Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18865 

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 88 

Aerodigestive disorders, Appeal 

procedures, Health care, Mental health 

conditions, Musculoskeletal disorders, 

Respiratory and pulmonary diseases. 

Text of the Rule 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Department of Health and 

Human Services amends 42 CFR part 88 

as follows: 

PART 88—WORLD TRADE CENTER 

HEALTH PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 88 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300mm–300mm–61, 

Pub. L. 111–347, 124 Stat. 3623. 

■ 2. Amend § 88.1 by adding the 

definitions of ‘‘Pentagon site,’’ ‘‘police 

department,’’ and ‘‘Shanksville, 

Pennsylvania site,’’ in alphabetical 

order, to read as follows: 

§ 88.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Pentagon site means any area of the 

land (consisting of approximately 280 

acres) and improvements thereon, 

located in Arlington, Virginia, on which 

the Pentagon Office Building, Federal 

Building Number 2, the Pentagon 

heating and sewage treatment plants, 

and other related facilities are located, 

including various areas designated for 

the parking of vehicles, vehicle access, 

and other areas immediately adjacent to 

the land or improvements previously 

described that were affected by the 

terrorist-related aircraft crash on 

September 11, 2001; and those areas at 

Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County, Virginia 

and at the Dover Port Mortuary at Dover 

Air Force Base in Delaware involved in 

the recovery, identification, and 

transportation of human remains for the 

incident. 

Police department means any law 

enforcement department or agency, 

whether under Federal, state, or local 

jurisdiction, responsible for general 

police duties, such as maintenance of 

public order, safety, or health, 

enforcement of laws, or otherwise 

charged with prevention, detection, 

investigation, or prosecution of crimes. 

* * * * * 

Shanksville, Pennsylvania site means 

the property in Stonycreek Township, 

Somerset County, Pennsylvania, which 

is bounded by Route 30 (Lincoln 

Highway), State Route 1019 (Buckstown 

Road), and State Route 1007 

(Lambertsville Road); and those areas at 

the Pennsylvania National Guard 

Armory in Friedens, Pennsylvania 

involved in the recovery, identification, 

and transportation of human remains for 

the incident. 

■ 3. Amend § 88.4 by adding paragraphs 

(b) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 88.4 Eligibility criteria—status as a WTC 

responder. 

* * * * * 

(b) Responders to the Pentagon site of 

the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attacks, may apply for enrollment in the 

WTC Health Program on or after April 

29, 2013. Individuals must meet the 

criteria below to be considered eligible 

for enrollment: 

(1) The individual was an active or 

retired member of a fire or police 

department (fire or emergency 

personnel), worked for a recovery or 

cleanup contractor, or was a volunteer; 

and 

(2) Performed rescue, recovery, 

demolition, debris cleanup, or other 

related services at the Pentagon site of 

the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attacks, for at least 1 day beginning 

September 11, 2001, and ending on 

November 19, 2001. 

(c) Responders to the Shanksville, 

Pennsylvania site of the September 11, 

2001, terrorist attacks, may apply for 

enrollment in the WTC Health Program 

on or after April 29, 2013. Individuals 

must meet the criteria below to be 

considered eligible for enrollment: 

(1) The individual was an active or 

retired member of a fire or police 

department (fire or emergency 

personnel), worked for a recovery or 

cleanup contractor, or was a volunteer; 

and 

(2) Performed rescue, recovery, 

demolition, debris cleanup, or other 

related services at the Shanksville, 

Pennsylvania site of the September 11, 

2001, terrorist attacks, for at least 1 day 

beginning September 11, 2001, and 

ending on October 3, 2001. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 2, 2012. 

John Howard, 

Administrator, World Trade Center Health 

Program and Director, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, Department 

of Health and Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07146 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 215 and 252 

RIN 0750–AH47 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Proposal 

Adequacy Checklist (DFARS Case 

2011–D042) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to incorporate a proposal 

adequacy checklist for proposals in 

response to solicitations that require 

submission of certified cost or pricing 

data. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 28, 2013 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Dustin Pitsch, telephone 571–372–6090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register at 76 FR 75512 on 

December 2, 2011, to incorporate the 

requirement for a proposal adequacy 

checklist into DFARS 215.408, and an 

associated solicitation provision at 

252.215–7009, to ensure offerors take 

responsibility for submitting thorough, 

accurate, and complete proposals. 

Fifteen respondents submitted public 

comments in response to the proposed 

rule. 

II. Discussion and Analysis of the 

Public Comments 

DoD reviewed the public comments in 

the development of the final rule. A 

discussion of the comments and the 

changes made to the rule as a result of 

those comments is provided, as follows: 

A. Summary of significant changes 

from the proposed rule. 

• The sentence ‘‘Completion of this 

checklist in no way reduces the 

responsibility to fully comply with all of 

the requirements of 41 U.S.C. chapter 

35, Truthful Cost or Pricing Data, and 

any other special requirements of the 

solicitation.’’ is removed from the 

checklist instructions at DFARS 

252.215–7009. 

• The sentence ‘‘In preparation of the 

offeror’s checklist, offerors may elect to 

have their prospective subcontractors 

use the same or similar checklist as 

appropriate.’’ was added to the end of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18866 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the checklist instructions at DFARS 

252.215–7009. The following checklist 

items are referred to by their proposed 

rule numbering scheme: 

• Checklist item 2 is modified to 

change the word ‘‘lending’’ to 

‘‘accountable’’. 

• Checklist item 3 is modified to read 

‘‘Does the proposal identify and explain 

notifications of noncompliance with 

CASB or CAS; any proposal 

inconsistencies with your disclosed 

practices or applicable CAS; and 

inconsistencies with your established 

estimating and accounting principles 

and procedures?’’ 

• Checklist item 4 is modified to read 

‘‘Does the proposal disclose any other 

known activity that could materially 

impact the costs?’’ and now includes the 

list of eight sample factors that appear 

in the definition of ‘‘cost or pricing 

data’’ at FAR 2.101. The reference 

column is updated to add FAR 2.101, 

‘‘Cost or pricing data’’. 

• Checklist item 9 is revised in 

response to public comments to provide 

a different reference. 

• Checklist item 10 has added the 

phrase ‘‘including breakdown by year’’ 

after ‘‘consistent with your cost 

accounting system’’. 

• Checklist items 11 and 13 are 

removed in response to public 

comments and are covered by final rule 

item 10, as revised. 

• Checklist item 14 is removed in 

response to public comments and final 

rule checklist item 4 was modified to 

include that non-recurring costs should 

be noted in the proposal along with 

other known activity that could 

materially impact costs. 

• Checklist item 16 (final rule item 

13) is modified to read ‘‘Is there a 

Government forward pricing rate 

agreement (FPRA)? If so, the offeror 

shall identify the official submittal of 

such rate and factor data.’’ Checklist 

item 33 from the proposed rule, has 

been revised and combined with final 

rule item 13, to address the proposal 

requirements if there is no FPRA. 

• Checklist item 17 is removed in 

response to public comments. 

• Checklist item 18 (final rule item 

14) is modified to note that a 

consolidated summary of individual 

material and services is ‘‘frequently 

referred to as a Consolidated Bill of 

Materials (CBOM)’’. 

• Checklist item 19 (final rule item 

15) is modified to read ‘‘Has the offeror 

identified in the proposal those 

subcontractor proposals, for which the 

contracting officer has initiated or may 

need to request field pricing analysis?’’ 

and to add the reference ‘‘DFARS 

215.404–3.’’ 

• Checklist item 20 (final rule item 

16) is modified to remove ‘‘proposal(s)’’ 

and add ‘‘certified cost or pricing data’’. 

• Checklist item 21 (final rule item 

17) is combined with checklist item 22 

and modified to read ‘‘Is there a Price/ 

Cost Analysis establishing the 

reasonableness of each of the proposed 

subcontracts included with the 

proposal? If the offeror’s price/cost 

analyses are not provided with the 

proposal, does the proposal include a 

matrix identifying dates for receipt of 

subcontractor proposal, completion of 

fact finding for purposes of price/cost 

analysis, and submission of the price/ 

cost analysis?’’ 

• The sections of the checklist titled 

‘‘COMMERCIAL ITEM 

DETERMINATION’’ and ‘‘ADEQUATE 

PRICE COMPETITION’’ are now titled 

‘‘EXCEPTIONS TO CERTIFIED COST 

OR PRICING DATA.’’ 

• Checklist item 23 (final rule item 

18) is modified to read ‘‘Has the Offeror 

submitted any exceptions to the 

submission of certified cost or pricing 

data for commercial items proposed 

either at the prime or subcontractor 

level, in accordance with provision 

52.215–20?’’ and now contains a list of 

the questions from items 24 through 26. 

The reference column is updated to read 

‘‘FAR 52.215–20’’ And ‘‘FAR 2.101, 

commercial item.’’ 

• Checklist item 27 (final rule item 

19) is modified to read ‘‘Does the 

proposal include a price analysis for all 

commercial items offered that are not 

available to the general public?’’ 

• Checklist item 32 (final rule item 

24) is modified to read ‘‘For labor Basis 

of Estimates, does the proposal include 

labor categories, labor hours, and task 

descriptions, (e.g.; Statement of Work 

reference, applicable CLIN, Work 

Breakdown Structure, rationale for 

estimate, applicable history, and timephasing)?’’ 

• Checklist item 33 is removed and 

relocated within final rule item 13 in 

response to public comments. 

• Checklist item 35 (final rule item 

26) is modified to add ‘‘and how they 

are applied.’’ 

• Checklist item 43 is removed in 

response to public comments. 

• Checklist item 44 (final rule 34) is 

revised in response to public comments 

to provide a different reference in the 

reference column and to address all 

types of economic price adjustments, 

not just those based on indices. 

• Checklist item 45 (final rule item 

35) is modified to read ‘‘If the offeror is 

proposing Performance-Based Payments 

did the offeror comply with FAR clause 

52.232–28?’’ and the reference is 

updated to read ‘‘FAR 52.232–28.’’ 

• Checklist item 47 is removed in 

response to public comments. 

B. Analysis of Public Comments. 

1. Increased Cost 

Comment: Two respondents stated 

that this new rule would result in 

increased costs that will ultimately be 

passed on to the Government and may 

be financially prohibitive to seeking 

other business. 

Response: This provision results from 

a long history of incomplete proposals 

resulting in rework and lost time, and it 

aims to achieve cost savings by 

improving initial proposal submissions 

from contractors. 

2. Improved Efficiency 

Comment: One respondent noted that 

the checklist will improve efficiency on 

both sides of the contract and that DOD 

will save time because they will have all 

the answers they need to determine 

which contractor is best for the 

Government. 

Response: This comment accurately 

expresses the goals of this rule. 

3. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Comment: Several respondents 

believed that this checklist imposes 

additional reporting requirements on 

the contractor and note that many of the 

checklist items are not currently 

required for submission of certified cost 

or pricing data. One respondent noted 

that while this checklist adds the new 

requirements it appears to add no value 

to the contracting process. 

Response: This rule does not impose 

additional requirements over what is 

already required under the conditions 

where certified cost or pricing data are 

required and these requirements are 

already covered by OMB Control 

Number 9000–0013. This provision is 

applicable to solicitations with an 

estimated value greater than the TINA 

threshold and that require certified cost 

or pricing data. This provision intends 

to increase uniformity across DoD, 

minimize local variations, and thereby 

decrease proposal preparation costs. 

4. Unnecessary and Duplicative 

Comment: Several respondents 

suggested that the checklist is 

unnecessary and duplicative. One 

respondent noted that it is the offeror’s 

responsibility to comply with the 

requirements of the solicitation and an 

offeror that is unable to submit a 

compliant proposal is likely to be 

noncompliant after award. The same 

respondent noted that this checklist is 

somewhat duplicative of the DCAA 

forward pricing adequacy checklist. 

Another noted that most of the checklist 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18867 

items already appear in FAR 15.408 at 

table 15–2 and suggested that the rule 

should require contractors confirm that 

their proposal complies with all 

applicable requirements of 15–2. 

Another respondent noted that this rule 

is: (1) Not compliant with Executive 

Order 12866 as there is no defined 

problem that this rule aims to solve; (2) 

the rule is inconsistent, incompatible 

and duplicative of what is already in 

Table 15–2; and (3) that this checklist 

only adds a layer of regulatory 

requirements. 

Response: This provision is a single, 

uniform tool that is applicable across 

DoD to address the inconsistent 

interpretations of Table 15–2. The intent 

of this provision is to increase 

uniformity across DoD, minimize local 

variations, and thereby decrease 

proposal preparation costs. The 

checklist created by this rule is a 

DFARS provision; any checklist that 

DCAA currently uses is outside the 

scope of this rule. 

5. Belongs in Procedures, Guidance, and 

Information (PGI) 

Comment: Several of the respondents 

suggested that this checklist should be 

incorporated into the DFARS PGI as it 

seems that it is intended to be a tool for 

assisting contracting officers in 

determining the adequacy of proposal 

and not a regulatory requirement. 

Response: This provision impacts 

contractors; therefore it must be in the 

DFARS. Language added to the DFARS 

PGI cannot have any effect on the public 

and exists to assist contracting officers. 

6. Better Buying Power (BBP) 

Comment: Several respondents stated 

that the proposed rule does not support 

the BBP Initiative and noted that the 

rule does not align with any of the 23 

principal actions. The respondents 

believed that the proposed rule is 

contrary to the BBP Initiative to reduce 

nonproductive processes and 

bureaucracy. 

Response: While this initiative 

predates BBP, it is consistent with the 

BBP’s cost reduction initiatives. 

7. Self validation 

Comment: Several comments were 

received regarding the possibility of 

contractors self validating their proposal 

through the use of the checklist. The 

respondents noted that: (1) The 

contractor has always been responsible 

for meeting the requirements of the 

solicitation; (2) use of the checklist will 

not relieve the contracting officers of the 

responsibility of determining the 

proposal adequate; and (3) it is likely 

that time and resources will be wasted 

reviewing the checklist instead of 

reviewing the proposal. 

Response: This provision should 

result in cost savings by improving 

initial proposal submissions from 

offerors and reduce the amount of 

rework and resubmissions. Because the 

offeror will specify where to find 

required information in its proposal, 

this provision aims to achieve time 

savings for contracting officers. 

8. Protest potential 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

that this rule creates additional 

potential for protests as acceptance of 

the checklist or the non-rejection of the 

checklist would allow contractors to 

claim they have met all solicitation 

requirements and were unfairly denied 

award. 

Response: This checklist is intended 

to facilitate the contractor submitting an 

adequate proposal. The checklist is not 

intended to be a standalone decision 

document; it will be used by contracting 

officials in reviewing proposals when 

certified cost or pricing data are 

required. 

9. Require Checklist (Shall/Should) 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

changing the clause prescription at 

215.408(3) to read that the contracting 

officer ‘‘shall’’ use the checklist instead 

of ‘‘should’’ as is used in the proposed 

rule. This respondent believed that 

nonstandard mandatory use of the 

checklist will cause confusion across 

the DoD and industry. 

Response: Because of the wide 

variance in requirements, the 

contracting officer will have discretion 

to determine applicability to the 

requirements. 

10. Corrective Actions 

Comment: Two respondents suggested 

that there should be penalties associated 

with non-submission of the checklist. 

Response: The checklist is intended to 

be a tool to assist contractors to provide 

adequate, compliant proposals; it is not 

meant to be punitive. Non-receipt of the 

checklist may result in extending the 

proposal evaluation and delaying 

contract award. 

11. Contracting Officer Determination 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

that the contracting officer should 

specify which items on the checklist 

will be required and where data other 

than certified cost or pricing data are 

required. 

Response: This provision is to be 

included only in solicitations requiring 

certified cost or pricing data. 

12. Tailoring 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

that the contracting officer should be 

able to tailor the checklist as necessary 

to each acquisition. 

Response: The solicitation provision 

will be utilized in its entirety. This is a 

tool for offerors to improve the initial 

proposal submission, ensuring adequacy 

and completeness. 

13. Subcontractor Flowdown 

Comment: Several comments were 

received regarding the applicability of 

the checklist to subcontractors as the 

proposed rule has no guidance on this. 

One of the respondents noted that 

flowdown to require subcontractor to 

use the checklist would add a 

significant amount of time to proposal 

preparation. 

Response: The checklist is not 

required to flow down to 

subcontractors, but prime contractors 

may elect to use it for their prospective 

subcontractors’ proposals. 

14. Solicitation Process Changes 

Comment: One respondent made 

several suggestions toward the overall 

solicitation process including: (1) Not 

allowing proposal costs to be billed 

directly if the proposal is inadequate; (2) 

requiring contractors to justify their 

proposed fee with a risk analysis; (3) 

requiring, for all proposal modifications, 

a total proposal resubmission; (4) 

requiring more detail in contractor’s 

analysis of subcontractor proposals; and 

(5) creating a requirement that 

postaward subcontractor cost savings 

should be passed on to the Government. 

Response: These comments are 

beyond the scope of this rule. 

15. Section L 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

many of the checklist items are already 

called out in section L of the solicitation 

and suggested that section L could be 

modified to reflect the pertinent items 

in the checklist. 

Response: The solicitation provision 

created by this rule will go in section L 

of the solicitation, and it is meant to 

supplement the other instructions for 

circumstances where certified cost or 

pricing data will be required. 

16. Remove ‘‘compliance’’ Statement 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

removing the ‘‘compliance’’ statement 

directly preceding the checklist at 

clause 252.215–7009. 

Response: The provision is modified 

to remove ‘‘Completion of this checklist 

in no way reduces the responsibility to 

fully comply with all of the 

requirements of 41 U.S.C. chapter 35, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18868 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Truthful Cost or Pricing Data, and any 

other special requirements of the 

solicitation.’’ 

17. Indefinite-Delivery IndefiniteQuantity (IDIQ) Applicability 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the checklist is not appropriate for IDIQ 

solicitations and awards. The 

respondent stated that this is because 

IDIQs often provide a placeholder value 

or a predetermined bill of material that 

the offeror must use, but the checklist 

implies that the offeror is responsible 

for all of the TINA requirements for a 

value in the proposal that has been 

directed by the Government. 

Response: This checklist is applicable 

to solicitations that require certified 

price and costing data. When a 

predetermined bill of materials is 

provided by the Government, certified 

cost or price data is not required for that 

cost element. 

18. Certified Bill of Materials (CBOM) 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the Government’s requirement for a 

CBOM is not always consistently 

interpreted or applied which, at times, 

has resulted in unnecessary costs to the 

Government in the name of compliance. 

The checklist should encourage 

contractors to discuss BOM 

requirements with the contracting 

officer prior to preparing the proposal 

where a single CBOM (in an electronic 

format) is not consistent with the 

contractor’s current (and approved) 

practices. Further, the contracting 

officer should be allowed the reasonable 

discretion to decide what information or 

format is truly necessary for 

determining a price fair and reasonable. 

Response: The rule does not restrict 

communication among the parties. 

Specific submission requirements can 

be included in section L of the 

solicitation at the contracting officer’s 

discretion. 

19. Contractor Versus Offeror 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

the terms ‘‘Offeror’’ and ‘‘contractor’’ 

should be used consistently and not 

interchangeably to minimize confusion. 

Response: All ‘‘contractor’’ references 

have been changed to ‘‘offeror’’ in the 

DFARS text and provision. 

20. CAGE and DUNS 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

that proposals include both the CAGE 

and DUNS numbers of the offeror in 

order to more effectively monitor offeror 

compliance with forward pricing rate 

recommendations and forward pricing 

rate agreements. 

Response: This is outside the scope of 

this rule; it is already required by the 

solicitation. 

21. Proposal Requirements 

Comment: One respondent requested 

adding a question in the ‘‘General 

Instructions’’ to assess whether the 

offeror addressed the specific 

requirements of the contracting officer 

within the proposal. 

Response: This checklist addresses 

proposals that will require certified cost 

or pricing data. Specific submission 

requirements can be included in section 

L of the solicitation at the contracting 

officer’s discretion. 

22. General Instructions 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

adding under ‘‘General Instructions’’ the 

following three items: 

a. Does the proposal comply with the 

RFP in regard to data rights? 

b. Does the proposal comply with the 

RFP regarding the applicable 

requirements relative to submission of 

subcontracting plan, Cost and Software 

Data Reporting (DFARS 252.234–7003, 

252.234–7004), EVM, Unique Item 

Identification (UID) and specialty 

metals?’’ 

Response: This checklist applies only 

to the cost proposal and not the 

proposal in its entirety. 

23. Column Heading 

Comment: One respondent requested 

changing the format of the checklist to 

include a ‘‘Y/N/N/A’’ column. 

Response: The checklist is designed to 

be open-ended. An explanation should 

be provided when ‘‘not applicable.’’ A 

column with ‘‘Y/N/N/A’’ is not 

necessary. If the offeror fills in the 

checklist with a page number(s) in the 

‘‘Proposal Page No.’’ column this would 

denote that ‘‘yes’’ the item has been 

provided. If the contractor enters 

something in the ‘‘If not provided 

EXPLAIN’’ column, this would denote 

that the item has not been provided and 

there should be an explanation as to 

why the item has not been provided. 

The item not being applicable for the 

particular proposal can be included 

with the explanation as to why it has 

not been provided. 

24. Checklist Item 1 

Comment: Two respondents 

recommended modifying the reference 

block for item 1 to accurately reflect the 

two items being referred to in FAR table 

15–2. 

Response: The reference is changed to 

‘‘Paragraph A.’’ 

25. Checklist Item 2 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended the terminology in the 

checklist item for Governmentfurnished material/tooling/test 

equipment be made consistent with the 

FAR reference for Government property. 

Another respondent suggested requiring 

a cost impact study if Governmentfurnished property/material/tooling/test 

equipment is denied. One respondent 

requested replacing the term ‘‘lending’’ 

with ‘‘accountable’’ in order to be 

consistent with the FAR. 

Response: The DFARS text is changed 

to replace the term ‘‘lending’’ with 

‘‘accountable’’. A cost impact study is 

outside the scope of this rule. 

26. Checklist Item 3 

Comment: One respondent suggested 

changing the checklist item to ask 

whether the offeror has been notified of 

any CAS noncompliance or other 

estimating deficiencies that may impact 

the proposed price. Another respondent 

recommended requiring the offeror to 

evaluate the magnitude of the impact of 

the CAS noncompliance or deficiency 

on estimated costs, describe the offeror’s 

efforts to correct the noncompliance, 

and propose a method of dealing with 

the noncompliance in the negotiated 

agreement. One respondent stated that 

no FAR references or any other FAR or 

DFARS clauses currently require an 

offeror to disclose estimating 

deficiencies in a proposal and this 

checklist item would create a new 

requirement for an offeror. 

Response: This item is revised to read 

‘‘Does the proposal identify and explain 

notifications of noncompliance with 

CASD or CAS; any proposal 

inconsistencies with your disclosed 

practices or applicable CAS; and 

inconsistencies with our established 

estimating and accounting principles 

and procedures?’’ to more closely align 

with table 15–2. 

27. Checklist Item 4 

Comment: One respondent stated 

some of the terms in the checklist were 

newly created for the checklist and were 

not directly from the requirements 

already in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR). The respondent 

suggested the inclusion of new terms 

would cause inconsistency that may 

lead to confusion. The FAR reference 

was also questioned. 

Response: This checklist item is 

modified to read ‘‘Does the proposal 

disclose any other known activity that 

could materially impact the costs?’’ and 

now includes the list of eight sample 

factors that appear in the definition of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18869 

‘‘cost or pricing data’’ at FAR 2.101. The 

reference column is updated to add FAR 

2.101, ‘‘cost or pricing data.’’ 

28. Checklist Item 7 

Comment: Two respondents stated it 

would be wastefully time consuming 

and burdensome for offerors to disclose 

which pages of the proposal contain a 

judgmental factor applied and the 

mathematical or other methods used in 

the estimate. The respondents suggested 

a large percentage of the pages 

comprising the proposal would contain 

such information. 

Response: Having contractors identify 

this information prevents 

miscommunication and 

misunderstanding, and it will save time 

in the proposal evaluation process. 

29. Checklist Item 9 

Comments: One respondent stated the 

FAR reference was not applicable 

because it pertains to CLINS instead of 

cost estimating relationships. One 

respondent suggested the checklist item 

should include an additional 

requirement that the offeror explain 

how the cost estimating relationship 

(CER) is applied. 

Response: This reference for the item 

has been change to cite Section II, 

Paragraphs A and B of Table 15–2. 

These references require the basis of 

estimate. CER is a basis of estimate that 

could be used when cost is not 

proposed on a discrete basis. 

30. Checklist Item 10 

Comment: One respondent stated the 

FAR reference was not applicable 

because it pertains to CLINS instead of 

cost elements. 

Response: Paragraph D is referenced 

because it specifically requests offeror to 

provide cost element breakdown for 

each proposed line item. The checklist 

does not directly restate every item of 

table 15–2 as it is meant to be used as 

a tool to ensure all necessary elements 

have been included with the proposal. 

31. Checklist Item 11 

Comments: One respondent noted the 

FAR reference to paragraph D was not 

applicable. Another respondent 

commented the item would introduce a 

new requirement because paragraph D 

does not require a yearly breakdown by 

either total price or cost element. 

Response: This element is removed 

from the checklist as it is covered by 

final rule item 10; breakdowns for cost 

elements must be consistent with the 

cost accounting system. 

32. Checklist Item 13 

Comments: One respondent noted the 

FAR reference to paragraph E was not 

applicable. Another respondent 

commented the item would introduce a 

new requirement because paragraph D 

does not require a yearly breakdown by 

either total price or cost element. 

Response: This element is removed 

from the checklist as it is covered by 

final rule item 10; breakdowns for cost 

elements must be consistent with the 

cost accounting system. 

33. Checklist Item 14 

Comments: One respondent noted the 

FAR reference to paragraph E was not 

applicable. Another respondent 

commented the item would introduce a 

new requirement because the offeror 

currently does not have to segregate 

recurring and non-recurring costs at the 

CLIN/Sub-CLIN and total cost levels. 

Response: This checklist item is 

removed as non-recurring costs are cited 

in the definition of ‘‘cost or pricing 

data’’ at FAR 2.101 and should be noted 

in response to checklist item 4. 

34. Checklist Item 17 

Comments: Several respondents 

stated the checklist item for a 

description of supplies and services 

addresses non-cost information and 

should be eliminated. The respondents 

commented that the checklist item 

would create a new reporting 

requirement for offerors because this is 

not currently a FAR or DFARS 

requirement. 

Response: Since item 17 requests noncost information, it is removed from the 

final rule. The basis on which supplies 

or services meet the need of the 

Government should be developed 

within the proposal. 

35. Checklist Item 18 (Final Rule Item 

14) 

Comments: One respondent requested 

the language of the checklist item be 

expanded to inquire whether the 

offeror’s estimating technique is 

appropriate and whether interorganizational transfers are included in 

the Consolidated Bill of Materials. 

Several respondents suggested a 

requirement that an offeror provide an 

electronic version of the CBOM that can 

be sorted by supplier, category, 

quantity, unit price, extended price of 

parts number, and identification of 

commercial items. Another respondent 

imparted the rationale that was utilized 

to reach the final version of the Air 

Force Proposal Adequacy Checklist and 

cautioned expanding the scope for this 

checklist item. 

Response: The suggested items, as 

well as requiring an electronic 

submission that can be sorted, would be 

new reporting requirements beyond the 

intent of this rule. Specific submission 

requirements can be included in section 

L of the solicitation at the contracting 

officer’s discretion. The checklist is not 

intended to dictate all specific 

requirements for every solicitation in 

which it is used. 

36. Checklist Item 19 (Final Rule Item 

15) 

Comments: Several respondents 

suggested additional language to inform 

offerors that they must still perform 

price and cost analysis when an assist 

audit has been requested on a 

subcontractor. One respondent 

suggested the checklist item be modified 

or eliminated because contracting 

officers and DCAA, not prime 

contractors have the authority to request 

assist audits of subcontractors. Another 

respondent requested amending the 

checklist item to direct the offeror to 

inform the contracting officer as soon as 

possible of the need for an assist audit 

resulting from proprietary data rights 

assertions. 

Response: A reference for item 19 is 

added to reflect ‘‘DFARS 215.404–3’’ 

and the checklist item is modified to 

read ‘‘Has the offeror identified in the 

proposal those subcontractor proposals, 

for which the contracting officer has 

initiated or may need to request field 

pricing analysis?’’ 

37. Checklist Item 20 (Final Rule Item 

16) 

Comments: One respondent proposed 

the FAR reference be revised to match 

that of item 18. Two respondents 

suggested modifying the language. One 

suggested: ‘‘Per the thresholds of FAR 

15.404–3(c), Subcontract Pricing 

Considerations, does the proposal 

include either a copy of the applicable 

subcontractor’s proposals or the date by 

which these proposals will be submitted 

directly from the subcontractor? If 

proposals are to be submitted, annotate 

the projected date provided of 

submission in ‘explanation’ column of 

this checklist.’’ The other respondent 

suggested modifying the language to 

read: ‘‘* * * does the proposal include 

a copy of the applicable subcontractor’s 

certified cost or pricing data?’’ 

Response: The item reference is 

revised to add ‘‘FAR 52.244–2’’. The 

submission item text will be modified to 

incorporate the second respondent’s 

suggestion of ‘‘* * * does the proposal 

include a copy of the applicable 

subcontractor’s certified cost or pricing 

data?’’ If the answer is ‘‘no,’’ the 

explanation should state how and when 

the data will be provided. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18870 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

38. Checklist Item 21 (Final Rule Item 

17) 

Comments: One respondent noted the 

language in checklist items 21 and 22 

should be consistent when addressing 

an offeror’s price/cost analysis of 

subcontracts. One respondent suggested 

the checklist item question be modified 

to ask whether a prime contractor’s 

price/cost analysis of each proposed 

subcontract greater than $700,000 is 

included in the proposal. 

Response: Item 21 is modified to read 

‘‘Is there a price/cost analysis 

establishing the reasonableness of each 

of the proposed subcontracts included 

with the proposal?’’ A price or cost 

analysis must be accomplished on all 

subcontractor proposals; there is no 

dollar threshold for this. 

39. Checklist Item 22 (Final Rule Item 

17) 

Comments: One respondent stated the 

checklist item would create a new 

reporting requirement for offerors 

because this is not currently a FAR or 

DFARS clause that requires an offeror to 

provide a matrix of anticipated dates for 

the receipt of proposals from 

subcontractors. Other respondents 

recommended identifying the offeror as 

a prime contractor and using the 

language consistently when addressing 

an offeror’s price/cost analysis of 

subcontracts. 

Response: This is only necessary if a 

proposal is incomplete because the 

information in the preceding checklist 

item has not been submitted. The 

checklist is not generating a new 

reporting requirement; it is only 

requesting remaining proposal 

components submission date for 

adequacy. This item has been combined 

with the previous checklist item (item 

21 which is item 16 in the final rule) to 

clarify that it is a follow-up that is only 

necessary when an analysis has not yet 

been submitted for each subcontract. 

40. Checklist Item 23 (Final Rule Item 

18) 

Comments: One respondent 

commented the item would introduce a 

new requirement because it is not 

currently mandatory for the offeror to 

indicate whether commercial items 

would be exempt for certified cost or 

pricing data requirements. The 

respondent noted a contracting officer 

may require data other than certified 

cost or pricing data when a commercial 

item is being acquired. Another 

respondent suggested the offeror 

provide the rationale for commercial 

items listed as exempt from certified 

cost or pricing data requirements. 

Response: This is not a new reporting 

requirement as this item allows the 

offeror to acknowledge an allowable 

exemption to the requirement for 

certified cost or pricing data at the 

prime or subcontractor level. The item 

is modified to read ‘‘Has the Offeror 

submitted any exceptions to the 

submission of certified cost or pricing 

data for commercial items proposed 

either at the prime or subcontractor 

level, in accordance with provision 

52.215–20?’’ and now contains a 

bulleted list of the questions from items 

24 through 26. The reference column is 

updated to read ‘‘FAR 52.215–20’’ and 

‘‘FAR 2.101, commercial item.’’ 

41. Checklist Item 24 

Comments: One respondent noted the 

FAR reference only points to the 

definition of a commercial item and 

does not reference a FAR instruction for 

an offeror to provide a technical 

description of the differences between 

the proposed item and the comparison 

item. 

Response: This item is removed 

because the requirements at 52.215–20 

are consolidated in checklist item 23 

(final rule item 17) making this item 

redundant. 

42. Checklist Item 25 

Comments: One respondent 

commented the checklist item would 

create a new reporting requirement for 

offerors because the FAR currently 

states a contracting officer may require 

data other than certified cost or pricing 

data but does not require an offeror to 

provide such information for every 

proposal. Another respondent suggested 

including language that a minor 

modification must meet the definition 

in FAR 2.101 in order to clarify the 

requirements of a commercial item 

exemption. One respondent requested 

the checklist item ask the offeror to 

justify, in addition to classifying, the 

modification. Several respondents 

requested the replacement of the phrase 

‘‘see note below’’ with language that 

informs the offeror modifications that 

do not qualify as minor under FAR 

2.101 or modifications that qualify as 

minor where the total price of all such 

modifications exceed the greater of the 

thresholds for certified cost or pricing 

data or 5% of the total price of the 

contract are not exempt from the 

submission of certified cost or pricing 

data. 

Response: This item is removed 

because the requirements at 52.215–20 

are consolidated in checklist item 23 

(final rule item 18) making this item 

redundant. 

43. Checklist Item 26 

Comments: One respondent stated the 

checklist item only references the 

definition of a commercial item and 

would create a new reporting 

requirement for offerors because this is 

not currently a FAR or DFARS 

requirement for an offeror to provide a 

technical description of the differences 

between the proposed item and the 

comparison item. 

Response: This item is removed 

because the requirements at 52.215–20 

are consolidated in checklist item 23 

(final rule item 18) making this item 

redundant. 

44. Checklist Item 27 (Final Rule Item 

19) 

Comments: Several respondents 

suggested additional requirements for 

the offeror to provide data other than 

certified cost or pricing data to support 

a determination of price reasonableness 

for commercial items such as data 

related competition, market prices, 

costs, etc. One respondent stated that 

the reference was incorrect because cost 

or pricing data are not required for 

commercial items and if such 

information were required, it creates a 

new reporting requirement for offerors 

because this is not currently a FAR or 

DFARS requirement for an offeror. 

Response: The contracting officer 

would have to decide during 

discussions if other than certified cost 

or pricing data will be necessary. This 

is not a new requirement; it is a 

reminder that a price analysis is still 

required when certified cost or pricing 

data are not required. The FAR 

reference is revised to reflect ‘‘FAR 

15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph 

A’’ and rephrased to address ‘‘a price 

analysis for all commercial items offered 

that are not available to the general 

public.’’ 

45. Checklist Item 30 (Final Rule Item 

22) 

Comments: One respondent suggested 

amending the FAR reference for the 

requirement to provide analysis for 

inter-organizational transfers. 

Response: The table 15–2 reference is 

added to the references column in the 

final rule (Paragraph A(1) Section II 

Table 15–2). 

46. Checklist Item 31 (Final Rule Item 

23) 

Comments: One respondent noted the 

importance of well referenced 

information regarding the types, time 

phasing, and WBS for direct labor so 

that the cost element summary can be 

reconciled with the basis of estimates. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18871 

Response: The checklist is intended to 

assist contractors in providing well 

referenced proposal information. 

47. Checklist Item 32 (Final Rule Item 

24) 

Comments: One respondent noted the 

checklist item would impose a new 

requirement on offerors since the FAR 

reference requires a time-phased 

breakdown of labor hours, rates, and 

cost by appropriate category but does 

not require task descriptions, statementof-work reference, applicable CLIN, 

work breakdown structure (WBS), 

rationale for estimate and other detailed 

breakdowns. Another responded 

reiterated the importance of well 

referenced information regarding the 

types, time phasing, and WBS for direct 

labor so that the cost element summary 

can be with reconciled with the basis of 

estimates. 

Response: The checklist item is 

modified to include the list of examples 

‘‘Statement of Work reference, 

applicable CLIN, work breakdown 

structure, rationale for estimate, 

applicable history, and time-phasing’’ in 

parentheses. Also, ‘‘e.g.’’ has been 

added at the beginning of this list to 

further denote that the items are merely 

examples. 

48. Checklist Item 33 (Final Rule Item 

13) 

Comments: One respondent 

recommended relocating the content of 

checklist item 33 into the ‘‘General 

Instructions.’’ Another respondent 

suggested a requirement that an offeror 

provide historical direct labor rates for 

proposed labor categories if a FPRA/ 

FPRP is not available. Ifhistorical direct 

labor rates are also not available the 

respondent requests an offeror provide 

marketplace analysis for the proposed 

labor categories. 

Response: This item is relocated to 

the ‘‘General Instructions’’ section of the 

checklist and consolidated with item 16 

(final rule item 13). 

49. Checklist Item 35 (Final Rule Item 

26) 

Comments: Several respondents 

request including additional guidance 

in the checklist item so offerors more 

clearly explain how indirect rates are 

developed and applied throughout the 

proposal. 

Response: The rule text is modified to 

include ‘‘and how they are applied?’’ 

50. Checklist Item 36 (Final Rule Item 

27) 

Comments: One respondent stated the 

language of the checklist item should be 

amended to distinguish when travel is 

proposed as a direct cost because it may 

not always be proposed as such and the 

question requirement would not be 

applicable. Another respondent stated 

the checklist item creates a new 

reporting requirement for offerors 

because this is no current FAR or 

DFARS requirement. 

Response: The travel details listed in 

item 36 are not spelled out in table 15– 

2; however they are the necessary 

details to provide an adequate basis for 

pricing of direct travel. 

51. Checklist Item 40 (Final Rule Item 

31) 

Comments: One respondent stated the 

checklist item duplicates the 

requirement listed in checklist item 39 

which addresses cost element 

breakdowns of all types of proposals. 

Response: The tables are represented 

in separate checklist items to accentuate 

that they are each used in different 

circumstances. 

52. Checklist Item 41 (Final Rule Item 

32) 

Comments: One respondent stated the 

checklist item duplicates the 

requirement listed in checklist item 39 

which addresses cost element 

breakdowns of all types of proposals. 

Response: The tables are represented 

in separate checklist items to accentuate 

that they are each used in different 

circumstances. 

53. Checklist Item 43 

Comments: One respondent 

commented that the item would 

introduce a new requirement because 

the checklist item requires the offeror to 

state that the fee is in accordance with 

statutory requirements whereas the FAR 

reference identifies a requirement on the 

contracting officer to verify the fee does 

not exceed statutory requirements. 

Response: This item is removed 

because the contracting officer 

determines if the fee is appropriate in 

accordance with the regulations, not the 

offeror. 

54. Checklist Item 44 (Final Rule Item 

34) 

Comments: One respondent 

recommended the removal of item 44 in 

the checklist regarding the rationale and 

application of economic price 

adjustment in a proposal. The 

respondent noted the inclusion of the 

item on the checklist may encourage an 

offeror to propose the use of economic 

price adjustments, which would not be 

desirable to the Government because of 

the of the administrative burden. The 

respondent also stated the checklist 

item assumes an economic price 

adjustment with indices when indices 

are only one of the methods available. 

The FAR reference was also questioned. 

Response: This item is revised to 

address all type of economic incentive 

arrangements and a new reference has 

been provided to FAR 16.203–4 and 

FAR 15.408 Table 15–2, Section II, 

Paragraphs A, B, C, and D. 

55. Checklist Item 45 (Final Rule Item 

35) 

Comments: One respondent suggested 

that the checklist item should clarify 

that an offeror can propose a separate 

price for performance based payments 

which are negotiated after award. 

Another respondent stated that the 

checklist item creates a new reporting 

requirement for offerors because there is 

no current FAR or DFARS requirement 

for an offeror to provide an expenditure 

profile. 

Response: The reference is modified 

to reflect FAR 52.232–28 and the item 

is modified to read as follows: ‘‘If the 

offeror is proposing Performance-Based 

Payments, did the offeror comply with 

FAR 52.232–28?’’ The provision at FAR 

52.232–28 is included in solicitations 

when offerors are invited to propose 

performance based payments and the 

provision includes all of the necessary 

information for submission. 

56. Checklist Item 46 (Final Rule Item 

36) 

Comments: One respondent suggested 

expanding checklist item 46 to require 

identification and explanation of any 

higher tier subcontractors rather than 

limiting the requirement to only 

subcontractors supplying the prime 

contractor. Another respondent 

recommended the FAR reference be 

amended to include FAR 52.215–22. 

Response: References to FAR clauses 

52.215–22 and 52.215–23 are added. 

This checklist is addressed to the offeror 

and not to the subcontractors. When the 

prime is subcontracting more than 70% 

of the effort, the contractor is required 

to disclose this in the proposal. 

57. Checklist Item 47 

Comments: One respondent 

commented the item would introduce a 

new requirement because the checklist 

item does not make reference to a 

current requirement within the FAR. 

Response: This item is removed as 

point of contact data is already required 

by table 15–2 Section I (A)(3), which is 

covered by checklist item 1. 

III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18872 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A final regulatory flexibility analysis 

has been prepared consistent with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq., and is summarized as follows: 

This final rule amends the Defense 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement (DFARS) to add a checklist 

for Department of Defense (DoD) 

contractors to complete under 

solicitations that require the submission 

of certified cost or pricing data and 

when the Contracting Officer chooses to 

use the provision. This rule supports 

DoD’s Better Buying Power initiatives. 

The objective of the rule is to ensure 

that offerors submit thorough, accurate, 

and complete proposals. Through filling 

out the checklist the contractor will be 

able to self validate their proposals. 

No significant issues were raised by 

the public in response to the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis. 

No comments were filed by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration in response to 

the rule. 

The rule will apply to solicitations, 

for which certified cost or pricing data 

are required. Based on data collected in 

the Federal Procurement Data System 

for FY2008—FY2010, there are on 

average 905 actions per year that met 

the criteria where the proposal 

adequacy checklist could be utilized; on 

average 421 of those actions were with 

small business concerns. 

No alternatives were determined; the 

proposal adequacy checklist was created 

directly from requirements already in 

the FAR. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule contains information 

collection requirements that require the 

approval of the Office of Management 

and Budget under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C chapter 35). 

However, these changes to the DFARS 

do not impose additional information 

collection requirements to the 

paperwork burden previously approved 

under OMB Control Number 9000–0013, 

entitled Cost or Pricing Data Exemption 

Information. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part(s) 215 

and 252 

Government procurement. 

Kortnee Stewart, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, DoD amends 48 CFR parts 

215 and 252 as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for parts 215 

and 252 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

Chapter 1. 

PART 215—CONTRACTING BY 

NEGOTIATION 

■ 2. Section 215.408 is amended by 

adding new paragraph (6) to read as 

follows: 

215.408 Solicitation provisions and 

contract clauses. 

* * * * * 

(6) When the solicitation requires the 

submission of certified cost or pricing 

data, the contracting officer should 

include 252.215–7009, Proposal 

Adequacy Checklist, in the solicitation 

to facilitate submission of a thorough, 

accurate, and complete proposal. 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 3. Add 252.215–7009 to read as 

follows: 

252.215–7009 Proposal adequacy 

checklist. 

As prescribed in 215.408(6), use the 

following provision: 

Proposal Adequacy Checklist (MAR 

2013) 

The offeror shall complete the 

following checklist, providing location 

of requested information, or an 

explanation of why the requested 

information is not provided. In 

preparation of the offeror’s checklist, 

offerors may elect to have their 

prospective subcontractors use the same 

or similar checklist as appropriate. 

PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST

References Submission item Proposal 

page No. 

If not provided 

EXPLAIN 

(may use 

continuation 

pages) 

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 

1. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section I Paragraph A .... Is there a properly completed first page of the proposal per FAR 15.408 Table 15–2 I.A or as specified in the solicitation? 

2. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section I Paragraph A(7) Does the proposal identify the need for Governmentfurnished material/tooling/test equipment? Include 

the accountable contract number and contracting 

officer contact information if known. 

3. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section I Paragraph A(8) Does the proposal identify and explain notifications of 

noncompliance with Cost Accounting Standards 

Board or Cost Accounting Standards (CAS); any 

proposal inconsistencies with your disclosed practices or applicable CAS; and inconsistencies with 

your established estimating and accounting principles and procedures? 

4. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section I, Paragraph C(1) Does the proposal disclose any other known activity 

that could materially impact the costs? 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18873 

PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST—Continued 

References Submission item Proposal 

page No. 

If not provided 

EXPLAIN 

(may use 

continuation 

pages) 

FAR 2.101, ‘‘Cost or pricing data’’ ................................ This may include, but is not limited to, such factors 

as— 

(1) Vendor quotations; 

(2) Nonrecurring costs; 

(3) Information on changes in production methods and 

in production or purchasing volume; 

(4) Data supporting projections of business prospects 

and objectives and related operations costs; 

(5) Unit-cost trends such as those associated with 

labor efficiency; 

(6) Make-or-buy decisions; 

(7) Estimated resources to attain business goals; and 

(8) Information on management decisions that could 

have a significant bearing on costs. 

5. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section I Paragraph B .... Is an Index of all certified cost or pricing data and information accompanying or identified in the proposal provided and appropriately referenced? 

6. FAR 15.403–1(b) ...................................................... Are there any exceptions to submission of certified 

cost or pricing data pursuant to FAR 15.403–1(b)? 

If so, is supporting documentation included in the 

proposal? (Note questions 18–20.) 

7. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section I Paragraph 

C(2)(i).

Does the proposal disclose the judgmental factors applied and the mathematical or other methods used 

in the estimate, including those used in projecting 

from known data? 

8. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section I Paragraph 

C(2)(ii).

Does the proposal disclose the nature and amount of 

any contingencies included in the proposed price? 

9. FAR 15.408 Table 15–2, Section II, Paragraph A or 

B.

Does the proposal explain the basis of all cost estimating relationships (labor hours or material) proposed on other than a discrete basis? 

10. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section I Paragraphs D 

and E.

Is there a summary of total cost by element of cost 

and are the elements of cost cross-referenced to 

the supporting cost or pricing data? (Breakdowns 

for each cost element must be consistent with your 

cost accounting system, including breakdown by 

year.) 

11. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section I Paragraphs D 

and E.

If more than one Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) or 

sub Contract Line Item Number (sub-CLIN) is proposed as required by the RFP, are there summary 

total amounts covering all line items for each element of cost and is it cross-referenced to the supporting cost or pricing data? 

12. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section I Paragraph F ... Does the proposal identify any incurred costs for work 

performed before the submission of the proposal? 

13. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section I Paragraph G .. Is there a Government forward pricing rate agreement 

(FPRA)? If so, the offeror shall identify the official 

submittal of such rate and factor data. If not, does 

the proposal include all rates and factors by year 

that are utilized in the development of the proposal 

and the basis for those rates and factors? 

COST ELEMENTS 

MATERIALS AND SERVICES 

14. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph A Does the proposal include a consolidated summary of 

individual material and services, frequently referred 

to as a Consolidated Bill of Material (CBOM), to include the basis for pricing? The offeror’s consolidated summary shall include raw materials, parts, 

components, assemblies, subcontracts and services 

to be produced or performed by others, identifying 

as a minimum the item, source, quantity, and price. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18874 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST—Continued 

References Submission item Proposal 

page No. 

If not provided 

EXPLAIN 

(may use 

continuation 

pages) 

SUBCONTRACTS (Purchased materials or services) 

15. DFARS 215.404–3 .................................................. Has the offeror identified in the proposal those subcontractor proposals, for which the contracting officer has initiated or may need to request field pricing 

analysis? 

16. FAR 15.404–3(c) .....................................................

FAR 52.244–2 

Per the thresholds of FAR 15.404–3(c), Subcontract 

Pricing Considerations, does the proposal include a 

copy of the applicable subcontractor’s certified cost 

or pricing data? 

17. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Note 1; Section II Paragraph A.Is there a price/cost analysis establishing the reasonableness of each of the proposed subcontracts included with the proposal? If the offeror’s price/cost 

analyses are not provided with the proposal, does 

the proposal include a matrix identifying dates for 

receipt of subcontractor proposal, completion of fact 

finding for purposes of price/cost analysis, and submission of the price/cost analysis? 

EXCEPTIONS TO CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA 

18. FAR 52.215–20 .......................................................

FAR 2.101, ‘‘commercial item’’ 

Has the offeror submitted an exception to the submission of certified cost or pricing data for commercial 

items proposed either at the prime or subcontractor 

level, in accordance with provision 52.215–20? 

a. Has the offeror specifically identified the type of 

commercial item claim (FAR 2.101 commercial item 

definition, paragraphs (1) through (8)), and the 

basis on which the item meets the definition? 

b. For modified commercial items (FAR 2.101 commercial item definition paragraph (3)); did the offeror 

classify the modification(s) as either— 

i. A modification of a type customarily available in 

the commercial marketplace (paragraph (3)(i)); or 

ii. A minor modification (paragraph (3)(ii)) of a type 

not customarily available in the commercial marketplace made to meet Federal Government requirements not exceeding the thresholds in FAR 15.403– 

1(c)(3)(iii)(B)? 

c. For proposed commercial items ‘‘of a type’’, or 

‘‘evolved’’ or modified (FAR 2.101 commercial item 

definition paragraphs (1) through (3)), did the contractor provide a technical description of the differences between the proposed item and the comparison item(s)? 

19. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph A Does the proposal include a price analysis for all commercial items offered that are not available to the 

general public? 

20. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph 

A(1).

Does the proposal support the degree of competition 

and the basis for establishing the source and reasonableness of price for each subcontract or purchase order priced on a competitive basis exceeding the threshold for certified cost or pricing data? 

INTERORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFERS 

21. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph 

A.(2).

For inter-organizational transfers proposed at cost, 

does the proposal include a complete cost proposal 

in compliance with Table 15–2? 

22. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph 

A(1).

For inter-organizational transfers proposed at price in 

accordance with FAR 31.205–26(e), does the proposal provide an analysis by the prime that supports the exception from certified cost or pricing 

data in accordance with FAR 15.403–1? 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18875 

PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST—Continued 

References Submission item Proposal 

page No. 

If not provided 

EXPLAIN 

(may use 

continuation 

pages) 

DIRECT LABOR 

23. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph B Does the proposal include a time phased (i.e.; monthly, quarterly) breakdown of labor hours, rates and 

costs by category or skill level? If labor is the allocation base for indirect costs, the labor cost must 

be summarized in order that the applicable overhead rate can be applied. 

24. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph B For labor Basis of Estimates (BOEs), does the proposal include labor categories, labor hours, and 

task descriptions—(e.g.; Statement of Work reference, applicable CLIN, Work Breakdown Structure, rationale for estimate, applicable history, and 

time-phasing)? 

25. FAR subpart 22.10 .................................................. If covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards 

statute (41 U.S.C. chapter 67), are the rates in the 

proposal in compliance with the minimum rates 

specified in the statute? 

INDIRECT COSTS 

26. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph C Does the proposal indicate the basis of estimate for 

proposed indirect costs and how they are applied? 

(Support for the indirect rates could consist of cost 

breakdowns, trends, and budgetary data.) 

OTHER COSTS 

27. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph D Does the proposal include other direct costs and the 

basis for pricing? If travel is included does the proposal include number of trips, number of people, 

number of days per trip, locations, and rates (e.g. 

airfare, per diem, hotel, car rental, etc)? 

28. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph E If royalties exceed $1,500 does the proposal provide 

the information/data identified by Table 15–2? 

29. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section II Paragraph F .. When facilities capital cost of money is proposed, 

does the proposal include submission of Form 

CASB–CMF or reference to an FPRA/FPRP and 

show the calculation of the proposed amount? 

FORMATS FOR SUBMISSION OF LINE ITEM SUMMARIES 

30. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section III ...................... Are all cost element breakdowns provided using the 

applicable format prescribed in FAR 15.408, Table 

15–2 III? (or alternative format if specified in the request for proposal) 

31. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section III Paragraph B If the proposal is for a modification or change order, 

have cost of work deleted (credits) and cost of work 

added (debits) been provided in the format described in FAR 15.408, Table 15–2.III.B? 

32. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section III Paragraph C For price revisions/redeterminations, does the proposal follow the format in FAR 15.408, Table 15– 

2.III.C? 

OTHER 

33. FAR 16.4 ................................................................. If an incentive contract type, does the proposal include offeror proposed target cost, target profit or 

fee, share ratio, and, when applicable, minimum/ 

maximum fee, ceiling price? 

34. FAR 16.203–4 and FAR 15.408 Table 15–2, Section II, Paragraphs A, B, C, and D.If Economic Price Adjustments are being proposed, 

does the proposal show the rationale and application for the economic price adjustment? 

35. FAR 52.232–28 ....................................................... If the offeror is proposing Performance-Based Payments—did the offeror comply with FAR 52.232– 

28? 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
18876 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 60 / Thursday, March 28, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST—Continued 

References Submission item Proposal 

page No. 

If not provided 

EXPLAIN 

(may use 

continuation 

pages) 

36. FAR 15.408(n) ........................................................

FAR 52.215–22 

FAR 52.215–23 

Excessive Pass-through Charges—Identification of 

Subcontract Effort: If the offeror intends to subcontract more than 70% of the total cost of work to 

be performed, does the proposal identify: 

(i) the amount of the offeror’s indirect costs and profit 

applicable to the work to be performed by the proposed subcontractor(s); and (ii) a description of the 

added value provided by the offeror as related to 

the work to be performed by the proposed subcontractor(s)? 

(End of provision) 

[FR Doc. 2013–07106 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 

RIN 0750–AH69 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: United StatesKorea Free Trade Agreement (DFARS 

Case 2012–D025) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, 

without change, an interim rule 

amending the Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) to implement the United 

States-Korea Free Trade Agreement. The 

Republic of Korea is already party to the 

World Trade Organization Government 

Procurement Agreement. 

DATES: Effective date: March 28, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy Williams, telephone: 571–372– 

6106. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD published an interim rule in the 

Federal Register at 77 FR 30356 on May 

22, 2012, to implement the United 

States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (see 

the United States-Korea Free Trade 

Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 

112–41) (19 U.S.C. 3805 note)). There 

were no public comments submitted in 

response to the interim rule. 

II. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD certifies that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. 

Korea is already a designated country 

under the World Trade Organization 

(WTO) Agreement on Government 

Procurement (GPA). Although the rule 

now opens up Government procurement 

to the goods and services of Korea at or 

above the threshold of $100,000, DoD 

does not anticipate any significant 

economic impact on U.S. small 

businesses. DoD only applies the trade 

agreements to the non-defense items 

listed at DFARS 225.401–70, and 

acquisitions that are set aside or provide 

other forms of preference for small 

businesses are exempt. FAR 19.502–2 

states that acquisitions that do not 

exceed $150,000 (except as described in 

paragraph (1) of the definition of 

‘‘simplified acquisition threshold’’ at 

FAR 2.101) are automatically reserved 

exclusively for small business concerns, 

unless the contracting officer 

determines that there is not a reasonable 

expectation of obtaining offers from two 

or more responsible small business 

concerns. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule affects the certification and 

information collection requirements in 

the provision at DFARS 252.225–7035, 

currently approved under OMB Control 

Number 0704–0229, titled Defense 

Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement part 225, Foreign 

Acquisition, and related clauses, in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). 

OMB Control Number 0704–0229 

assessed the total burden related to part 

225 at approximately 57,230 hours. The 

impact of this rule, however, is 

negligible, because it is just a question 

of under which category offered goods 

from the Republic of Korea would be 

listed. The rule also affects DFARS 

252.225–7018, which is a variant of the 

Buy American-trade agreements 

certifications already approved, which 

was issued as an interim rule under 

DFARS Case 2011–D046 (76 FR 78858, 

December 20, 2011). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 225 and 

252 

Government procurement. 

Kortnee Stewart, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without 

Change 

Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 48 CFR parts 225 and 252, 

which was published at 77 FR 30356 on 

May 22, 2012, is adopted as a final rule 

without change. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07131 Filed 3–27–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES