, potential 

subcontractors subject to vetting, and to the 

contracting officer. The vetting official is not 

part of the contracting office and has no 

involvement in the source selection process. 

(c) The Contractor must submit a USAID 

Partner Information Form, USAID Form 500– 

13, to the vetting official identified below 

during the contract when the Contractor 

replaces key individuals with individuals 

who have not been previously vetting for this 

contract. Note: USAID will not approve any 

key personnel who have not passed vetting. 

(d) The designated vetting official is: 

Vetting official: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Address: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Email: llllllllll (for inquiries 

only) 

(e)(1) The vetting official will notify the 

Contractor that it— 

(i) Has passed vetting, 

(ii) Has not passed vetting, or 

(iii) Must provide additional information, 

and resubmit the USAID Partner Information 

Form with the additional information within 

the number of days the vetting official 

specifies. 

(2) The vetting official will include in the 

notification any information that USAID’s 

Office of Security (SEC) determines 

releasable. In its determination, SEC will take 

into consideration the classification or 

sensitivity of the information, the need to 

protect sources and methods, or status of 

ongoing law enforcement and intelligence 

community investigations or operations. 

(f) Reconsideration. (1) Within 7 calendar 

days after the date of the vetting official’s 

notification, the contractor or prospective 

subcontractor that has not passed vetting may 

request in writing to the vetting official that 

the Agency reconsider the vetting 

determination. The request should include 

any written explanation, legal documentation 

and any other relevant written material for 

reconsideration. 

(2) Within 7 calendar days after the vetting 

official receives the request for 

reconsideration, the Agency will determine 

whether the contractor’s additional 

information warrants a revised decision. 

(3) The Agency’s determination of whether 

reconsideration is warranted is final. 

(g) A notification that the Contractor has 

passed vetting does not constitute any other 

approval under this contract. 

(h) When the contractor anticipates 

awarding a subcontract for which consent is 

required under FAR clause 52.244–2, 

Subcontracts, the subcontract is subject to 

vetting. The prospective subcontractor must 

submit a USAID Partner Information Form, 

USAID Form 500–13, to the vetting official 

identified in paragraph (d) of this clause. The 

contracting officer must not consent to award 

of a subcontract to any organization that has 

not passed vetting when required. 

(i) The contractor agrees to incorporate the 

substance of paragraphs (a) through (g) of this 

clause in all subcontracts under this contract. 

(End of clause) 

Alternate I (FEB 2012). As prescribed 

in 704.7005(b)(2), substitute paragraphs 

(h) and (i) below for paragraphs (h) and 

(i) of the basic clause: 

(h)(1) When the contractor anticipates 

awarding a subcontract for which consent is 

required under FAR clause 52.244–2, 

Subcontracts, the subcontract is subject to 

vetting. The prospective subcontractor must 

submit a USAID Partner Information Form, 

USAID Form 500–13, to the vetting official 

identified in paragraph (d) of this clause. The 

contracting officer must not consent to award 

of a subcontract to any organization that has 

not passed vetting when required. 

(2) In addition, prospective subcontractors 

at any tier providing the following classes of 

items (supplies and services): 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

must pass vetting. Contractors must not place 

subcontracts for these classes of items until 

they receive confirmation from the vetting 

official that the prospective subcontractor has 

passed vetting. 

(i) The contractor agrees to incorporate the 

substance of this clause in all subcontracts 

under this contract. 

■ 9. Amend Part 752 by adding section 

752.216–71 to subpart 752.2 to read as 

follows: 

752.216–71 Partner vetting in indefinite 

delivery contracts. 

As prescribed in (48 CFR) AIDAR 

716.506(b)(1), insert the following 

clause in all indefinite-delivery 

contracts subject to vetting: 

PARTNER VETTING IN INDEFINITE 

DELIVERY CONTRACTS (FEB 2012) 

(a) The contractor must comply with the 

vetting requirements for key individuals 

under this contract and in any orders that are 

identified as subject to vetting. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this provision— 

Key individual means: 

(i) Principal officers of the organization’s 

governing body (e.g., chairman, vice 

chairman, treasurer and secretary of the 

board of directors or board of trustees); 

(ii) The principal officer and deputy 

principal officer of the organization (e.g., 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 8173 

executive director, deputy director, 

president, vice president); 

(iii) The program manager or chief of party 

for the USG-financed program; and 

(iv) Any other person with significant 

responsibilities for administration of the 

USG-financed activities or resources, such as 

key personnel as described in Automated 

Directives System Chapter 302. Key 

personnel, whether or not they are employees 

of the prime contractor, must be vetted. 

Vetting official means the USAID employee 

identified in paragraph (d) of this clause as 

having responsibility for receiving vetting 

information, responding to questions about 

information to be included on the USAID 

Partner Information Form, USAID Form 500– 

13, coordinating with the USAID Office of 

Security, and conveying the vetting 

determination to each contractor, potential 

subcontractors subject to vetting, and to the 

cognizant contracting officer. The vetting 

official is not part of the contracting office 

and has no involvement in the source 

selection process. 

(c) The contractor must submit a USAID 

Partner Information Form, USAID Form 500– 

13 to the designated vetting official: 

(1) when the contractor replaces key 

individuals under the basic contract with 

individuals who have not been previously 

vetted. 

(2) when the contractor replaces key 

individuals under an order subject to vetting 

with individuals who have not been 

previously vetted. For changes to any key 

individuals associated with both the basic 

contract and any orders subject to vetting, the 

contractor must submit updated vetting 

forms to each designated vetting official. 

Note: USAID will not approve any key 

personnel who have not passed vetting. 

(d)(1) The designated vetting official for the 

basic contract is: 

Vetting official: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Address: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Email: llllllllll (for inquiries 

only) 

(2) Each order subject to vetting will 

identify the vetting official for that order. The 

contractor must submit vetting information 

specific to an order to the vetting official 

identified in that order. 

(e)(1) The vetting official will notify the 

contractor that it— 

(i) Has passed vetting, 

(ii) Has not passed vetting, or 

(iii) Must provide additional information, 

and resubmit the USAID Partner Information 

Form with the additional information within 

the number of days the vetting official 

specifies. 

(2) The vetting official will include in the 

notification any information that USAID’s 

Office of Security (SEC) determines 

releasable. In its determination, SEC will take 

into consideration the classification or 

sensitivity of the information, the need to 

protect sources and methods, or status of 

ongoing law enforcement and intelligence 

community investigations or operations. 

(f) Reconsideration. (1) Within 7 calendar 

days after the date of the vetting official’s 

notification, the contractor or prospective 

subcontractor that has not passed vetting may 

request in writing to the vetting official that 

the Agency reconsider the vetting 

determination. The request should include 

any written explanation, legal documentation 

and any other relevant written material for 

reconsideration. 

(2) Within 7 calendar days after the vetting 

official receives the request for 

reconsideration, the Agency will determine 

whether the contractor’s additional 

information warrants a revised decision. 

(3) The Agency’s determination of whether 

reconsideration is warranted is final. 

(g) A notification that the contractor has 

passed vetting does not constitute any other 

approval under this contract. 

(h) The request for task or delivery order 

proposals will identify whether the order is 

subject to vetting. The following are the 

procedures for vetting orders under this 

contract. Note that the term ‘‘awardee’’ as 

used below refers to a contractor under 

multiple-award indefinite-delivery contracts, 

consistent with the use of the term in (48 

CFR) FAR 16.505(b): 

(1) The contracting officer will notify the 

awardees when to complete and submit the 

USAID Partner Information Form to the 

vetting official named in the request for order 

proposals. Note: Awardees who submit using 

non-secure methods of transmission do so at 

their own risk. 

(2) The awardee must notify proposed 

subcontractors of this requirement when the 

subcontractors are subject to vetting. 

(3) The fair opportunity process proceeds 

separately from vetting. Vetting is conducted 

independently from any discussions the 

contracting officer may have with an 

awardee. The awardee and any subcontractor 

subject to vetting must not provide vetting 

information to other than the vetting official 

identified in the request for order proposal. 

The awardee and any subcontractor subject 

to vetting will communicate only with the 

vetting official regarding their vetting 

submission(s) and not with any other USAID 

or USG personnel, including the contracting 

officer or his/her representatives. 

(4)(i) The vetting official notifies the 

awardee that it: 

(A) Has passed vetting, 

(B) Has not passed vetting, or 

(C) Must provide additional information, 

and resubmit the USAID Partner Information 

Form with the additional information within 

the number of days the vetting official 

specified in the notification. 

(ii) The vetting official will include in the 

notification any information that USAID’s 

Office of Security (SEC) determines 

releasable. In its determination, SEC will take 

into consideration the classification or 

sensitivity of the information, the need to 

protect sources and methods, or status of 

ongoing law enforcement and intelligence 

community investigations or operations. 

(5) Reconsideration. (i) Within 7 calendar 

days after the date of the vetting official’s 

notification, an awardee that has not passed 

vetting may request in writing to the vetting 

official that the Agency reconsider the vetting 

determination. The request should include 

any written explanation, legal documentation 

and any other relevant written material for 

reconsideration. 

(ii) Within 7 calendar days after the vetting 

official receives the request for 

reconsideration, the Agency will determine 

whether the contractor’s additional 

information warrants a revised decision. 

(iii) The Agency’s determination of 

whether reconsideration is warranted is final. 

(6) Revisions to vetting information. (i) 

Before the order is awarded, any awardee 

who changes key individuals, whether it has 

previously passed vetting or not, must submit 

a revised USAID Partner Information Form to 

the vetting official. This includes changes to 

key personnel resulting from revisions to the 

technical proposal. 

(ii) The order vetting official will follow 

the vetting process in paragraph (e) of this 

clause for any revision of the awardee’s 

Form. 

