28662 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

b. Guidance on Determining ‘‘Physical 

Completeness’’

Comment: One recommendation was 

made to provide guidance on ‘‘physical 

completion.’’

DPAP Response: DPAP does not 

believe additional guidance on this 

issue is necessary. FAR 4.804–4 

provides specific criteria that must exist 

for a contract to be physically complete. 

20. Statute of Limitations 

Comment: Two recommendations 

were made to shorten the statute of 

limitations for submission of a claim 

(currently six years) to mitigate issues 

concerning expired funds, lost 

documentation, software changes, and 

Government/contractor storage costs; 

and to consider that reducing the period 

would set precedence to reduce the time 

requirements in other areas. 

DPAP Response: The length of time 

allowed for the submission of a claim is 

directly related to the period specified 

in the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. 

605), which was amended upon 

enactment of the Clinger-Cohen Act in 

1996. Any revision to this period would 

require a change to existing statutes. 

DPAP believes this issue is better 

addressed by focusing on the systemic 

issues that hinder contract closeout 

rather than pursuing a legislative 

change. 

21. Transportation Clause 

Comment: A recommendation was 

made to revise the clause at DFARS 

252.247–7023, Transportation of 

Supplies by Sea, to reduce the needless 

inclusion of this clause in contracts or 

to consider issuing guidance specifying 

when the clause needs to be used. 

Currently it is often included when 

obviously unnecessary. 

DPAP Response: DPAP will refer this 

issue to the DFARS Transportation 

Committee to review whether the 

current clause prescription should be 

revised. 

22. Settlement of Contract Debts 

Comment: A recommendation was 

made to permit the contracting officer to 

negotiate the settlement of contract 

debts across a number of contracts. This 

would avoid the need to find 

replacement funds, which often takes 

years and substantially delays the 

closeout process. 

DPAP Response: DPAP does not 

believe any guidance is needed in the 

area of contract closeout to address this 

issue. However, DPAP notes that there 

is a current FAR case that is focusing on 

the contract debt process. Therefore, 

this recommendation will be forwarded 

to the cognizant FAR team for 

consideration. 

23. Consolidation of Guidance on 

Contract Closeout 

Comment: A number of 

recommendations were made that the 

DCAA Contract Audit Closeout Guide 

be incorporated into PGI to establish a 

single reference source for contracting 

personnel, and that the PGI be 

supported with training. 

DPAP Response: DPAP agrees that 

providing a consolidated resource for 

contract closeout guidance will facilitate 

the process. Thus, the DFARS case on 

contract closeout will include PGI 

language on contract closeout. In 

addition to providing basic guidance 

addressing the contract closeout 

process, this PGI section will also 

include links to agency guidebooks, 

training, and any other relevant 

information. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

[FR Doc. E7–9734 Filed 5–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 207 

RIN 0750–AF39 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Lease of 

Vessels, Aircraft, and Combat Vehicles 

(DFARS Case 2006–D013) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

address statutory provisions relating to 

leasing. The proposed rule permits the 

lease of a vessel, aircraft, or combat 

vehicle only if the contract will be longterm or will provide for a substantial 

termination liability. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted in writing to the 

address shown below on or before July 

23, 2007, to be considered in the 

formation of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by DFARS Case 2006–D013, 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2006–D013 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Fax: (703) 602–7887. 

• Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Gary 

Delaney, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP(DARS), 

IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3062. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense 

Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal 

Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, 

Arlington, VA 22202–3402. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Gary Delaney, (703) 602–8384. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

10 U.S.C. 2401, as amended by 

Section 815 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Pub. L. 109–163), permits DoD to award 

a contract for the lease of a vessel, 

aircraft, or combat vehicle only if the 

contract will be long-term or will 

provide for a substantial termination 

liability, and if the Secretary concerned 

fulfills certain other requirements. Prior 

to the enactment of Public Law 109–

163, the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2401 

applied to vessels and aircraft; Section 

815 of Public Law 109–163 amended 10 

U.S.C. 2401 to also include combat 

vehicles. This proposed rule amends 

DFARS 207.470 to reflect the statutory 

provisions. 

This rule was not subject to Office of 

Management and Budget review under 

Executive Order 12866, dated 

September 30, 1993. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD does not expect this rule to 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., 

because the rule relates primarily to 

DoD planning and budget 

considerations with regard to leasing of 

vessels, aircraft, and combat vehicles. 

Therefore, DoD has not performed an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 

DoD invites comments from small 

businesses and other interested parties. 

DoD also will consider comments from 

small entities concerning the affected 

DFARS subpart in accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be 

submitted separately and should cite 

DFARS Case 2006–D013. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 22, 2007 / Proposed Rules 28663 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply, because the rule does not 

impose any information collection 

requirements that require the approval 

of the Office of Management and Budget 

under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 207 

Government procurement. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 

CFR part 207 as follows: 

PART 207—ACQUISITION PLANNING 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 207 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR 

Chapter 1. 

2. Section 207.470 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By redesignating paragraphs (a) and 

(b) as paragraphs (b) and (c) 

respectively; 

b. By adding a new paragraph (a); and 

c. In newly designated paragraph (c), 

by removing ‘‘Except as provided in 

paragraph (a) of this section’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘Except as provided 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section’’. The new paragraph (a) reads as 

follows: 

207.470 Statutory requirements. 

(a) Requirement for statutory 

authorization for certain contracts 

relating to vessels, aircraft, and combat 

vehicles. The contracting officer shall 

not enter into any contract for any 

vessel, aircraft, or combat vehicle, 

through a lease, charter, or similar 

agreement, or for services that provide 

for the use of the contractor’s vessel, 

aircraft, or combat vehicle, unless—

(1) The head of the agency has 

satisfied the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 

2401; and 

(2)(i) The contract will be a long-term 

lease, charter, or similar agreement (10 

U.S.C. 2401(d)(1)); or 

(ii) The terms of the contract provide 

for a substantial termination liability (10 

U.S.C. 2401(d)(2)). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–9744 Filed 5–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 215 

Contract Profit/Fee Policies 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Request for public input. 

SUMMARY: DoD is conducting a review of 

the Department’s contract profit/fee 

policies. As part of this review, DoD 

would like to hear the views of 

interested parties regarding the 

effectiveness of the profit/fee policies 

presently used for DoD contracts. 

DATES: Submit written comments to the 

address shown below on or before July 

23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Office 

of the Director, Defense Procurement 

and Acquisition Policy, ATTN: OUSD 

(AT&L) DPAP (CPF), IMD 3C132, 3062 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3062. Comments also may be 

submitted by facsimile at (703) 602–

7887, or by e-mail at Bill.Sain@osd.mil. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Bill Sain, by telephone at (703) 602–

0293, or by e-mail at Bill.Sain@osd.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DoD 

contract profit/fee policies, to include 

policy for developing pre-negotiation 

profit or fee objectives, are described in 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), in 

sections 215.404–4 and 215.404–70 

through 215.404–76. One of the key 

aspects of DoD’s profit policy is the 

Weighted Guidelines. While there have 

been some revisions to the Weighted 

Guidelines over the past few years, the 

basis for the existing policy was 

established in the mid-1980s. Since 

then, there have been a number of 

changes, including (1) the evolution of 

DoD’s acquisition programs, (2) 

extensive industry consolidation, and 

(3) a significant increase in the number 

of DoD contracts for services. In light of 

these many changes, DoD is interested 

in receiving public input on the existing 

profit/fee policies, with regard to those 

that are working effectively and those 

that should be revised or eliminated, 

along with supporting rationale. 

Potential areas for consideration 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

• The contractor risk factors used in 

DoD’s structured approach for 

developing profit/fee objectives, 

particularly with regard to—

• The pertinence of the existing 

factors; 

• Whether the ranges and normal 

values used for the existing factors are 

still valid; and 

• Whether there are other risk factors 

that are not reflected in the existing 

policies. 

• Any changes needed to—

• The technology incentive at DFARS 

215.404–71–2(c)(2) and (d)(4); 

• The contract type risk factor at 

DFARS 215.404–71–3; 

• The facilities capital employed 

factor at DFARS 215.404–71–4; 

• The cost efficiency factor at DFARS 

215.404–71–5; 

• The modified weighted guidelines 

at DFARS 215.404–72; 

• The policies as they provide for 

consideration of the amount of 

investment a contractor has in a 

contract; 

• The policies as they provide for 

consideration of the extent of contract 

financing payments; 

• The policies as they apply to 

contracts for services; and 

• The policies as they apply to 

contracts for research, development, 

test, and evaluation. 

• Whether any of the existing 

structured approaches for profit analysis 

should play a role in establishing the 

base fee or pool on award-fee contracts. 

Michele P. Peterson, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

[FR Doc. E7–9754 Filed 5–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 232 

Contract Financing 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Request for public input. 

SUMMARY: DoD is conducting a review of 

the Department’s contract financing 

policies. As part of this review, DoD 

would like to hear the views of 

interested parties regarding the 

effectiveness of the financing policies 

presently used for DoD contracts. 

DATES: Submit written comments to the 

address shown below on or before July 

23, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Office 

of the Director, Defense Procurement 

and Acquisition Policy, ATTN: OUSD 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS