34820 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When preparing and submitting your 

comments, see the commenting tips at 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

comments.html. 

II. What action is the agency taking? 

On February 8, 2018 (83 FR 5598) 

(FRL–9973–02), document, EPA 

proposed to amend the SNUR under 

section 5(a)(2) of TSCA) for oxazolidine, 

3,3′-methylenebis [5-methyl- (40 CFR 

721.10461), which was the subject of a 

premanufacture notice (PMN) and a 

significant new use notice (SNUN). The 

proposal would amend the SNUR to 

allow certain new uses reported in the 

SNUN without requiring additional 

SNUNs and make the lack of certain 

worker protections a new use. 

In response to public comments on 

the proposed SNUR, EPA has added 

additional information to the docket 

that further explains EPA’s risk 

assessment and includes additional data 

used in the assessment. EPA is hereby 

reopening the comment period for 30 

days to allow interested parties to 

consider the data and submit any 

additional comments. 

To submit comments, or access the 

docket, please follow the detailed 

instructions provided under ADDRESSES. 

If you have questions, consult the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 9, 2018. 

Jeffery T. Morris, 

Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15714 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 5, 42, and 52 

[FAR Case 2017–014; Docket No. 2017– 

0014; Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 9000–AN43 

Federal Acquisition Regulations: Use 

of Acquisition 360 To Encourage 

Vendor Feedback 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

considering an amendment to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

establish a standard survey for obtaining 

voluntary feedback from actual and 

potential offerors on Government 

contracts and solicitations. DoD, GSA, 

and NASA are seeking public input, 

particularly from Government 

contractors on the potential benefits and 

burdens of voluntary feedback surveys. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division at one of the 

addresses shown below on or before 

September 21, 2018 to be considered in 

the formulation of a proposed rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by FAR Case 2017–014 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

entering ‘‘FAR Case 2017–014’’ under 

the heading ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ and 

selecting ‘‘Search’’. Select the link 

‘‘Comment Now’’ that corresponds with 

‘‘FAR Case 2017–014’’. Follow the 

instructions provided on the screen. 

Please include your name, company 

name (if any), and ‘‘FAR Case 2017– 

014’’ on your attached document. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW, 

Second floor, ATTN: Lois Mandell, 

Washington, DC 20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite ‘‘FAR case 2017–014’’ in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

All comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check http://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: Mr. 

Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement 

Analyst, at 202–501–1448 for 

clarification of content. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the Regulatory 

Secretariat Division at 202–501–4755. 

Please cite ‘‘FAR case 2017–014’’. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In 2015, the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy (OFPP) issued 

guidance to test use of a standard survey 

that allowed offerors, whether or not 

they received award, to rate the agency’s 

pre-award and debriefing processes for 

specific solicitations. See ‘‘Acquisition 

360—Improving the Acquisition Process 

through Timely Feedback from External 

and Internal Stakeholders’’ (March 

2015) (available at: https://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

whitehouse.gov/files/omb/procurement/ 

memo/acquisition-360-improvingacquisition-process-timely-feedbackexternal-internal-stakeholders.pdf). 

Under the guidance, interested offerors 

were invited, at their discretion, to rate 

and provide comments regarding the 

issuance of solicitations covering a wide 

range of requirements, including 

information technology, medical 

equipment, and management support 

services. Survey questions asked for 

input regarding satisfaction with the 

pre-solicitation activities, solicitation 

documents, evaluation criteria, and the 

debriefing process. To view the online 

survey tool with the survey questions, 

go to https://www.acquisition.gov/360. 

Even though the data was limited in 

scope some trends did emerge. For 

example, contractors rated the 

robustness of agency debriefings with 

the lowest satisfaction scores in both 

iterations. This informed OFPP’s 

education and outreach efforts and a 

memorandum, ‘‘ ‘Myth-busting 3’ 

Further Improving Industry 

Communication with Effective 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34821 

Debriefings’’, was ultimately issued in 

2017. 

OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA believe 

that establishing a standard process in 

the FAR for obtaining voluntary 

feedback following a contract award 

will provide more meaningful insight on 

ways to strengthen the contracting 

process than can be derived by relying 

on ad hoc or periodic agency 

satisfaction surveys. Accordingly, 

language is being considered to 

encourage contracting officers, in 

accordance with agency policy, to invite 

interested sources—actual and potential 

offerors—to provide feedback on various 

aspects of the pre-award acquisition 

process and debriefings, with a 

particular emphasis on how information 

is communicated. Submissions are 

intended to be anonymous and for 

internal Government improvements 

only. Voluntary participation would not 

bestow respondents any direct benefits 

or protections in the acquisition process 

or any subsequent protests. In addition, 

OFPP, DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

considering language that would 

encourage Government acquisition 

officials to elicit feedback from their 

contractors on the agency’s performance 

of its contract administration 

responsibilities. 

II. Request for Public Comments 

The FAR Council welcomes input on 

any matters related to vendor feedback, 

including specific examples of industry 

standards, alternative regulatory 

approaches, and legal definitions that 

work well in other areas. The Council 

also invites comment on the overall cost 

of complying with the Council’s existing 

regulations and any specific regulatory 

requirements that are particularly 

burdensome. The specific survey 

questions to be used in conjunction 

with a rulemaking are posted on https:// 

www.acquisition.gov/360. 

Respondents are encouraged to offer 

their feedback on the above language— 

as well as the underlying survey 

questions—in addition to the following 

additional questions: 

(1) What are the benefits to industry 

in providing actual and potential 

offerors with increased opportunity to 

submit feedback on how well the 

Government is performing its pre- and 

post-award activities? What are the 

benefits to the Government? 

(2) Is the approach discussed in this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

the most effective way to elicit feedback 

about the Government’s pre-award 

activities? If not, how might 

effectiveness be improved? What is the 

best way the Government can obtain 

honest and open feedback on the 

contract administration process? 

(3) Approximately, how long would 

you estimate it will take to complete the 

survey at https://www.acquisition.gov/ 

360? What is a reasonable estimate of an 

organization’s costs to complete the 

survey and what are the elements of this 

cost (e.g., personnel involved and time 

to complete)? 

(4) How would you quantify or 

otherwise describe the benefits or 

burdens of this type of feedback 

mechanism to actual and potential 

offerors? 

(5) Should any of the information 

provided by industry be available for 

industry review? How should the FAR 

Council work proactively with industry 

to consider changes based on any data 

submitted? 

(6) Is there different information 

which should be collected on the survey 

based on the type of company or the 

type of acquisition? 

(7) Would you view the voluntary 

opportunity to provide input as burden? 

If so, are there modifications which 

would decrease the burden associated 

with the Government collecting this 

information? 

(8) Would you be more likely to 

complete the survey if it were available 

as a hyperlinked button within each 

solicitation page of https://

www.fedbizopps.gov? 

(9) What measures would help assure 

you that answers would remain 

anonymous? For example: Should the 

solicitation number itself and/or the 

specific Product Service Code (PSC) be 

stripped from the data agencies review? 

Should there be a time delay in agencies 

receiving survey responses? Should the 

Government discard survey submissions 

when two or fewer responses are 

received for a solicitation or would you 

prefer that the Government reviews data 

from all responses? 

(10) What recommendations would 

you advise to ensure data quality? 

Similar to the example above, should 

the Government discard survey 

submissions when a minimal number 

are received for a particular solicitation 

or contracting office or would you view 

this effort more as a forum to provide 

comments? 

This advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking was determined to be 

significant for the purposes of E.O. 

12866. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 5, 42, 

and 52 

Government procurement. 

Dated: July 13, 2018. 

Cecelia Davis, 

Acting Director, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend 48 CFR parts 5, 42, 

and 52 to read as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 5, 42, and 52 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113. 

PART 5—PUBLICIZING CONTRACT 

ACTIONS 

■ 2. Add section 5.407 to read as 

follows: 

5.407 Feedback on the Pre-Award Process 

and Debriefings 

(a) Agencies are encouraged to seek 

regular voluntary feedback from 

interested sources that participate in an 

agency’s acquisitions to understand 

strengths and weaknesses in how 

information is communicated, how 

acquisition techniques and 

methodologies were executed, and 

consider this feedback, as appropriate, 

to improve the effectiveness and 

efficiency of the acquisition process. 

(b) The contracting officer should 

insert the provision 52.XXX–XX, 

Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey, in 

accordance with agency procedures. 

PART 42—CONTRACT 

ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT 

SERVICES 

■ 3. Add section 42.1401 to read as 

follows: 

42.1401 Policy. 

(a) Agencies are encouraged to seek 

regular and voluntary feedback from 

their contractors on the agency’s 

performance of its contract 

administration responsibilities. 

(b) Feedback might be sought on 

matters such as the contractor’s 

evaluation of the agency in terms of— 

(1) Adherence to contract terms, 

including the administrative aspects of 

performance; 

(2) Reasonable and cooperative 

behavior in responding to contractor 

communications and addressing 

contractor requests; and 

(3) Business-like concern for the 

interest of the contractor. 

(c) Agencies should consider this 

feedback, as appropriate, to better 

understand strengths and weaknesses 

and improve the effectiveness and 

efficiency of their contract 

administration activities. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
34822 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS 

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 

■ 4. Add section 52.XXX–XX to read as 

follows: 

52.XXX–XX Acquisition 360: Voluntary 

Survey 

As prescribed in 5.407(b), insert the 

following provision: 

Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey (DATE) 

(a) All actual or prospective offerors are 

encouraged to provide feedback on the preaward process, including debriefings. 

Feedback may be made anonymously by 

going to https://www.acquisition.gov/360. 

(b) None of the information provided will 

be reviewed until after contract award and 

will not be considered in nor impact source 

selection in any way. 

(End of provision) 

[FR Doc. 2018–15355 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–14–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1