(7) Award of order. The contracting officer 

may award an order subject to vetting only 

to an apparently successful awardee that has 

passed vetting for that order. 

(i) When the contractor anticipates 

awarding a subcontract for which consent is 

required under FAR clause 52.244–2, 

Subcontracts, the subcontract is subject to 

vetting. The prospective subcontractor must 

submit a USAID Partner Information Form, 

USAID Form 500–13, to the designated 

vetting official. The contracting officer must 

not consent to award of a subcontract to any 

organization that has not passed vetting 

when required. 

(j) The contractor agrees to incorporate the 

substance of paragraphs (a) through (g) of this 

clause in all subcontracts under this contract. 

(End of clause) 

Alternate I (FEB 2012). As prescribed 

in 716.506(b), substitute paragraphs (i) 

and (j) below for paragraphs (i) and (j) 

of the basic clause: 

(i)(1) When the contractor anticipates 

awarding a subcontract for which consent is 

required under FAR clause 52.244–2, 

Subcontracts, the subcontract is subject to 

vetting. The prospective subcontractor must 

submit a USAID Partner Information Form, 

USAID Form 500–13, to the designated 

vetting official. The contracting officer must 

not consent to award of a subcontract to any 

organization that has not passed vetting 

when required. 

(2) In addition, prospective subcontractors 

at any tier providing the following classes of 

items (supplies and services): 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

must pass vetting. Contractors must not place 

subcontracts for these classes of items until 

they receive confirmation from the vetting 

official that the prospective subcontractor has 

passed vetting. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
8174 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(j) The contractor agrees to incorporate the 

substance of this clause in all subcontracts 

under this contract. 

Aman S. Djahanbani, 

Senior Procurement Executive, US Agency 

For International Development. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3239 Filed 2–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6116–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

48 CFR Part 1511 

[EPA–HQ–OARM–2010–0273; FRL–9630–4] 

EPAAR Prescription for Work 

Assignments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA will amend the EPA 

Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) 

prescription for the work assignment 

clause. This final rule provides revised 

language to the prescription for the 

work assignment clause, incorporating 

prescriptive language that provides 

further instructions on the use of the 

related clause. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

February 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OARM–2010–0273. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Environmental (OEI) 

Information Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566– 

1752. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna S. Blanding, Policy, Training, 

and Oversight Division, Office of 

Acquisition Management (3802R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–564– 

1130; fax number: 202–565–2475; email 

address: blanding.donna@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action include firms that are performing 

or will perform under contract for the 

EPA. This includes firms in all industry 

groups. 

II. Background 

Recent contract file review activities 

revealed better guidance is needed for 

EPA Contracting Officers (COs) on the 

work plan and work assignment 

processes with regard to when a CO 

should provide the expected level of 

service needed to the contractor. 

As a result, clarifying policy is being 

added to the prescription for 1511.011– 

74. Accordingly, the revised language 

incorporated into EPAAR prescription 

1511.011–74 provides the EPA 

contracting officer with further 

instructions on the use of EPAAR clause 

1552.211–74, when administering work 

assignments under Cost Reimbursable 

type term form contracts. 

III. General Comments 

One comment was received on June 6, 

2011. The comment appears to be 

misplaced; it appears the commenter 

may have been attempting to address a 

different notice. The comment in 

reference to physician owned physical 

therapy practices is not relevant to this 

requirement. This rule focuses on the 

administration of work assignments 

under Cost Reimbursable contracts and 

not physical therapy practices. As a 

result, after in-depth review of this 

public comment, no changes will be 

made to this final rule. 

IV. Final Rule 

This rule amends the EPAAR to add 

policy to prescription 1511.011–74 for 

work assignments under clause 

1552.211–74. The original prescription 

language generally states that the work 

assignment clause, 1552.211–74, shall 

be used when a Cost Reimbursable type 

term form contract with work 

assignments will be issued. This policy 

revision only adds additional 

instructive language. The new policy 

language contained under 1511.011–74, 

Work Assignments (Deviation), will 

serve to provide contracting officers 

with better guidance on issuing a work 

assignment. Therefore a revision will 

not be required to the related EPAAR 

clause, 1552.211–74 Work Assignments; 

as this change does not affect the 

meaning of the clause. The revised 

language communicates to contract 

personnel and program staff that 

government cost-related estimates 

should not be provided to contractors 

prior to receiving the contractor’s work 

plan (proposal); and how to address 

exceptions. The exceptions addressed in 

the policy involve circumstances where 

a contracting officer may need to be able 

to provide some of the expected level of 

service needed to the contractor prior to 

receipt of the work plan (proposal) due 

to the nature of the work. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and EO 13563 

(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

Therefore, no review is required by the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs within the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. No 

information is collected under this 

action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute; unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impact 

of today’s final rule on small entities, 

‘‘small entity’’ is defined as: (1) A small 

business that meets the definition of a 

small business found in the Small 

Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES