Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11619 

(d) Up to two of the following 50 

kilohertz segments may be stacked to 

form a channel which may be assigned 

for use by broadcast remote pickup 

stations using any emission contained 

within the resultant channel in 

accordance with the provisions of 

§ 74.462. Users committed to 100 

kilohertz bandwidths and transmitting 

program material will have primary use 

of these channels. After [insert effective 

date of rule], initial authorizations with 

100 kilohertz bandwidth will not be 

issued. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 74.462 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 74.462 Authorized Bandwidth and 

Emissions. 

(a) Each authorization for a new 

remote pickup broadcast station or 

system shall require the use of 

certificated equipment and such 

equipment shall be operated in 

accordance with emission specifications 

included in the grant of certification and 

as prescribed in paragraphs (b), (c), and 

(d) of this section. Any form of 

modulation may be used. 

(b) The maximum authorized 

bandwidth of emissions corresponding 

to the types of emissions specified 

below, and the maximum authorized 

frequency deviation in the case of 

frequency or phase modulated emission, 

shall be as follows: 

Frequencies 

Maximum 

authorized 

bandwidth 

(kilohertz) 

Maximum 

frequency 

deviation 

(kilohertz) 1

MHz: 

25.87 to 26.03 .............................................................................................................................................. 40 10 

26.07 to 26.47 .............................................................................................................................................. 20 5 

152.8625 to 153.3575 2 ............................................................................................................................... 30/60 5/10 

160.860 to 161.400 ...................................................................................................................................... 60 10 

161.625 to 161.775 ...................................................................................................................................... 30 5 

166.25 and 170.15 3 .................................................................................................................................... 12.5 2.5 

450.00625 to 450.99375 .............................................................................................................................. 25 5 

455.00625 to 455.99375 .............................................................................................................................. 25 5 

450.03125 to 450.61875 .............................................................................................................................. 50 

455.03125 to 455.61875 .............................................................................................................................. 50 5 

450.6375 to 450.8625.

455.6375 to 455.8625 .................................................................................................................................. 50 10 

450.900, 450.950.

455.900, 455.950 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 100 35 

1Applies where F1A, F1B, F1D, F1E, F2A, F2B, F2D, F2E, F3E, or F9E emissions are used. 

2 New or modified licenses for use of the frequencies will not be granted to utilize transmitters on board aircraft, or to use a bandwidth in excess of 30 kilohertz and maximum deviation exceeding 5 kilohertz. 3For stations licensed or applied for before April 16, 2003, the sum of the bandwidth of emission and tolerance on frequencies 166.25 MHz or 

170.15 MHz shall not exceed 25 kilohertz, and such operation may continue until January 1, 2005. For new stations licensed or applied for on or 

after April 16, 2003, the sum of the bandwidth of emission and tolerance on these frequencies shall not exceed 12.5 kilohertz. For all remote 

pickup broadcast stations, the sum of the bandwidth of emission and tolerance on these frequencies shall not exceed 12.5 kilohertz on or after 

January 1, 2005. 4After [insert effective date of rule], new authorizations with 100 kilohertz bandwidth will not be issued. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 74.463 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 74.463 Modulation Requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) If frequency modulation or digital 

modulation is employed, the emission 

shall conform to the requirements 

specified in § 74.462. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 74.482 by adding a new 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 74.482 Station Identification. 

* * * * * 

(f) Stations that normally employ 

digital signals for the transmission of 

data, text, control codes, or digitized 

voice, may also be identified by digital 

transmission of the call sign. A licensee 

that identifies its call sign in this 

manner must provide the Commission, 

upon request, information sufficient to 

decode the digital transmission and 

ascertain the call sign transmitted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–04155 Filed 3–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 501, 516, 538 and 552 

[GSAR Case 2013–G504; Docket 2014–0020; 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 3090–AJ51 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); 

Transactional Data Reporting 

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, 

General Services Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting and 

request for comments on proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) announces a 

public meeting and request for comment 

on its proposal to amend the General 

Services Administration Acquisition 

Regulation (GSAR) to include clauses 

that would require vendors to report 

transactional data from orders and 

prices paid by ordering activities. This 

includes orders placed against both 

Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract 

vehicles and GSA’s non-FSS contract 

vehicles—Governmentwide Acquisition 

Contracts (GWACs) and 

Governmentwide Indefinite-Delivery, 

Indefinite-Quality (IDIQ) contracts. For 

FSS vehicles, the clause would be 

introduced in phases, beginning with a 

pilot for select products and 

commoditized services. The new clause 

will be paired with changes to the basis 

of award monitoring requirement of the 

existing price reductions clause, 

resulting in a burden reduction for 

participating FSS contractors. This 

rulemaking does not apply to the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

FSS contract holders. 

GSA is interested in conducting a 

dialogue with industry and interested 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11620 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

parties in Government about the 

proposed change. GSA is seeking 

feedback on potential impacts to agency 

customers and contractors alike. 

Feedback will be used to help inform 

the revisions to the proposed clauses, 

provisions, and prescriptions and other 

guidance to implement the proposed 

rule. 

DATES: Interested parties may offer oral 

and/or written comments at a public 

meeting to be held on Friday, April 17, 

2015, at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard 

Time. Parties are also encouraged to 

provide all written comments, including 

those to be delivered at the public 

meeting, directly to 

www.regulations.gov. As explained in 

this notice, other tools will also be used 

to elicit public input. 

Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat on or before Monday, May 4, 

2015 to be considered in the 

formulation of a final rule. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

on Friday, April 17, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. 

Eastern Standard Time. Information for 

the public meeting may be found under 

the heading SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by GSAR Case 2013–G504, 

Transactional Data Reporting, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Submit comments by searching for 

‘‘GSAR Case 2013–G504’’. Select the 

link ‘‘Comment Now’’ and follow the 

instructions provided at the ‘‘You are 

commenting on’’ screen. Please include 

your name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘GSAR Case 2013–G504’’, on your 

attached document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: U.S. General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 

2nd Floor, ATTN: Hada Flowers, 

Washington, DC 20405–0001. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite GSAR Case 2013–G504 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dana Munson, General Services 

Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 202– 

357–9652 or Mr. Matthew McFarland, 

General Services Acquisition Policy 

Division, GSA, 202–690–9232 or email 

gsar@gsa.gov, for clarification of 

content, public meeting information and 

submission of comment. For 

information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules, contact the 

Regulatory Secretariat at 202–501–4755. 

Please cite GSAR Case 2013–G504. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Meeting 

GSA is holding a public meeting on 

Friday, April 17, 2015. The meeting will 

start at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. 

The meeting end time will depend on 

the final number of registered oral 

presentations. Attendees can attend the 

meeting in person at GSA Central Office 

or virtually through GSA’s Internet 

meeting platform, Adobe Connect. 

In-person Attendance: Interested 

parties may attend the public meeting to 

be held in the GSA Auditorium at GSA 

Headquarters, located at 1800 F St. NW., 

Washington, DC 20405. The public is 

asked to pre-register by Wednesday 

April 1, 2015, due to security and 

seating limitations. To pre-register, use 

the following link: https://meet.gsa.gov/ 

e5rpxxbrh14/event/event_info.html. 

Registration check-in will begin at 8:00 

a.m. Eastern Standard Time Friday, 

April 17, 2015, and the meeting will 

start at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. 

Attendees must be prepared to present 

a form of government issued photo 

identification. 

Virtual Attendance: Interested parties 

may also attend virtually through GSA’s 

Internet meeting platform, hosted by 

Adobe Connect. Virtual attendees must 

register in advance at https://

meet.gsa.gov/e5rpxxbrh14/event/event_

info.html. 

Meeting Accommodations: The public 

meeting is physically accessible to 

people with disabilities. Request for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. 

Munson at dana.munson@gsa.gov or 

202–357–9652 by Wednesday, April 1, 

2015. 

The TTY number for further 

information is: 1–800–877–8339. When 

the operator answers the call, let them 

know the agency is the General Services 

Administration; the point-of-contact is 

Dana Munson at 202–357–9652 or 

Matthew McFarland 202–690–9232. 

Oral Public Comments: Parties 

wishing to make formal oral 

presentations at the public meeting 

should indicate so during the 

registration process. Presentations must 

be provided to Ms. Dana Munson by 

electronic mail at gsar@gsa.gov no later 

than Wednesday, April 8, 2015. Time 

allocations for oral presentations will be 

limited to fifteen minutes. All formal 

oral public comments should also be 

followed-up in writing and submitted to 

www.regulations.gov no later than 

Monday, May 4, 2015. When submitting 

your comments, search for ‘‘GSAR Case 

2013–G504’’ and reference ‘‘Public 

Meeting, Public Comments on 

Transactional Data Reporting.’’ Note: 

Requests made after the deadline for 

formal oral presentations will be 

permitted as time permits and assigned 

based on the order the requests are 

received. 

Written Comments/Statements: In lieu 

of, or in addition to, participating in the 

public meeting, interested parties may 

submit written comments to 

www.regulations.gov by Monday, May 4, 

2015. When submitting your comments, 

search for ‘‘GSAR Case 2013–G504’’ and 

reference ‘‘Public Comments on 

Transactional Data Reporting.’’ Parties 

wishing to share written statements at 

the public meeting must submit such 

statements to Ms. Dana Munson at gsar@

gsa.gov by Wednesday, April 8, 2015. 

II. Overview 

The Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy (OFPP) recently announced a 

new vision for Federal purchasing, one 

that fundamentally shifts from 

managing purchases and price 

individually across thousands of 

procurement units to managing entire 

categories of purchases across 

Government collaboratively (see 

Transforming the Marketplace: 

Simplifying Federal Procurement to 

Improve Performance, Drive Innovation 

and Increase Savings, December 4, 

2014, available at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

omb/procurement/memo/simplifyingfederal-procurement-to-improveperformance-drive-innovation-increasesavings.pdf). Category management 

involves buying and managing 

commonly-purchased goods and 

services through categories like 

information technology (IT) hardware 

and IT software. Categories will be 

managed by experts with in-depth 

market expertise who understand 

buying trends, industry cost drivers, 

new innovations on the horizon and 

emerging companies. Category managers 

will also share information with 

agencies across government to support 

smarter buying decisions. 

GSA is creating a Common 

Acquisition Platform (CAP), an online 

marketplace to identify best-in-class 

contracts issued by GSA or other 

agencies, best practices, and other 

information agencies need to reduce the 

proliferation of duplicative contract 

vehicles and deliver the best value 

possible to federal customers and the 

American people. A critical component 

of the CAP, and smarter buying in 

general, is the availability of the prices 

previously paid by other government 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11621 

buyers for a similar product or service 

under similar terms and conditions. 

Government buyers will be able to use 

that data, in combination with other 

relevant information—such as customer 

satisfaction with the performance of the 

contractor-furnished solution—to 

determine fair and reasonable pricing as 

part of a best value solution. 

The current lack of transparency on 

prices paid by government customers 

has led to significant price variation, 

sometimes 300 percent or more, for 

identical purchases by federal agencies 

from the same commercial vendor as 

well as the unnecessary duplication of 

contract vehicles. A recent pilot where 

contractors were required to furnish 

prices paid on GSA’s strategically 

sourced Office Supplies 2 (OS2) vehicle 

demonstrated the power of such a tool 

in producing market driven pricing 

throughout the life of the contract. 

Accordingly, this proposed rule 

would create a transactional data 

reporting clause to improve GSA’s 

ability to conduct meaningful price 

analysis and more efficiently and 

effectively validate fair and reasonable 

pricing on both its non-FSS and FSS 

vehicles. It would also allow GSA’s 

customers to improve their ability to 

compare prices prior to placing orders 

under its vehicles. Under the 

transactional data reporting clause, 

contractors would report prices paid for 

products and services delivered during 

the performance of the contract, 

including under orders and blanket 

purchase agreements (BPAs) through a 

user-friendly, online reporting system. 

The report would include transactional 

data elements such as unit measure, 

quantity of item sold, universal product 

code, if applicable, prices paid per unit, 

and total price. 

The transactional data reporting 

clause would be applied immediately to 

GSA’s government-wide non-FSS 

vehicles, where transactional data is not 

already collected through other 

methods. For FSS vehicles, the clause 

would be introduced in phases, 

beginning with a pilot for select 

products and commoditized services. 

Under the pilot, FSS customers would 

take advantage of prices paid 

information and the more rigorous order 

level competition it generates to 

establish pricing. To ensure these prices 

remain competitive with commercial 

pricing, GSA would evaluate prices paid 

under the pilot to commercial 

benchmarks and other available data on 

commercial pricing, as well as prices 

previously paid prior to the pilot where 

such data is available. Vendors would 

not be subject to the ‘‘tracking 

customer’’ provisions of the price 

reductions clause that require them to 

monitor their pricing, and provide the 

government with the same price 

reductions that they give to the class of 

the contractor’s commercial customers 

upon which the original contract was 

awarded. However, GSA would 

maintain the right throughout the life of 

the FSS contract to ask a vendor for 

updates to the disclosures on its 

commercial sales format—which is used 

to negotiate pricing on FSS vehicles— 

where commercial benchmarks or other 

available data on commercial pricing is 

insufficient to establish price 

reasonableness. Price and quality 

metrics would be established, and 

commercial benchmarks identified, 

prior to the launch of the pilot so that 

GSA could perform these analyses and 

measure the results and impact of the 

pilot. GSA would also seek vendor 

feedback to compare experience with 

the transactional data clause to the 

tracking requirements of the price 

reductions clause. GSA would use all 

relevant information and analysis to 

determine, in consultation with OMB, 

whether use of the clause is beneficial. 

If the results of the pilot confirm that 

using transactional data is an effective 

pricing model, its use would be 

broadened using the authorities 

provided by this rule. If the results of 

the pilot reveal that using transactional 

data is not an effective pricing model, 

contracts would be modified to revert 

back to using the tracking customer 

provisions of the price reductions 

clause. Additional details regarding the 

scope of the pilot will be announced 

through an open dialog on GSA’s 

Interact platform at interact.gsa.gov. 

This public input will be considered 

prior to the launch of the pilot. 

GSA recognizes that use of prices paid 

information must be done within the 

context of seeking to obtain the best 

value for the taxpayer. GSA believes the 

clause will be especially impactful 

when combined with the insight and 

expertise of category managers to 

provide agency buyers across 

government with market intelligence, 

expertise, and deep-dive analysis to 

improve supply chain management, 

pricing variances, innovation, 

redundancies, and unnecessary 

duplication of effort. Tools and training 

deployed in connection with the 

implementation of this rule would 

emphasize the importance of 

considering total cost (not just unit 

price) in the context of each 

procurement, taking into account 

desired terms and conditions, 

performance levels, past customer 

satisfaction, and other relevant 

information. 

III. Background 

In Fiscal Year 2014, government 

agencies ordered nearly $39 billion in 

goods and services through GSA’s FSS 

contracts GWACs, and Governmentwide 

IDIQs. While GSA has a number of 

policies in place to help its buyers and 

agency users to secure best value for the 

taxpayer, two limitations in current 

pricing practices make achievement of 

this goal unnecessarily challenging: (1) 

Lack of visibility into prices paid by 

other customers; and (2) insufficient 

attention on ‘‘horizontal pricing’’ under 

the FSS program—i.e., the ability to 

compare one vendor’s pricing to that of 

other vendors. 

Lack of Transparency in Prices 

Previously Paid 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) has long emphasized the need for 

contracting officers to conduct price 

analysis as part of their responsibility to 

establish that offered prices are fair and 

reasonable. Price analysis requires 

contracting officers to obtain and 

analyze data on the prices at which the 

same or similar items have been sold. At 

GSA, like most agencies, collection of 

this information has rested largely on 

the shoulders of each contracting 

officer. Until recently, little effort was 

made to share prices previously paid by 

agencies throughout the government. 

Over the years, this lack of transparency 

contributed to large price disparities, 

where one agency may pay a significant 

amount more for the exact same product 

or commoditized service as another 

agency under the same or substantially 

similar terms and conditions, sometimes 

even from the same vendor. GSA has 

already seen examples where price 

variability has decreased through the 

collection of transactional data such as 

with its Office Supplies 2 (OS2) 

government-wide strategic sourcing 

vehicle, and others, saving taxpayers 

approximately $370 million. 

GSA proposes to address this 

weakness through the use of a 

transactional data reporting clause. 

Under the clause contractors would be 

required to report historical information 

encompassing the products and services 

delivered during the performance of the 

contract, including under orders and 

BPAs. Contractors would be required to 

electronically report contract sales 

monthly through a user-friendly online 

reporting system. The report would 

include transactional data elements 

such as unit measures, quantity of item 

sold, universal product code, if 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11622 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

applicable, price paid per unit, and total 

price. 

GSA believes there are multiple 

benefits to use of the transactional data 

reporting clause, including better 

pricing, administrative savings, 

increased opportunities for small 

business participation, and 

standardization of practice. 

• Better pricing: The availability of 

prices paid information will lead to 

better prices for the taxpayer by 

improving the agency’s ability to 

conduct price analysis. It will also 

improve the quality of both contract and 

order level competition because vendors 

will know that their customers have 

greater market intelligence on what 

other agencies have paid in similar 

situations. For example, GSA initiated a 

dynamic pricing model, where prices 

are adjusted based on transactional data, 

on its Office Supplies 2 vehicle between 

November 2012 and January 2013. Prior 

to the implementation of dynamic 

pricing, the average OS2 savings were 

13.5 percent. However, since fully 

implementing dynamic pricing in June 

2013, savings rates have averaged 

approximately 18 percent, or roughly 

4.5 percent higher than pre-dynamic 

pricing. 

• Administrative savings: GSA 

expects the added value of transactional 

data to GSA contract vehicles to 

ultimately reduce duplicative contract 

vehicles as both FSS and non-FSS 

contracts will demonstrably offer best 

value, reducing transactional costs to 

both agencies and contractors. GSA 

estimates that more than 600,000 open 

market actions overlap with existing 

GSA contract vehicles. With better 

pricing on GSA contracts, agencies will 

have less incentive to establish separate 

contracts. Additionally, GSA believes 

replacing the price reduction clause’s 

tracking customer requirement with 

transactional data reporting could 

reduce the annual burden on contractors 

by more than 85 percent, or 

approximately $51 million in 

administrative costs to contractors, 

when compared to the burden hours 

associated with the tracking customer 

requirement under the price reductions 

clause in its current configuration. 

• Reduction of barriers to small 

business participation: The reduction in 

duplicative and inefficient procurement 

transactions removes barriers to entry 

into the Federal marketplace, 

particularly for small businesses. The 

GAO reports the costs of being on 

multiple contract vehicles ranged from 

$10,000 to $1,000,000 due to increased 

bid and proposal, and administrative 

costs (see GAO report # GAO–10–367, 

Contracting Strategies, Data and 

Oversight Problems Hamper 

Opportunities to Leverage Value of 

Interagency and Enterprisewide 

Contracts). 

• Standardization: Significant GSA 

non-FSS contracts include a 

requirement for transactional data. 

Though the specifics vary, GSA’s 

Alliant, Alliant Small Business, 8(a) 

Streamlined Technology Acquisition 

Resources for Services (STARS) II, and 

Veterans Technology Services (VETS) 

GWACs, Connections II, Custom 

SATCOM Solutions (CS2), Custom 

SATCOM Solutions—Small Business 

(CS2–SB), Office Supply Third 

Generation (OS3), and One Acquisition 

Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) 

Govermentwide IDIQs, all have built-in 

vendor requirements for submission of 

transactional data. Currently, these 

requirements are communicated in 

solicitations without the benefit of a 

dedicated GSAR clause. The creation of 

a uniform clause to be used across 

GSA’s non-FSS programs would 

facilitate consistency and transparency 

by allowing the public to comment on 

the proposed new clause. 

Use of Vertical Pricing and Movement 

Toward Both Vertical and Horizontal 

Pricing in the FSS Program 

The FSS program is currently built 

around a vertical pricing model where 

pricing offered to the government from 

a potential vendor is compared to the 

pricing that the same vendor offers to its 

commercial customers. When vendors 

first submit an FSS offer, minimal 

consideration is given to the relative 

competitiveness of the vendor’s prices 

to other vendors (i.e., horizontal 

pricing). Instead, the FSS program 

primarily collects aggregate sales 

information, including a broad 

disclosure of discounts vendors offer to 

commercial customers for similar 

products and services (see the 

‘‘Commercial Sales’’ disclosure 

guidance at GSAR 515.408). The 

Government’s negotiation objective is to 

achieve a company’s best price—i.e., the 

price given to its most favored customer 

(see GSAR 538.270(a)) who buys in 

quantities and under conditions similar 

to those of the government. Contractors 

are then required, under the ‘‘price 

reductions’’ clause (PRC), to monitor 

their pricing over the life of the contract 

and provide the government with the 

same price reductions that they give to 

the class of the contractor’s commercial 

customers upon which the original 

contract award was predicated (see 

GSAR 552.238–75). In addition to the 

‘‘tracking customer’’ requirement, the 

price reductions clause allows vendors 

to voluntarily reduce prices to the 

Government and for the Government to 

request a price reduction at any time 

during the contract period such as 

where market analysis indicates that 

lower prices are being offered or paid 

for the same items under similar 

conditions. 

The required disclosure of 

commercial sales practices and the PRC 

were first introduced into the FSS 

program in the 1980s as a way to ensure 

fair and reasonable pricing through the 

life of a contract with the goal of 

achieving most favored customer 

pricing. For many years, the tracking 

customer feature of the PRC was a 

critical mechanism for enabling GSA 

and its customers to maintain good 

pricing from original equipment 

manufacturers who held the vast 

majority of FSS contracts. However, 

changes in the Federal market have 

lessened the impact of the tracking 

customer mechanism over time. Of 

particular note, an increasing percentage 

of FSS contractors are resellers with 

little or no commercial sales. The GSA 

Inspector General (IG) recently reported 

that resellers represent more than onethird of FSS vendors (See Major Issues 

from Multiple Award Schedules Audits, 

Audit Memorandum Numbers 

A120050–3, available at http://

www.gsaig.gov under Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) Reports and Audit 

Reports). 

Moreover, due to the various 

exceptions included in the PRC the 

tracking customer feature ties pricing for 

reductions to sales of single items and 

plays little role in blanket purchase 

agreement and order purchases 

reflecting volume sales. Further, many 

products sold under the FSS program 

are commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) 

products or other commercial items for 

which the government is not a market 

driver. The government, and other 

customers in the category to which the 

government is most typically aligned 

under the price reductions clause, tend 

to receive voluntary price reductions 

from the vendor as a result of general 

market forces (e.g., intense competition 

and small profit margins within the IT 

hardware arena that cause vendors to 

lower their prices for all customers 

voluntarily to maintain market share). In 

other words, prices are reduced under 

the voluntary provisions of the price 

reduction clause as a result of market 

rate pricing changes, not under the 

mandatory tracking customer 

provisions. GSA recently analyzed 

modifications issued between October 1, 

2013 and August 4, 2014 under nine of 

its FSS contracts, including Schedule 70 

(Information Technology), Schedule 874 

(Mission Oriented Business Integrated 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11623 

Solutions (MOBIS)), Schedule 66 

(Scientific Equipment and Services), 

Schedule 84 (Total Solutions for Law 

Enforcement, Security, Facilities 

Management, Fire, Rescue, Clothing, 

Marine Craft and Emergency/Disaster 

Response), Schedule 899 

(Environmental Services), Schedule 738 

II (Language Services), 874 V (Logistics 

Worldwide), Schedule 871 (Professional 

Engineering Services), and Schedule 

00CORP (The Consolidated Schedule). 

GSA found that only about 3 percent of 

the total price reductions received 

under the price reduction clause were 

tied to the ‘‘tracking customer’’ feature. 

The vast majority (approximately 78 

percent) came as a result of commercial 

pricelist adjustments and market rate 

changes, with the balance for other 

reasons. This finding supports 

attempting a different means of making 

better pricing available. 

Simultaneous with these trends, 

significant improvements in technology 

now make it possible to collect 

transactional data and display it in a 

way that government customers can see 

the prices paid by other FSS customers 

along with other data to determine 

whether prices offered to them represent 

the best value to the taxpayer. As 

explained above, the required disclosure 

and sharing of prices paid information 

through the use of a transactional data 

reporting clause and portal under the 

OS2 pilot led to savings rates averaging 

approximately 18 percent, or about 4.5 

percent higher than pre-dynamic 

pricing. 

GSA believes the collection and use of 

transactional data may be a more 

efficient and effective way for driving 

price reductions on FSS buys than 

through use of the tracking customer 

mechanism. In addition to avoiding the 

challenges associated with the tracking 

customer mechanism described above, 

the transactional data reporting clause 

would allow for greater reliance on 

horizontal pricing in the FSS program 

so that GSA and its customers can easily 

evaluate the relative competitiveness of 

prices between FSS vendors. Moreover, 

the transactional data reporting clause, 

if used as an alternative to tracking 

customer mechanism, could 

significantly reduce contractor burden. 

The Chief Acquisition Officers Council 

recently conducted an Open Dialogue 

through an online platform on 

improving how to do business with the 

Federal Government. Contractors 

pointed to the price reductions clause as 

one of the most complicated and 

burdensome requirements in Federal 

contracting, and GSA’s own estimates 

suggest FSS contractors spend over 

860,000 hours a year (at a cost of 

approximately $58.5 million) on 

compliance with this clause. Several 

conversations in this dialogue identified 

the need to reform FSS pricing policies, 

particularly requesting the removal of 

GSAR clause 552.238–75, Price 

Reductions requirements. Over the 

years, GSA has made adjustments to 

address burdens and improve the use of 

these tools. In particular, on March 4, 

1996 (GSAR Change 70), GSA modified 

the sales disclosure form to require only 

summary information and recognize 

that the terms and conditions of 

commercial sales vary and there may be 

legitimate reasons why the best price is 

not achieved. Despite these significant 

adjustments to the FSS pricing model, 

contractors continue to struggle to 

comply with the sales practice 

disclosure requirements and the price 

reduction clause. In two separate 

reports, the GSA IG found that over twothirds of vendors reviewed in fiscal year 

(FY) 2011 and 84 percent in FY 2012 

provided commercial sales practice 

disclosures that are not current, 

accurate, and/or complete and nearly 

half of the vendors in FY 2012 had 

inadequate sales monitoring systems 

and billing systems to ensure proper 

administration of the price reduction 

and billing provisions. See Major Issues 

from Multiple Award Schedules Audits, 

Audit Memorandum Numbers 

A120050–3 and A120050–4, available at 

http://www.gsaig.gov under OIG Reports 

and Audit Reports. 

As stated above, GSA believes that the 

transactional data reporting clause 

could reduce the annual burden on 

contractors by more than 85 percent, or 

approximately $51 million in 

administrative costs to contractors, 

when compared to the burden hours 

associated with monitoring pricing 

under the price reductions clause in its 

current configuration. GSA further 

believes that use of the transactional 

data reporting clause as an alternative to 

the price reduction clause addresses 

recommendations made by independent 

reviewers of the FSS program over the 

past several years. In particular, the 

Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) Blue 

Ribbon Advisory Panel, which included 

representatives from the largest buying 

agencies, the Department of the Defense, 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Department of the Interior, Department 

of the Treasury, and U.S. Department of 

Education and industry, recommended 

in 2010 that ‘‘the GSA Administrator 

remove the Price Reduction Clause from 

the MAS program supply contracts for 

products in phases as the GSA 

Administrator implements 

recommendations for competition and 

price transparency at the Schedule 

contract level and the order level.’’ The 

same year, the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) issued a 

report recommending that GSA collect 

‘‘prices paid’’ data on FSS orders and 

make this information available to FSS 

contract negotiators and customer 

agencies. See Data and Oversight 

Problems Hamper Opportunities to 

Leverage Value of Interagency and 

Enterprisewide Contracts, GAO–10–367 

(April 2010), available at http://

www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-367. 

Transitioning to Transactional Data 

Reporting 

GSA recognizes that use of prices paid 

information must be done within the 

context of seeking to obtain the best 

value for the taxpayer and envisions 

that this information would be used as 

one information point in conjunction 

with other considerations, such as total 

cost, desired performance levels, 

delivery schedule, unique terms and 

conditions, time considerations, and 

customer satisfaction. Training to 

support the implementation of this rule 

would emphasize that prices paid 

information must be considered within 

the context of each individual 

procurement. More importantly, related 

efforts, such as the development of 

category hallways—an online 

marketplace tool—and the appointment 

of category managers with in-depth 

market expertise, will help agencies 

gain market intelligence to make smarter 

and well-informed buying decisions. 

GSA further recognizes that its 

government-wide non-FSS and FSS 

contract vehicles require separate 

implementation strategies taking into 

account differences in the pricing 

models currently used by these vehicles. 

Government-wide Non-FSS contract 

vehicles. To implement the 

transactional data reporting 

requirement, this proposed rule would 

add a new GSAR clause for non-FSS 

contract vehicles, 552.216–75 Sales 

Reporting and Fee Remittance, which 

would require the submission of 

transactional data from vendors on 

orders and prices paid by ordering 

activities. Government-wide non-FSS 

contract vehicles account for 

approximately $3.9 billion in federal 

contract spending each year. As 

explained above, a significant number of 

GSA’s non-FSS contract vehicles, 

including all GWAC vehicles, already 

include a requirement for transactional 

data. This proposed rule would 

standardize this practice for non-FSS 

contract vehicles and allow GSA to 

collect data on fixed-price, time-andmaterial, labor-hour, and costVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:17 Mar 03, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11624 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

reimbursement contracts, consistent 

with requirements currently in GWAC 

vehicles. 

FSS contract vehicles. GSA proposes 

a phased-in implementation of the 

transactional data reporting clause to 

the FSS program, beginning with a pilot 

chosen from FSS product offerings and 

commoditized services where obtaining 

such data has the greatest potential 

impact to reduce price variability and 

help agencies secure better value for the 

taxpayer through category management. 

Application of the transactional data 

reporting clause, including the proposed 

pilot, would be limited to FSS contracts 

managed by GSA’s Federal Acquisition 

Service. This rule would not apply to 

FSS contracts managed by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs pursuant 

to a delegation provided by GSA. 

Details regarding the pilot will be 

provided by separate notice, including 

through social media tools already in 

place such as GSA Interact (https://

interact.gsa.gov), as well as updates to 

GSA’s Web site where current 

information is displayed and access and 

links to other sites are provided. 

Respondents will be invited to provide 

feedback through these mechanisms as 

well as at the public meeting announced 

in this notice. Respondents are also 

invited to provide written feedback in 

response to this notice regarding the 

preliminary pilot design features 

described below: 

• Scope. The pilot would focus on 

commercial-off-the-shelf and related 

commercial products and commoditized 

services that experience high volume of 

repetitive purchasing under identical or 

substantially similar terms and 

conditions. 

• Participation: Vendor participation 

in the pilot would be mandatory. 

Covered vendors would not be subject 

to the tracking customer requirements of 

the price reduction clause. 

However, vendors would still be 

subject to the commercial sales 

disclosure requirements, including the 

requirement to disclose commercial 

sales practices when requesting a 

contract modification for additional 

items or additional Special Item 

Numbers. In addition, GSA would 

maintain the right throughout the life of 

the FSS contract to ask a vendor for 

updates to the disclosures made on its 

commercial sales format (which is used 

to negotiate pricing on FSS vehicles) if 

and as necessary to ensure that prices 

remain fair and reasonable in light of 

changing market conditions. The 

government could request price 

reductions and vendors could 

voluntarily provide price reductions. 

GSA would modify select existing 

contracts and conduct solicitation 

refreshes under the FSS program to 

implement the new transactional data 

reporting requirements. 

• Evaluation: Similar to best practices 

used in strategic sourcing efforts, GSA 

would establish clearly defined metrics 

prior to the launch of the pilot, such as 

savings rates, customer satisfaction, 

small business utilization, and 

benchmark results against available 

commercial data sources within 

categories of spend to evaluate the 

impact of the transactional data 

reporting clause. Pilot results would be 

evaluated before applying the 

transactional data reporting clause to 

additional FSS contracts and making 

usage mandatory more broadly. Pilot 

results would also be used to evaluate 

the comparative efficiency and 

effectiveness of the tracking customer 

requirement. If GSA determines using 

transactional data is not an effective 

pricing model within the FSS program, 

contracts would be modified to revert 

back to using the provisions described 

in the basic GSAR clause 552.238–75, 

Price Reductions. 

Software, Tools, and Training 

GSA intends to update its systems in 

order to collect and analyze 

transactional data. Data submission will 

be enabled through multiple electronic 

interfaces (e.g., secure data entry, 

electronic file submission, or an 

application programming interface 

(API)). The goal is to make the reporting 

process as streamlined, secure and 

efficient as possible for contractors, 

requiring them to submit only the 

transactional data GSA cannot access 

via other means (e.g., GSA contract 

management systems or Federal 

reporting systems such as the System for 

Award Management (SAM) or the 

Federal Procurement Data System 

(FPDS)). 

GSA also plans to implement an API 

for buyers to benefit from using 

transactional data. Through the API, 

GSA will make this information 

accessible online for all Government 

buyers. This data will help buyers better 

understand the universe of GSA 

purchases; helping them to drive down 

prices, reduce price variability, and 

make smarter purchases. 

Prior to implementation of 

transactional data reporting 

requirements, GSA’s Vendor Support 

Center (https://vsc.gsa.gov) will provide 

instructions and offer training to 

vendors on how to report transactional 

data for FSS and non-FSS orders. 

Additionally, GSA will update its 

relevant courseware on the Federal 

Acquisition Institute (FAI) and Defense 

Acquisition University (DAU) portals to 

educate both customers and GSA 

contracting officers on how to use the 

data. The Federal Acquisition Service 

(FAS) has an internal training course 

aimed at GSA contracting officers 

awarding and administering FSS 

contracts—this course will be updated 

to educate contracting officers on how 

to conduct analysis on transactional 

data, as well as how to use these 

analyses to achieve better pricing on the 

contracts. Similarly, the external-facing 

courseware on how to use the FSS 

program and other non-FSS GWACs and 

MACs will be updated to educate 

customers on the new requirements and 

how they can use the data collected (to 

be shared by GSA) to buy smarter. The 

external courseware will also highlight 

the additional value the collected data 

offers to GSA’s FSS and non-FSS 

contracting programs. 

IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13356 

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. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

GSA expects 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., 

because the proposed rule involves 

providing transactional data on FSS and 

non-FSS orders and transactional data 

that may ultimately affect the end 

pricing of products offered through 

GSA. However, the cost to comply with 

the additional reporting requirement 

may be offset by the benefits provided 

by the transactional data, such as greater 

insight and visibility into customer 

buying habits and knowledge of market 

competition. 

An additional benefit to FSS 

contractors is that the addition of the 

transactional data reporting clause 

would be coupled with an alternate 

version of GSAR clause 552.238–75 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11625 

Price Reductions that does not require 

customer tracking where the vendor 

monitors and provides price reductions 

to the Government when the customer 

or category of customer upon which the 

contract was predicated receives a 

discount. GSAR clause 552.238–75, 

Price Reductions has long been the 

mechanism through which GSA ensures 

prices on contract remained fair and 

reasonable. However, with transactional 

data, contracting officers will have a 

new, potentially more effective and less 

burdensome mechanism through which 

to ensure contract pricing is competitive 

and fair and reasonable, although 

vertical pricing analysis techniques can 

still be used. 

Providing the required transactional 

data will impose significant economic 

impact on all contractors, both small 

and other than small, doing business on 

GSA-managed contracts. Therefore, an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) has been prepared consistent 

with 5 U.S.C. 603, and is summarized as 

follows: 

The General Services Administration 

(GSA) is proposing to amend General 

Services Administration Acquisition 

Regulation (GSAR) to add an alternate to 

clause 552.238–74 Industrial Funding Fee 

(IFF) and Sales Reporting, and new clause 

552.216–75 Sales Reporting and Fee 

Remittance to require transactional data 

reporting in FSS and non-FSS contract 

vehicles. The clause will require GSA 

contractors to provide transactional data, 

which is equivalent to information found on 

an itemized invoice, to GSA. This will 

further the objective to improve category 

management and negotiate better pricing on 

all GSA acquisition vehicles. Collecting 

transactional data on orders and prices paid 

will allow customers to analyze spending 

patterns and develop new acquisition 

strategies to fully leverage the Government’s 

spend. 

GSA is undertaking a major modernization 

initiative aimed at enabling customers to 

drive better value and achieve taxpayer 

savings by setting the stage for pricing 

reform. A major characteristic of 

modernization is collecting and using 

transactional data for units under most GSA 

acquisition vehicles to serve as a basis for 

price analysis and category management. 

This rule will apply to all contractors who 

hold non-FSS contract vehicles as well as to 

all FSS contract holders, contingent on 

beneficial results being demonstrated 

through a pilot conducted on a subset of FSS 

contracts for products and commoditized 

services. As of Fiscal Year 2013, there are 

15,738 vendors holding 18,598 FSS and nonFSS contract vehicles. Of the 15,738 vendors, 

12,590 are small entities to which the rule 

will apply. Only those contracts with sales 

would have data to report. Department of 

Veteran Affairs FSS holders are not affected. 

During the development of the rule, GSA 

considered using one of its many internal 

applications that support pre-award and 

post-award actions for GSA contracts to pull 

the transactional data necessary for more 

robust price analysis. These internal 

applications facilitate data exchanges 

between GSA and its vendors to provide 

business intelligence, create procurement 

sources, facilitate acquisitions, execute 

deliveries, and provide customer care. GSA 

uses this information to update systems 

architecture, to develop new applications for 

contract administration, and to enhance 

business intelligence for suppliers and 

ordering activities. Unfortunately, most of 

these systems do not collect transactional 

data at a level that would be of benefit for 

spend analysis and/or do not possess the 

most accurate and timely information 

regarding purchasing activity. Approximately 

13 percent of GSA-controlled sales, which 

includes purchases made by GSA’s Assisted 

Acquisition Services activity on behalf of 

customer agencies, can capture transactional 

data; for the remaining majority of purchases 

(87 percent), the customer and supplier are 

the only sources of detailed transaction-level 

data. 

Another option for transactional data 

sourcing would be to enhance or combine 

existing GSA systems to collect the data. GSA 

would incur significant IT development costs 

for the effort. Were GSA to invest the time 

and resources into an enterprise-wide system 

that could handle procurement functions and 

spend analysis, then customers and suppliers 

would need to commit to use electronic 

commercial tools such as eBuy and 

Advantage!®. Without the 100 percent 

commitment of individual customers, the 

data will be incomplete—possibly to a large 

extent—and may significantly skew any 

subsequent analysis on cost savings and/or 

purchasing decisions. 

GSA’s SmartPay program (the program that 

manages the governmentwide purchase card) 

is another source where transactional data 

could be collected, and has been on a limited 

basis following commercial standards for the 

past several years on sub-sets of several FSS 

contracts. However, with less than 1 percent 

of procurements being made through the 

purchase card, this method would not 

provide a complete set of data to achieve the 

full benefits of capturing transactional data. 

Finally, FPDS could be upgraded to collect 

transactional data. However, this would 

require Federal Acquisition Regulation 

revisions, tens of millions of dollars in 

system changes, and years to implement. 

Additionally, ordering activities do not 

normally collect transactional data, so agency 

financial procedures and systems would have 

to be overhauled in order to accommodate 

transactional data collection. 

The Regulatory Secretariat has 

submitted a copy of the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. A copy 

of the IRFA may be obtained from the 

Regulatory Secretariat. GSA invites 

comments from small business concerns 

and other interested parties on the 

expected impact of this rule on small 

entities. 

GSA 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. 601, et seq. (GSAR Case 2013– 

G504), in correspondence. 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35) applies. The 

proposed rule contains information 

collection requirements. Accordingly, 

the Regulatory Secretariat will be 

submitting a request for approval of a 

new information collection requirement 

concerning this rule to the Office of 

Management and Budget under 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 

GSA estimates the proposed rule will 

result in a net burden reduction of 

approximately 757,000 hours per year 

based on the difference in current 

reporting requirement (i.e. GSAR clause 

552.238–75) and the proposed reporting 

requirements (i.e. clause 552.238–74 

Industrial Funding Fee and Sales 

Reporting (Federal Supply Schedule) 

Alternate I and clause 552.216–75 Sales 

Reporting and Fee Remittance). The 

analysis of this calculation as well as 

the assumptions made to support this 

analysis is presented below. 

A. New Reporting Requirements 

GSA estimates the public reporting 

burden for contractors to set-up 

transactional data reporting systems to 

average a one-time initial set-up burden 

of 6 hours. The estimated time includes 

the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. GSA also 

took into consideration training, 

compliance systems, negotiations, and 

audit preparation the new clause may 

require, when estimating the one-time 

initial set-up of 6 hours. 

Thereafter, the monthly burden 

estimate to report data is approximately 

.52 of an hour or 31 minutes. This 

number takes into consideration the 

distribution of contract values (i.e. sales) 

and assumes monthly reporting burden 

rises with vendor sales based on the 

distribution of sales and obligations 

within FSS contracts and non-FSS 

contracts. There is a wide variation in 

contract sales, therefore monthly 

reporting burden ranges between 2 

minutes (for contractors with $0 in 

sales) and 4 hours (for contractors with 

greater than $50 million in sales). GSA 

estimates that only the top 0.6 percent 

of FSS contractors and top 4 percent of 

non-FSS contractors will be affected the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11626 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

most. The average GSA contractor will 

see little or no effect of the new 

reporting requirement. 

A weighted average was used, based 

on distribution of sales, to calculate a 

reporting burden. To arrive at the 

weighted average, vendors were broken 

up into six categories, based on contract 

values. The characteristics of these 

categories of contracts in FY 2013 are as 

follows: 

Category 1: Contract value is less than 

$0. The estimated burden for this 

category per contractor is 0.03 hours (2 

minutes) a month, or 0.36 hours (21.8 

minutes) annually. This makes up 37 

percent of FSS contractors and 8 percent 

of non-FSS vendors. The total annual 

burden for this category is estimated as 

2,620 hours. 

Category 2: Contract value is $1– 

$500,000. The estimated burden for this 

category per contractor is 0.5 hours (30 

minutes) a month, or 6 hours annually. 

This category makes up 41 percent of 

FSS contractors and 24 percent of nonFSS vendors. The total annual burden 

for this category is estimated as 44,884 

hours. 

Category 3: Contract value is 

$500,000–$5,000,000. The estimated 

burden for this category per contractor 

is 1 hour per month, or 12 hours 

annually. This category makes up 17 

percent of FSS contractors and 43 

percent of non-FSS vendors. The total 

annual burden for this category is 

estimated as 38,956 hours. 

Category 4: Contract value is 

$5,000,000–$20,000,000. The estimated 

burden for this category per contractor 

is 2 hours per month, or 24 hours 

annually. This category makes up 4 

percent of FSS contractors and 17 

percent of non-FSS vendors. The total 

annual burden for this category is 

estimated as 17,293 hours. 

Category 5: Contract value is 

$20,000,000–$50,000,000. The 

estimated burden for this category per 

contractor is 3 hours per month, or 36 

hours annually. This category makes up 

1 percent of FSS contractors and 5 

percent of non-FSS vendors. The total 

annual burden for this category is 

estimated as 6,785 hours. 

Category 6: Contract value is greater 

than $50,000,000. The estimated burden 

for this category per contractor is 4 

hours per month, or 48 hours annually. 

This category makes up 1 percent of FSS 

contractors and 4 percent of non-FSS 

vendors. The total annual burden for 

this category is estimated as 5,094 

hours. 

Taking the above into consideration, a 

weighted average was used to calculate 

an annual burden of 6.3 hours or 0.52 

hours per month since reporting will be 

required monthly. 

The cost of reporting was quantified 

by multiplying the level of effort in 

hours by an assumed fully loaded 

hourly rate for contractors ($50 × 136 

percent = $68). The annual reporting 

burden is estimated as follows: 

552.216–75 Sales Reporting and Fee 

Remittance (Transactional Data Reporting 

Requirement) and 552.238–74 Industrial 

Funding Fee and Sales Reporting 

(FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE) Alternate I 

The total public annual burden hours 

for setup and reporting are 223,906.32 

based on the following: 

Non-FSS Contracts 

(One-time initial setup) 

Respondents: 477. 

Responses Per Respondent: × 1. 

Total Responses: 477. 

Hours Per Response: × 6. 

Total Burden Hours: 2,862. 

Non-FSS Contracts 

(Reporting) 

Respondents: 477. 

Responses Per Respondent: × 12. 

Total Responses: 5,724. 

Hours Per Response: × 0.52. 

Total Burden Hours: 2,976.48. 

The annual estimated total burden 

hours for non-FSS contracts are 5,838.48 

for year one and 2,976.48 for every year 

thereafter. 

FSS Contracts 

(One-time initial setup) 

Respondents: 17,816. 

Responses Per Respondent: × 1. 

Total Responses: 17,816. 

Hours Per Response: × 6. 

Total Burden Hours: 106,896. 

FSS Contracts 

(Reporting) 

Respondents: 17,816. 

Responses Per Respondent: × 12. 

Total Responses: 213,792. 

Hours Per Response: × 0.52. 

Total Burden Hours: 111,171.84. 

The annual estimated total burden 

hours for FSS contracts are 218,067.84 

for year one and 111,171.84 for every 

year thereafter. 

The total annual estimated cost to the 

public for the Transactional Data 

Reporting GSAR clauses (552.216–75 

and 552.238–74 Alternate I) and is 

estimated to be $15,225,629.76 based on 

the following: 

Non-FSS 

(One-time initial setup) 

Respondents: 477. 

Responses per respondent: × 1. 

Total annual responses: 477. 

Preparation hours per response: × 6. 

Total response burden hours: 2,862. 

Average hourly wages ($50.00+36 

percent overhead): × 68. 

Estimated cost to the public: 

$194,616. 

Non-FSS 

(Reporting) 

Respondents: 477. 

Responses per respondent: × 12. 

Total annual responses: 5,724. 

Preparation hours per response: × .52. 

Total response burden hours: 2,976.48 

Average hourly wages ($50.00+36 

percent overhead): × 68. 

Estimated cost to the public: 

$202,400.64. 

Estimated cost to the public for NonMAS contracts is: $397,016.64 for year 

one and $202,400.64 for every year 

thereafter. 

FSS Contracts 

(One-time initial set up) 

Respondents: 17,816. 

Responses per respondent: × 1. 

Total annual responses: 17,816. 

Preparation hours per response: × 6. 

Total response burden hours: 

106,896.00 

Average hourly wages ($50.00+36 

percent overhead): × 68.00. 

Estimated cost to the public: 

$7,268,928. 

FSS 

(Reporting) 

Respondents: 17,816. 

Responses per respondent: × 12. 

Total annual responses: 213,792. 

Preparation hours per response: × .52. 

Total response burden hours: 

111,171.84. 

Average hourly wages ($50.00+36 

percent overhead): 68.00. 

Estimated cost to the public: 

$7,559,685.12. 

The total estimated cost to the public for 

FSS contracts is $14,828,613.12 for year 

one and $7,559,687.12 for every year 

thereafter. 

There are 18,293 contracts containing 

the transactional data reporting 

requirement. Data submitted by 

respondents is submitted and stored 

electronically. Retrieval of cumulative 

data requires approximately 1 hour each 

month (1*12) for a total of 12 hours 

annually; and costs the Government 

$9,015,522.12 annually. 

Requests per year 18,293. 

Reviewing Time (1*12) × 12.

Total Review Time/year 219,516. 

Average Cost/hr × 41.07. 

Total Government Cost

$9,015,522.12. 

The cost of $41.07 per hour is based 

on GS–12, step 5 salary (Salary Table 

2014–DCB Washington-Baltimore, DC– 

MD–VA–WV–PA, Effective January 

2014). 

Difference in Reporting Requirements 

Acceptance of GSAR Alternate I, 

552.238–74 Industrial Funding Fee and 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 11627 

Sales Reporting (Federal Supply 

Schedule), also triggers the inclusion of 

Alternate II, 552.238–75 Price 

Reductions. Unlike the basic Price 

Reductions GSAR clause, Alternate II of 

552.238–75 does not require the vendor 

to monitor and provide price reductions 

to the Government when the customer 

or category of customer upon which the 

contract was predicated receives a 

discount. In other words, there will be 

no reporting burden for GSAR Alternate 

II, 552.238–75 Price Reductions. 

The current total estimated reporting 

burden hours for GSAR clause 552.238– 

75 Price Reductions is 868,150 with 

annual burden cost of approximately 

$58.5 million (see OMB control number 

3090–0235). The total annual estimated 

reporting burden hours for the new 

Transactional Data Reporting clause is 

111,171.84 with annual burden cost of 

$7,559,685.12. Therefore, the net annual 

burden reduction is 756,978.16 hours 

with annual burden savings of 

approximately $51 million. 

B. Request for Comments Regarding 

Paperwork Burden 

Submit comments, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, 

not later than Monday, May 4, 2015 to: 

General Services Administration, 

Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 

ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street 

NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 

20405–0001. 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: Whether this collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of functions of the GSAR, 

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. 

Requesters may obtain a copy of the 

supporting statement from the General 

Services Administration, Regulatory 

Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Hada 

Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, 

Washington, DC 20407. Please cite OMB 

Control Number 3090–0306, 

Transactional Data Reporting: GSAR 

Part Affected: 552.238–74, Industrial 

Funding Fee and Sales in all 

correspondence. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 501, 

516, 538 and 552 

Government procurement. 

Dated: February 25, 2015. 

Jeffrey A. Koses, 

Senior Procurement Executive, Office of 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration. 

Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 

CFR parts 501, 516, 538, and 552 as set 

forth below: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 501, 516, 538, and 552 continues 

to read as follows: 

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

PART 501—GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION ACQUISITION 

REGULATION SYSTEM 

501.106 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend section 501.106 in the table, 

by adding in numerical sequence, GSAR 

Reference ‘‘552.216–75’’ and its 

corresponding OMB Control Number 

‘‘3090–XXXX’’. 

PART 516—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 

■ 3. Amend section 516.506 by adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

516.506 Solicitation provisions and 

contract clauses. 

* * * * * 

(d) The contracting officer may insert 

clause 552.216–75 in solicitations and 

GSA-awarded IDIQ contracts. This 

clause should be included in all GSAawarded Governmentwide acquisition 

contracts and multi-agency contracts. 

PART 538—FEDERAL SUPPLY 

SCHEDULE CONTRACTING 

■ 4. Amend section 538.273 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read as 

follows: 

538.273 Contract clauses. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) 552.238–74, Industrial Funding 

Fee and Sales Reporting. Use Alternate 

I for Federal Supply Schedules with 

Transactional Data Reporting 

Requirements. Clause 552.238–75 

Alternate II should also be used when 

vendors agree to include clause 

552.238–74 Alternate I in the contract. 

(2) 552.238–75, Price Reductions 

(May 2004). 

(i) Except in cases where Alternate II 

is used, use Alternate I in solicitations 

and contracts for: 

(A) Federal Supply Schedule 70; 

(B) The Consolidated Schedule 

containing information technology 

Special Item Numbers; 

(C) Federal Supply Schedule 84; and 

(D) Federal Supply Schedules for 

recovery purchasing (see 538.7102). 

(ii) Use Alternate II for Federal 

Supply Schedules with Transactional 

Data Reporting Requirements. This 

alternate clause is used when vendors 

agree to include clause 552.238–74 

Alternate I; 

(iii) Federal Supply Schedule 84; and 

(iv) Federal Supply Schedules for 

recovery purchasing (see 538.7102). 

* * * * * 

PART 552—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 5. Amend section 552.212–71 by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

552.212–71 Contract Terms and 

Conditions Applicable to GSA Acquisition 

of Commercial Items. 

As prescribed in 512.301(a)(1), insert 

the following clause: 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Add section 552.216–75 to read as 

follows: 

552.216–75 Transactional Data Reporting. 

As prescribed in 516.506(d), insert the 

following provision: 

Transactional Data Reporting (Date) 

(a) Definitions: 

(1) Contract sale is the price paid by the 

ordering activity for the product or service on 

the task or delivery order placed against this 

contract. Contract sales include contract 

items sold to authorized users unless the 

purchase was conducted pursuant to a 

separate contracting authority, such a 

separately awarded FAR part 12, FAR part 

13, FAR part 14, or FAR part 15 procurement; 

or a non-FAR contract. 

(2) Transactional data is historical 

information encompassing the products and 

services delivered during the performance of 

a contract. 

(b) Reporting of Contract Sales. The 

Contractor shall report all contract sales 

under this contract as follows: 

(1) The Contractor shall electronically 

report contract sales monthly, including 

‘‘zero’’ sales, by utilizing the automated 

reporting system at an Internet Web site 

designated by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) or by uploading the 

data according to GSA instructions. Each 

report shall be submitted within 15 calendar 

days of the applicable monthly reporting 

period. The Web site address, as well as 

registration instructions and reporting 

procedures, will be provided at the time of 

award. 

(2) The Contractor shall provide, at no cost 

to the Government, the following 

transactional data elements, as applicable— 

(i) Contract or BPA Number; 

(ii) Order Number/Procurement Instrument 

Identifier (PIID); 

(iii) Non Federal Entity, if applicable; 

(iv) Description of Deliverable; 

(v) Manufacturer Name; 

(vi) Manufacturer Part Number; 

(vii) Unit Measure (each, hour, case, lot); 

(viii) Quantity of Item Sold; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11628 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(ix) Universal Product Code (UPC), if 

applicable; 

(x) Price Paid per Unit; and 

(xi) Total Price. 

(3) GSA will post reporting instructions at 

https://vsc.gsa.gov/. GSA reserves the 

unilateral right to change reporting 

instructions, including data submission 

requirements, following 60 days advance 

notification to the Contractor. 

(4) The Contractor shall report contract 

sales in U.S. dollars. 

(5) The reported contract sales value shall 

include the Contractor Access Fee (CAF). 

(6) The Contractor shall maintain a 

consistent accounting method of contract 

sales reporting, based on the Contractor’s 

established commercial accounting practice. 

(7) The acceptable points at which contract 

sales may be reported include— 

(i) Issuance of an invoice; or 

(ii) Receipt of payment. 

(8) The Contractor shall continue to furnish 

reports, including ‘‘zero’’ sales, through 

physical completion of the last outstanding 

task or delivery order of the contract. 

(9) Orders that contain classified 

information are exempt from this reporting 

requirement (See FAR 4.606(c)). 

(c) Contractor Access Fee (CAF). (1) The 

CAF represents a percentage of the total 

quarterly sales reported. This percentage is 

set at the discretion of GSA. GSA has the 

unilateral right to change the percentage at 

any time, but not more than once per year. 

GSA provides reasonable notice prior to the 

effective date of the change. The CAF 

reimburses GSA for operating costs. Offerors 

must include the CAF in their prices. The fee 

is included in the awarded price(s) and 

reflected in the total amount charged to 

ordering activities. 

(2) Within 60 days of award, a GSA 

representative will provide the Contractor 

with specific written procedural instructions 

on remitting the CAF. GSA reserves the 

unilateral right to change such instructions 

following notification to the Contractor. 

(3) The Contractor shall remit the CAF at 

the rate set by GSA within 15 calendar days 

after the end of the calendar month. Final 

payment shall be remitted within 30 days 

after physical completion of the last 

outstanding task order or delivery order of 

the contract. 

(4) The Contractor shall remit the CAF to 

GSA in U.S. dollars. 

(5) Failure to remit the full amount of the 

CAF within 15 calendar days after the end of 

the applicable reporting period constitutes a 

contract debt to the United States 

Government under the terms of FAR Subpart 

32.6. The Government may exercise all rights 

under the Debt Collection Improvement Act 

of 1996, including withholding or setting off 

payments and interest on the debt (see FAR 

clause 52.232–17, Interest). Should the 

Contractor fail to submit the required sales 

reports, falsify them, or fail to timely pay the 

CAF, this is sufficient cause for the 

Government to terminate the contract for 

cause. 

(End of Clause) 

■ 7. Amend section 552.238–74 by 

revising the date of the clause; and 

adding Alternate I to read as follows: 

552.238–74 Industrial Funding Fee and 

Sales Reporting. 

* * * * * 

Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting 

(Date) 

* * * * * 

Alternate I (Date): As prescribed in 

538.273(b)(1), substitute the following 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) for paragraphs (a), 

(b), and (c) of the basic clause: 

(a) Definitions. 

(1) Contract sale is the price paid by the 

ordering activity for the product or service on 

the task or delivery order placed against this 

contract. Contract sales include contract 

items sold to authorized users unless the 

purchase was conducted pursuant to a 

separate contracting authority, such as a 

Governmentwide Acquisition Contract 

(GWAC); a separately awarded FAR part 12, 

FAR part 13, FAR part 14, or FAR part 15 

procurement; or a non-FAR contract. Sales 

made to state and local governments under 

Cooperative Purchasing authority shall be 

counted as reportable sales. 

(2) Transactional data is historical 

information encompassing the products and 

services delivered during the performance of 

a contract. 

(b) Reporting of Contract Sales. The 

Contractor shall report all contract sales 

under this contract as follows: 

(1) The Contractor shall electronically 

report contract sales monthly, including 

‘‘zero’’ sales, by utilizing the automated 

reporting system at an Internet Web site 

designated by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) or by uploading the 

data according to GSA instructions. Each 

report shall be submitted within 15 calendar 

days of the applicable monthly reporting 

period. The Web site address, as well as 

registration instructions and reporting 

procedures, will be provided at the time of 

award. 

(2) The Contractor shall provide, at no cost 

to the Government, the following 

transactional data elements, as applicable— 

(i) Contract or BPA Number; 

(ii) Order Number/Procurement Instrument 

Identifier (PIID); 

(iii) Non Federal Entity, if applicable; 

(iv) Description of Deliverable; 

(v) Manufacturer Name; 

(vi) Manufacturer Part Number; 

(vii) Unit Measure (each, hour, case, lot); 

(viii) Quantity of Item Sold; 

(ix) Universal Product Code (UPC), if 

applicable; 

(x) Price Paid per Unit; and 

(xi) Total Price. 

(3) GSA will post reporting instructions at 

vsc.gsa.gov. GSA reserves the unilateral right 

to change reporting instructions, including 

data submission requirements, following 60 

days advance notification to the Contractor. 

(4) The Contractor shall report contract 

sales in U.S. dollars. 

(5) The reported contract sales value shall 

include the Industrial Funding Fee (IFF). 

(6) The Contractor shall maintain a 

consistent accounting method of contract 

sales reporting, based on the Contractor’s 

established commercial accounting practice. 

(7) The acceptable points at which contract 

sales may be reported include— 

(i) Issuance of an invoice; or 

(ii) Receipt of payment. 

(8) The Contractor shall continue to furnish 

reports, including ‘‘zero’’ sales, through 

physical completion of the last outstanding 

task or delivery order of the contract. 

(9) Orders that contain classified 

information are exempt from this reporting 

requirement (See FAR 4.606(c)). 

(c) Industrial Funding Fee. The Contractor 

shall remit the IFF at the rate set by GSA’s 

FAS. 

(1) The Contractor shall remit the IFF to 

FAS in U.S. dollars within 30 calendar days 

after the end of the reporting quarter; final 

payment shall be remitted within 30 days 

after physical completion of the last 

outstanding task order or delivery order of 

the contract. 

(2) The IFF remittance Web site address, as 

well as registration procedures and 

remittance instructions, will be provided at 

the time of award or acceptance of this 

clause. FAS reserves the unilateral right to 

change such instructions from time to time, 

following notification to the Contractor. 

(3) The IFF represents a percentage of the 

total quarterly sales reported. This percentage 

is set at the discretion of GSA’s FAS. GSA’s 

FAS has the unilateral right to change the 

percentage at any time, but not more than 

once per year. FAS will provide reasonable 

notice prior to the effective date of the 

change. The IFF reimburses FAS for the costs 

of operating the Federal Supply Schedules 

Program. FAS recoups its operating costs 

from ordering activities as set forth in 40 

U.S.C. 321: Acquisition Services Fund. Net 

operating revenues generated by the IFF are 

also applied to fund initiatives benefitting 

other authorized FAS programs, in 

accordance with 40 U.S.C. 321. Offerors must 

include the IFF in their prices. The fee is 

included in the awarded price(s) and 

reflected in the total amount charged to 

ordering activities. FAS will post notice of 

the current IFF at https://72a.gsa.gov/ or 

successor Web site as appropriate. 

■ 8. Amend section 552.238–75 by 

revising the date of the clause; and 

adding Alternate II to read as follows: 

552.238–75 Price Reductions. 

* * * * * 

Price Reductions (Date) 

* * * * * 

Alternate II (Date). As prescribed in 

538.273(b)(2)(ii), substitute the following 

paragraph (a) for paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), 

(f) and (g) of the basic clause, and paragraph 

(e) of the basic clause will become paragraph 

(b) in Alternate II. 

The Government may request from the 

contractor a price reduction at any time 

during the contract period. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04349 Filed 3–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–61–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS