43474 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 252 

RIN 0750–AH78 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Specialty 

Metals—Definition of ‘‘Produce’’ 

(DFARS Case 2012–D041) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

revise the definition of ‘‘produce’’ as it 

applies to specialty metals. The 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 directed DoD to review 

the definition of ‘‘produce’’ to ensure its 

compliance with the statutory 

restrictions on specialty metals and to 

determine if a revision to the current 

rule was necessary and appropriate. 

DATES: Comment Date: Comments on 

the proposed rule should be submitted 

in writing to the address shown below 

on or before September 24, 2012, to be 

considered in the formation of a final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2012–D041, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http://www.

regulations.gov. Submit comments via 

the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘DFARS Case 2012–D041’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2012– 

D041.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2012– 

D041’’ on your attached document. 

Æ Email: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2012–D041 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Amy 

Williams, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, 

Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http://www.

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) 

DPAP/DARS, Room 3B855, 3060 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–3060. Telephone 571–372–6106; 

facsimile 571–372–6101. Please cite 

DFARS Case 2012–D041. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

As required by section 823 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 (Pub. 

L. 111–383), DoD sought comments in 

the Federal Register (76 FR 18383) on 

July 25, 2011, regarding the definition of 

‘‘produce’’ as it applies to the 

production of specialty metals. The final 

rule under DFARS Case 2008–D003 (74 

FR 37626 on July 29, 2009) defined 

‘‘produce’’ to mean ‘‘the application of 

forces or processes to a specialty metal 

to create the desired physical properties 

through quenching or tempering of steel 

plate, gas atomization or sputtering of 

titanium, or final consolidation of nonmelt derived titanium powder or 

titanium alloy powder.’’ 

Seventeen sources submitted 

comments in response to the request for 

comments in the 2011 Federal Register 

notice, focusing almost exclusively on 

whether such processes as quenching 

and tempering should continue to be 

considered as production of thin 

specialty metal steel armor plate. Some 

of the information provided was 

proprietary. DoD has reviewed and 

analyzed the comments received in 

response to the Federal Register notice. 

In addition, DoD considered current 

technologies for production of specialty 

metals other than titanium and analyzed 

the impact any change in the definition 

would have on DoD’s ability to meet its 

mission requirements. As a result, DoD 

is proposing to amend the definition of 

‘‘produce’’ to eliminate the phrase 

‘‘quenching and tempering’’ of armor 

steel plate, and to expand the 

application of the other listed 

technologies, currently restricted just to 

titanium and titanium alloys, to any 

specialty metal that could be formed by 

such technologies. 

II. Discussion and Analysis of 

Comments 

A. General 

Two of seventeen respondents 

supported the current definition, and 

the other fifteen respondents opposed 

the current definition of ‘‘produce,’’ 

because it includes processes in 

addition to melting regarding the 

production of steel armor plate, but they 

acknowledged that other processes are 

appropriate to the definition of 

‘‘produce’’ for other specialty metals. 

B. Quenching or tempering of steel plate 

1. Berry Amendment 

Comment: The majority of 

respondents contended that the current 

definition of ‘‘produce’’ is contrary to 

the Berry Amendment. Prior to 

enactment of 10 U.S.C. 2533b, the 

restriction on specialty metals was part 

of the domestic source restriction 

legislation commonly known as the 

Berry Amendment, included in annual 

defense appropriations act restrictions 

since 1973, and was eventually codified 

(with certain modifications) by section 

832 of the NDAA for FY 2002 at 10 

U.S.C. 2533a. In the NDAA for FY 2007, 

Congress deleted the specialty metals 

restrictions from 10 U.S.C. 2533a and 

created a new section at 10 U.S.C. 2533b 

to set forth the restrictions on specialty 

metals. 

The respondents contended that, 

since the Berry Amendment required 

products to be wholly manufactured in 

the United States, the specialty metals 

restrictions should be equally 

restrictive. They stated that ‘‘melted or 

produced’’ means ‘‘melted’’ in the case 

of steel armor plate. These respondents 

averred that, although the legislation 

uses ‘‘melted or produced,’’ it was not 

intended to weaken the requirement. 

However, some respondents did cite the 

report accompanying the Senate version 

of the bill, which indicated the intent to 

allow some flexibility in obtaining 

critical materials. 

DoD Response: The law has never 

included a definition of ‘‘produce’’ 

regarding the requirement to acquire 

domestic specialty metals. When 

Congress created the new provisions on 

specialty metals in 10 U.S.C. 2533b, it 

expressly eliminated the prior 

restrictions on specialty metals in 10 

U.S.C. 2533a and created new 

provisions regarding specialty metals at 

10 U.S.C. 2533b, one of which was the 

phrase ‘‘melted or produced.’’ DoD 

interprets this new phrase ‘‘melted or 

produced’’ as clearly permitting 

processes in addition to melting for the 

creation of specialty metals. One of the 

reasons for removing specialty metals 

from the rest of the Berry Amendment 

restrictions and enacting 10 U.S.C. 

2533b was the need to differentiate the 

statutory restrictions for specialty 

metals from the statutory restrictions on 

other items covered by the Berry 

Amendment. The statement in the 

Senate report that 10 U.S.C. 2533b was 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43475 

intended to provide flexibility in 

obtaining critical materials provides 

support for DoD’s definition of 

‘‘produce’’ which gave DoD critical 

access to thin-gauge armor steel plate 

that was quenched or tempered in the 

United States, regardless of where the 

steel was melted. 

2. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin 

Laird Memorandum 

Comment: Some respondents stated 

that the Laird Memorandum (November 

20, 1972) used the term ‘‘melted’’ when 

the Secretary of Defense addressed 

DoD’s implementation of the restriction 

in section 724 of the DoD 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1973 

(Pub. L. 92–570) that added specialty 

metals to the Berry Amendment list of 

items that must, with some exceptions, 

be ‘‘grown, reprocessed, reused, or 

produced in the United States.’’ 

DoD Response: The comment is 

factually correct. The Laird 

memorandum represented the DoD 

implementation of the law as it existed 

at that time, which was upheld in the 

courts. However, the statute now uses 

the terms ‘‘melted or produced,’’ and it 

would be redundant to add the term 

‘‘produced’’ unless it had a meaning 

different than ‘‘melted.’’ 

3. Acme of Precision Surgical v. 

Weinberger 

Comment: According to some 

respondents, the U.S. District Court of 

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 580 

F. Supp. 490, 504–07, concluded that 

there was a reasonable basis in law for 

DoD’s requirement that ‘‘all specialty 

metal products used in hardware by the 

military be formed from specialty metals 

melted in the United States.’’ 

DoD Response: In Acme of Precision 

Surgical v. Weinberger, the plaintiff 

alleged that DoD violated the Buy 

American Act because the ‘‘Buy 

American’’ provisions required that all 

articles of ‘‘specialty metals’’ must be 

manufactured entirely in the United 

States, and not just ‘‘melted’’ in the 

United States. The court found on 

behalf of DoD, finding reasonable DoD’s 

interpretation of the provisions as 

requiring only the melting in the United 

States of specialty metals rather than the 

performance in the United States of all 

processes associated with the 

manufacture of specialty metals. 

However, this decision was based on the 

law and implementing regulations as 

they existed at the time of the decision, 

not on the current statute and 

regulations. 

4. Restriction on Acquisition of Carbon, 

Alloy, and Armor Steel Plate 

Comment: Some respondents cited 

the additional restriction on armor steel 

plate in DFARS 252.225–7030, which 

requires armor plate to be ‘‘melted and 

rolled in the United States or Canada’’ 

to support their request to remove the 

terms ‘‘quenching and tempering’’ from 

the definition of ‘‘produce.’’ They cited 

the annual Defense appropriations acts 

that since 1972 have contained language 

that armor plate for DoD procurements 

must be ‘‘melted and rolled in the 

United States or Canada.’’ 

DoD Response: The Defense 

appropriations act restriction on the 

acquisition of steel plate as an end 

product for use in a Government-owned 

facility or a facility under the control of 

DoD is not pertinent to the 

interpretation of ‘‘melted or produced’’ 

for purposes of acquisition of specialty 

metals in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 

2533b because 10 U.S.C. 2533b applies 

to manufactured products for all 

specialty metals in contrast to the 

DFARS clause restricting steel plate that 

is ‘‘melted and rolled.’’ 

5. The Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) Buy America Restrictions, the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (ARRA), and the Customs 

and Border Protection Act 

Comment: Several respondents cited 

other acts that restrict use of foreign 

iron, steel, and manufactured products 

in Federally funded projects to those 

‘‘produced in the United States.’’ 

DoD Response: These acts are not 

germane to this definition, which is 

implementing 10 U.S.C. 2533b. The 

language and applicability of these 

statutes is very different from 10 U.S.C. 

2533b. The FTA and Customs and 

Border Protection Act do not apply to 

DoD procurements. The ARRA only 

applies to construction material in 

acquisitions utilizing ARRA funds. 

Furthermore, the FTA and ARRA do not 

apply to specialty metals or armor steel 

plate but to iron and steel used in 

construction. 

6. The Intent of Congress and Chevron 

USA, Inc. v. the National Resources 

Defense Council 

Comment: The majority of 

respondents claimed that including 

quenching and tempering in the 

definition of ‘‘produce’’ for steel armor 

plate is against the intent of Congress. 

One respondent cited Chevron USA, 

Inc. v. the National Resources Defense 

Council (Chevron USA, Inc.) that 

concluded that agency regulations such 

as the DFARS should be subject to a 

two-part test that first considers the 

intent of Congress. 

DoD Response: Chevron USA, Inc. 

applies only if the intent of Congress is 

not clear. DoD looks primarily to the 

language of the statutes enacted by 

Congress to determine the requirements 

of the law. Here, the statute does not 

define the term ‘‘produce.’’ As the court 

in Chevron USA, Inc. stated, ‘‘if the 

statute is silent or ambiguous with 

respect to the specific issue,’’ the 

question for the court is ‘‘whether the 

agency’s answer is based on a 

permissible construction of the statute.’’ 

Committee reports and letters from 

individual or groups of representatives 

or senators are not law and, in any 

event, do not necessarily reflect the 

intent of the majority of Congress. 

Moreover, although the House of 

Representatives’ version of the specialty 

metals provision could have been 

interpreted as specifically excluding 

quenching and tempering from the 

definition of ‘‘produce,’’ this version of 

the bill was not enacted. Finally, 

although section 823 requested a review 

of the definition by DoD, it did not 

direct a particular outcome of that 

review. 

7. Sufficient Domestic Capacity 

Comment: Many respondents stated 

that there is sufficient domestic capacity 

of armor steel plate melted, rolled, 

quenched, and tempered in the United 

States to meet DoD’s demand and that 

the number of specialty metal steel 

manufacturers has increased since 2006. 

DoD Response: One of the reasons for 

including quenching and tempering of 

armor steel plate in the definition of 

‘‘produce’’ was an assessment that there 

was an insufficient amount of thingauge MIL–A grade steel armor to meet 

peak demand to satisfy critical need for 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protection 

(MRAP) vehicles for contingency 

operations. Since that time, the U.S. 

industrial base has grown (even with the 

current definition of ‘‘produce’’). In fact, 

both the number of specialty metal steel 

plate manufacturers and their overall 

production capacities have increased 

steadily since the current definition of 

‘‘produce’’ was introduced. Further, 

some of the manufacturers that were 

previously sourcing specialty metals 

melted in Mexico for quenching and 

tempering in the United States, are now 

obtaining steel melted in Canada (which 

is a qualifying country and part of the 

national technology and industrial 

base). DoD’s assessment is that there is 

now sufficient capacity to meet DoD 

requirements, if DoD were to remove 

‘‘quenching and tempering’’ from the 

definition of ‘‘produce.’’ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
43476 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8. Provide Protection and an Incentive 

to U.S. Manufacturers and Create Jobs 

Comment: Many respondents 

addressed the need to protect and 

incentivize U.S. industry and to create 

U.S. jobs. Some respondents stated that 

the current definition encourages the 

use of foreign metals, while 

discouraging investment in domestic 

industry. These respondents also stated 

that excluding quenching and tempering 

processes would provide a more 

financially secure market and provide 

an incentive for U.S. manufacturers to 

innovate. Many respondents indicated 

that changing the definition would 

increase specialty metal steel 

production and increase the number of 

jobs in the United States. 

DoD Response: Melting is only one 

stage in a multi-step process that is used 

to produce a product with properties 

that meet the requirements of an 

application, i.e., specifications. 

Quenching and tempering are not 

considered as ‘‘low-value finishing 

processes’’ (see preamble to final rule 

under DFARS Case 2008–D003, 74 FR 

37630, July 29, 2009). The proposed 

change to the definition of ‘‘produced’’ 

may provide a more financially secure 

market to large specialty metals steel 

manufacturers, but the large, complex, 

and highly segmented specialty metal 

industry has many other stakeholders. 

The specialty steel industry appears to 

be thriving. Therefore, although not 

required by the law, for the reasons 

stated in section II.B.7. of this preamble, 

DoD is proposing to eliminate 

quenching and tempering of steel armor 

plate from the definition of ‘‘produce.’’ 

9. Other Ways to Meet Shortages 

Comment: While acknowledging 

DoD’s critical need for armor steel plate 

for MRAP vehicles, a number of 

respondents suggested that DoD could 

have used other exceptions in the law, 

such as the domestic nonavailability 

exception or national security waiver to 

procure armor steel plate or use of the 

Defense Priorities and Allocation 

System (DPAS) to meet demands 

through domestic production. 

DoD Response: The Defense Priorities 

and Allocation System is designed to 

provide priority production and 

shipment for ongoing production lines, 

but it does not increase overall 

production capacity when urgently 

needed. At the time of issuance of the 

final DFARS rule under DFARS Case 

2008–D003, DoD considered the options 

of processing a domestic nonavailability 

determination or a national security 

exception, but found both options to be 

unsuitable (see 74 FR 37631). 

10. Impact on Price 

Comment: Several respondents stated 

that changing the definition to eliminate 

quenching and tempering would raise 

prices, because it would reduce 

competition. Another respondent 

claimed that changing the definition 

would not raise the price of specialty 

metal steel armor plate. 

DoD Response: DoD considers that 

there are now sufficient sources of steel 

armor plate melted in the United States 

or Canada that a change to the definition 

would not seriously impact the level of 

competition, or the price of specialty 

metal steel armor plate. 

C. Processes for Titanium Products 

Comment: None of the respondents 

objected to production processes for 

titanium products such as gas 

atomization, sputtering, and powder 

consolidation production processes for 

titanium products in the definition of 

‘‘produce.’’ 

DoD Response: The proposed rule 

expands the application of these newer 

technologies to any types of specialty 

metals that might utilize such processes 

in their production. 

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 

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 

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. However, 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

has been performed and is summarized 

as follows: 

The proposed rule affects primarily 

producers of specialty metal steel armor 

plate, and manufacturers that supply 

steel armor plate that will be 

incorporated into end items to be 

acquired by DoD. Producers of specialty 

metals are generally large businesses. 

There is a high capitalization 

requirement to establish a business that 

can melt or produce specialty metals. 

The small business size standard for 

primary metal manufacturing ranges 

from 500 to 1,000 employees. All the 

specialty metals producers reviewed 

had more than 500 employees. There are 

numerous manufacturers of products 

containing specialty metals, either as 

prime contractors or subcontractors. 

DoD does not have the data to determine 

the total number of these manufacturers, 

or the number that are small businesses, 

because the Federal Procurement Data 

System only collects data on prime 

contractors and end items, not 

subcontractors and components of end 

items. 

There are no projected reporting, 

recordkeeping, or other compliance 

requirements. The rule does not 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any 

other Federal rules. 

DoD did not identify any significant 

alternatives to the rule which would 

minimize any impact of the rule on 

small entities and still meet the 

requirements of the statute 10 U.S.C. 

2533b. 

DoD invites comments from small 

businesses and other interested parties 

on the expected impact of this rule on 

small entities. 

DoD will also consider comments 

from small entities concerning the 

existing regulations in subparts affected 

by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

610. Interested parties must submit such 

comments separately and should cite 5 

U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2012–D041), in 

correspondence. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule does not contain any 

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). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252 

Government procurement. 

Ynette R. Shelkin, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 252 continues to read as follows: 

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

chapter 1. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 142 / Tuesday, July 24, 2012 / Proposed Rules 43477 

252.212–7001 [Amended] 

2. Section 252.212–7001 is 

amended— 

a. By removing the clause date ‘‘(JUN 

2012)’’ and adding ‘‘(DATE)’’ in its 

place; 

b. In paragraph (b)(7), by removing the 

clause date ‘‘(JUL 2009)’’ and adding 

‘‘(DATE)’’ in its place; and 

c. In paragraph (b)(8), by removing the 

clause date ‘‘(JUN 2012)’’ and adding 

‘‘(DATE)’’ in its place. 

3. Section 252.225–7008 is 

amended— 

a. By removing the clause date ‘‘(JUL 

2009)’’ and adding ‘‘(DATE)’’ in its 

place; and 

b. In paragraph (a), by removing the 

numerical designations (1) through (4) 

from the definitions and revising the 

definition of ‘‘produce’’ to read as 

follows: 

252.225–7008 Restriction on Acquisition 

of Specialty Metals. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

Produce means the gas atomization, 

sputtering, or final consolidation of nonmelt derived metal powders. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 252.225–7009 is 

amended— 

a. By removing the clause date ‘‘(JUN 

2012)’’ and adding ‘‘(DATE)’’ in its 

place; and 

b. In paragraph (a), by removing the 

numerical designations (1) through (14) 

from the definitions and revising the 

definition of ‘‘produce’’ to read as 

follows: 

252.225–7009 Restriction on Acquisition 

of Certain Articles Containing Specialty 

Metals. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

Produce means the gas atomization, 

sputtering, or final consolidation of nonmelt derived metal powders. 

* * * * * 

252.244–7000 [Amended] 

5. Section 252.244–7000 is amended 

by removing the clause date ‘‘(JUN 

2012)’’ and adding ‘‘(DATE)’’ in its 

place and in paragraph (b), removing the 

clause date ‘‘(JUN 2012)’’ and adding 

‘‘(DATE)’’ in its place. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17590 Filed 7–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

48 CFR Parts 204, 212, and 252 

RIN 0750–AH58 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Ownership of 

Offeror (DFARS Case 2011–D044) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend 

the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to 

provide a provision for offerors, if 

owned or controlled by another 

business entity, to identify the 

Commercial and Government Entity 

(CAGE) code and legal name of that 

business entity. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted in writing to the 

address shown below on or before 

September 24, 2012, to be considered in 

the formation of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2011–D044, 

using any of the following methods: 

Æ Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

inputting ‘‘DFARS Case 2011–D044’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

ID’’ and selecting ‘‘Search.’’ Select the 

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2011– 

D044.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘DFARS Case 2011– 

D044’’ on your attached document. 

Æ Email: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2011–D044 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Veronica 

Fallon, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP/DARS, 

Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. To 

confirm receipt of your comment(s), 

please check www.regulations.gov, 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting (except 

allow 30 days for posting of comments 

submitted by mail). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Veronica Fallon, telephone 571–372– 

6087. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD proposes to collect the CAGE 

code and name from offerors, if owned 

or controlled by another business entity, 

in a new provision with an offeror’s 

representations and certifications. The 

CAGE code is a five-character 

identification number used extensively 

within the Federal Government, and is 

administered by the Defense Logistics 

Information Service. A search feature for 

CAGE codes is available at http:// 

www.logisticsinformationservice.

dla.mil/cage_welcome.asp. CAGE codes 

for vendors located in the United States 

may be obtained via registration in the 

Central Contractor Registration (CCR) 

application, available at http:// 

www.acquisition.gov. Additional 

information about CAGE code 

assignments is available at https:// 

www.fsd.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/ 

186. 

The ability to consistently, uniquely, 

and easily identify owners of offerors for 

DoD contractors is becoming 

increasingly required to support the 

implementation of business tools that 

provide insight into spending patterns 

for entire corporations. This new 

provision will— 

• Enable the tracking of performance 

issues that affect the entire corporation; 

• Provide insight for the deployed 

commander on contractor personnel intheater; 

• Support the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics’ preferred 

supplier program; and 

• Facilitate Defense Procurement and 

Acquisition and Policy priorities for a 

common price negotiation and audit 

history tool. 

This case requires that a provision be 

included in the annual representations 

and certifications completed in the 

Online Representations and 

Certifications Application (ORCA). The 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) will be 

able to access the ORCA data and use it 

to supplement the CAGE file maintained 

by its DLA Logistics Information 

Service. 

DoD published a notice of public 

meeting in the Federal Register at 76 FR 

64902 on October 19, 2011, with public 

comments due December 9, 2011. No 

public comments were received. 

This rule requires offerors to represent 

that, if it is owned by another business 

entity, it has entered the CAGE code and 

name of that owner. As such, this rule 

proposes the following DFARS changes: 

• Revise 204.1202, Solicitation 

provision and contract clause, to add 

the provision at 252.204–70XX, 

Ownership of Offeror; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2