28790 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

proposed price is fair and reasonable [U.S. 

Contracting Officer to provide description of 

the data required in accordance with FAR 

15.403–3(a)(1) with the notification]. 

(4) As specified in FAR 15.403–3(a)(4), an 

offeror who does not comply with a 

requirement to submit data that the U.S. 

Contracting Officer has deemed necessary to 

determine price reasonableness or cost 

realism is ineligible for award unless the 

head of the contracting activity determines 

that it is in the best interest of the 

Government to make the award to that 

offeror. 

(d) If negotiations are conducted, the 

negotiated price should not exceed the 

offered price. 

(End of provision) 

[FR Doc. 2013–11399 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 215 

RIN 0750–AH86 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Forward 

Pricing Rate Proposal Adequacy 

Checklist (DFARS Case 2012–D035) 

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 guidance to contractors for the 

submittal of forward pricing rate 

proposals to ensure the adequacy of 

forward pricing rate proposals 

submitted to the Government. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

should be submitted in writing to the 

address shown below on or before July 

15, 2013, to be considered in the 

formation of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by DFARS Case 2012–D035, 

using any of the following methods: 

Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

inserting ‘‘DFARS Case 2012–D035’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

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

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2012– 

D035.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

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

D035’’ on your attached document. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Email: dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS 

Case 2012–D035 in the subject line of 

the message. 

Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System, Attn: Mr. Mark Gomersall, 

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: Mr. 

Mark Gomersall, 571–372–6099. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD is proposing to revise the DFARS 

at 215.403–5 by adding instructions to 

contracting officers to request 

contractors to submit the proposed 

forward pricing rate proposal adequacy 

checklist at Table 215–XX with forward 

pricing rate proposals. This proposed 

rule provides guidance to contractors for 

the submittal of forward pricing rate 

proposals by requesting that contractors 

submit a proposed forward pricing rate 

proposal adequacy checklist with their 

forward pricing rate proposals to ensure 

submission of thorough, accurate, and 

complete proposals. 

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 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. 

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD does not expect this proposed 

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. However, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis has been performed 

and is summarized as follows: 

This rule amends the DFARS at 

215.403–5 by adding instructions to 

contracting officers to request 

contractors to submit the proposed 

forward pricing rate proposal adequacy 

checklist with forward pricing rate 

proposals. The objective is to provide 

guidance to contractors for the submittal 

of forward pricing rate proposals. 

DoD does not expect this proposed 

rule to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

because it only a small percentage of 

Government contractors are requested to 

submit a forward pricing rate proposal, 

as set forth at FAR 42.1701(a). The 

Government will ask only those 

contractors with a significant volume of 

Government contracts to submit such 

proposals. 

The proposed rule does not duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with any other 

Federal rules. 

IV. 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). 

Accordingly, DoD has submitted a 

request for approval of a new 

information collection requirement 

concerning Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Forward 

Pricing Rate Proposal Adequacy 

Checklist (DFARS Case 2012–D035) to 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

A. Public reporting burden for this 

collection of information is estimated to 

average 4 hours per response, including 

the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. 

The annual reporting burden 

estimated as follows: 

Respondents: 160. 

Responses per respondent: 1. 

Total annual responses: 160. 

Preparation hours per response: 4 

hours 

Total response Burden Hours: 640 

hours. 

B. Request for Comments Regarding 

Paperwork Burden. 

Written comments and 

recommendations on the proposed 

information collection, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, 

should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra at 

the Office of Management and Budget, 

Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28791 

DC 20503, or email 

Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov, with a 

copy to the Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Mark 

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

Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060. 

Comments can be received from 30 to 60 

days after the date of this notice, but 

comments to OMB will be most useful 

if received by OMB within 30 days after 

the date of this notice. 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: whether this collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of functions of the DFARS, 

and will have practical utility; whether 

our estimate of the public burden of this 

collection of information is accurate, 

and based on valid assumptions and 

methodology; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways in 

which we can minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, through the use of 

appropriate technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

To request more information on this 

proposed information collection or to 

obtain a copy of the proposal and 

associated collection instruments, 

please write to the Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Mark 

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

Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–3060, or email 

dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 

2012–D035 in the subject line of the 

message. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 215 

Government procurement. 

Manuel Quinones, 

Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System. 

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 

CFR part 215 as follows: 

PART 215—CONTRACTING BY 

NEGOTIATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 215 

continues to read as follows: 

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

chapter 1. 

■ 2. Add 215.403–5 to read as follows: 

215.403–5 Instructions for submissions of 

certified cost or pricing data or data other 

than cost or pricing data pursuant to the 

procedures in FAR 42.1701(b). 

(b)(3) For contractors following the 

commercial contract cost principles in 

FAR 31.2, if the contracting officer 

determines that a forward pricing rate 

proposal should be obtained pursuant to 

FAR 42.1701, the contracting officer 

shall require that the forward pricing 

rate proposals comply with FAR 15.408, 

Table 15–2, and DFARS 252.215–7002. 

The contracting officer should request 

that the proposal be submitted to the 

Government at least 90 days prior to the 

implementation date for the proposed 

rates. To ensure the proposal is 

complete, the contracting officer shall 

request the contractor complete the 

contractor forward pricing rate proposal 

adequacy checklist at Table 215–XX, 

and submit it with the forward pricing 

rate proposal. 

Table 215–XX—Contractor Forward 

Pricing Rate Proposal Adequacy 

Checklist 

The contractor should complete the 

following checklist, providing location 

of requested information, or an 

explanation of why the requested 

information is absent. 

CONTRACTOR FORWARD PRICING RATE 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.A.

Is there a properly completed first page of the proposal or 

a summary format as specified by the contracting officer? 

2. FAR 15.407–1 and FAR 15.408, 

Table 15–2, Section I.A.(8).

Does the proposal disclose known or anticipated changes 

in business activities or processes that could materially 

impact the costs (if not previously provided)? For example: 

a. Management initiatives to reduce costs; 

Changes in management objectives as a result of 

economic conditions and increased competitiveness; 

c. Changes in accounting policies, procedures, and 

practices including: 

(i) reclassification of expenses from direct to indirect 

or vice versa; (ii) new methods of accumulating and 

allocating indirect costs and the related impact and 

(iii) advance agreements; 

d. Company reorganizations (including acquisitions or 

divestitures); 

e. Shutdown of facilities; 

f. Changes in business volume and/or contract mix/ 

type. 

3. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section 

I.B.

Does the proposal include a table of contents (index) identifying and referencing all supporting data accompanying 

or identified in the proposal? 

4. DFARS 252.215–7002(d)(4)(iv) ........ For supporting documentation not provided with the proposal, does the basis of estimate in the proposal include 

the location of the documentation and the point of contact (custodian) name, phone number, and email address? 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
28792 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

CONTRACTOR FORWARD PRICING RATE PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST—Continued 

References Submission item Proposal page 

No. 

If not provided 

EXPLAIN 

(may use continuation 

pages) 

5. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section 

I.C.(2)(i).

Is the proposal mathematically correct and does it reconcile to the supporting data referenced? 

6. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section 

I.C.(2)(i) and DFARS 252.215– 

7002(d)(4)(iv).

Do proposed costs based on judgmental factors include an 

explanation of the estimating processes and methods 

used; including those used in projecting from known 

data? 

7. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section 

I.D.

Is the proposal internally consistent (for example, is the direct labor base used for labor overhead consistent with 

direct labor in the G&A allocation base)? 

8. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2. Section 

II.C. and DFARS 252.215– 

7002(d)(4)(iv).

Does the proposal show trends and budgetary data? Is an 

explanation of how the data was used provided, including any adjustments to the data? 

Direct Labor 

9. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section 

II.B.

Does the proposal include an explanation of the methodology used to develop the direct labor rates and identify 

the basis of estimate? 

10. DFARS 252.215(d)(4)(iv) ................ Does the proposal include or identify the location of the 

supporting documents for the base-year labor rates 

(e.g., payroll records)? 

11. FAR 15.408 Table 15–2, Section 

I.C(2)(i); DFARS 252.215– 

7002(d)(4)(iv).

Does the proposal identify escalation factors for the out 

years, the costs to which escalation is applicable, and 

the basis of the factors used? 

12. FAR 15.407–1 ................................ Does the proposal identify planned or anticipated changes 

in the composition of labor rates, labor categories, union 

agreements, headcounts, or other factors that could significantly impact the direct labor rates? 

Indirect Rates (Fringe, Overhead, G&A, etc.) 

13. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section 

II.C.

Does the proposal identify the basis of estimate and provide an explanation of the methodology used to develop 

the indirect rates? 

14. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section 

I.B.

Does the proposal include or identify the location of the 

supporting documents for the proposed rates? 

15. FAR 15.408 Table 15–2, Section 

I.D.

Does the proposal identify indirect expenses by burden 

center, by cost element, by year (including any voluntary 

deletions, if applicable) in a format that is consistent with 

the accounting system used to accumulate actual expenses? 

16. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section 

I.C.(2)(ii).

Does the proposal identify any contingencies? 

17. FAR 15.407–1 ................................ Does the proposal identify planned or anticipated changes 

in the nature, type or level of indirect costs, including 

fringe benefits? 

18. DFARS 252.215–7002(d)(4)(iv) ...... Does the proposal identify corporate, home office, shared 

services, or other incoming allocated costs and the 

source for those costs, including location and point of 

contact (custodian) name, phone number, and email address? 

19. FAR 15.408 Table 15–2, Section 

II.C.; DFARS 252.215–7002(d)(4)(iv).

Does the proposal separately identify all intermediate cost 

pools and provide a reconciliation to show where the 

costs were allocated? 

20. FAR 15.408 Table 15–2, Section 

I.C(2)(i); DFARS 252.215– 

7002(d)(4)(iv).

Does the proposal identify the escalation factors for the 

out years, the costs to which escalation is applicable, 

and the basis of the factors used? 

21.DFARS 252.215–7002(d)(4)(iv) ....... Does the proposal provide appropriate details of the development of the allocation base? 

22. FAR 15.408 Table 15–2, Section 

I.B., DFARS 252.215–7002(d)(4)(xi).

Does the proposal include or reference the supporting data 

for the allocation base such as program budgets, negotiation memorandums, proposals, contract values, etc.? 

23. DFARS 252.215–7002(d)(4)(xi) ...... Does the proposal identify how the proposed allocation 

base reconciles with its long range plans, strategic plan, 

operating budgets, sales forecasts, program budgets, 

etc.? 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28793 

CONTRACTOR FORWARD PRICING RATE PROPOSAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST—Continued 

References Submission item Proposal page 

No. 

If not provided 

EXPLAIN 

(may use continuation 

pages) 

Cost of Money (COM) 

24. FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, Section 

II.F.

Are Cost of Money rates submitted on Form CASB–CMF, 

with the Treasury Rate used to compute COM identified 

and a summary of the net book value of assets, identified as distributed & non-distributed? 

25. DFARS 252.215–7002(d)(4)(iv) ...... Does the proposal identify the support for the Form 

CASB–CMF, for example, the underlying reports and 

records supporting the net book value of assets contained in the form? 

OTHER 

26. DFARS 252.215–7002(d)(4)(xiii) .... Does the proposal include a comparison of prior forecasted costs to actual results in the same format as the 

proposal and an explanation/analysis of any differences? 

27. DFARS 252.215–7002(d)(4)(xiv) .... If this is a revision to a previous rate proposal or an FPRA, 

does the new proposal provide a summary of the 

changes in the circumstances or the facts that the contractor asserts require the change to the rates? 

[FR Doc. 2013–11402 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Part 225 

RIN 0750–AH84 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement: Preparation of 

Letter of Offer and Acceptance (DFARS 

Case 2012–D048) 

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 

address the contracting officer role in 

assisting the DoD implementing agency 

in preparation of the letter of offer and 

acceptance for a foreign military sales 

program that will require an acquisition. 

DATES: Comment Date: Comments on 

the proposed rule should be submitted 

in writing to the address shown below 

on or before July 15, 2013, to be 

considered in the formation of a final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by DFARS Case 2012–D048, 

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–D048’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Enter keyword or 

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

link ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘DFARS Case 2012– 

D048.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ screen. 

Please include your name, company 

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

D048’’ on your attached document. 

Æ Email: dfars@osd.mil. Include 

DFARS Case 2012–D048 in the subject 

line of the message. 

Æ Fax: 571–372–6094. 

Æ Mail: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Attn: Ms. 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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD is proposing to amend DFARS 

225.7302 to revise and move the text at 

PGI 225.7302(1) into the DFARS, 

because of potential impact on 

contractors. 

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 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. 

III. 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. 

However, DoD has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which 

is summarized as follows: 

This action is necessary because the 

directions to the contracting officer at 

PGI 225.7302(1) may have impact on 

prospective contractors, and therefore 

require relocation to the DFARS. 

The objective of this rule is to provide 

direction to the contracting officer on 

actions required to work with the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1