```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4838-4846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00992]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

[Docket No. FTA-2024-0015]

Third Party Contracting Guidance

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability of final circular and response to 
comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has made available on 
its website the final updated Third-Party Contracting Guidance Circular 
(C 4220.1G). The updated circular reflects statutory and regulatory 
changes that have occurred since the last update, provides additional 
non-binding guidance, and supersedes the previous Third-Party 
Contracting Guidance Circular C 4220.1F. This notice responds to the 
comments FTA received on the proposed circular, which was published in 
the Federal Register on November 27, 2024.

DATES: The applicable date of this circular is February 18, 2025.

ADDRESSES: One may view the comments at docket number FTA-2024-0015. 
For access to the docket, please visit https://www.regulations.gov or 
the Docket Operations office located in the West Building of the United 
States Department of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday 
through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For third party contracting questions, 
contact Tara Murphy, Division Chief, Office of Administration, Federal 
Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room E41-311, 
Washington, DC 20590, phone: (202) 366-5647 or email 
[email protected]. For legal questions, Christopher Hall, Office of 
Chief Counsel, same address, Room E56-316, phone (202) 941-9595 or 
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Overview
II. Responses to Public Comments
    A. Chapter I
    B. Chapter II
    C. Chapter III
    D. Chapter IV
    E. Chapter V
    F. Chapter VI
    G. Chapter VII

I. Overview

    This notice announces the availability of FTA Circular C 4220.1G, 
Third Party Contracting Guidance. C 4220.1G replaces C 4220.1F. The 
purpose of Circular 4220.1 is to provide updated Third-Party 
Contracting Guidance for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 
assistance programs. This circular incorporates provisions of Federal 
law enacted since the publication of C 4220.1F, including the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Nov. 15, 2021); 
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) and United States 
Department of Transportation's (USDOT) updated Uniform Administrative 
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal 
Awards at 2 CFR part 200 (78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013; 89 FR 30046, Apr. 
22, 2024) and 2 CFR part 1201 (79 FR 76049, Dec. 19, 2014), 
respectively; USDOT's regulation implementing the Uniform Relocation 
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform 
Act) (49 CFR part 24, 89 FR 36944, May 3, 2024); and USDOT's 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) regulation (49 CFR part 26, 89 
FR 24963, Apr. 9, 2024).
    A copy of the final circular is in the docket and is posted on 
FTA's Circulars page (https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/fta-circulars/circulars).

II. Response to Comments

    FTA issued a notice of availability and request for comments for 
the proposed circular, C 4220.1G ``Third Party Contracting Guidance'' 
on November 27, 2024 (89 FR 93824). The public comment period closed on 
December 27, 2024.
    FTA received comments from 27 unique commenters including transit 
authorities, businesses and industry organizations, private 
individuals, and State and local departments of transportation.
    FTA received seven requests to extend the comment period for the 
proposed circular. FTA declined to extend the comment period because 
FTA believes that the comment period was sufficient for interested 
parties to provide comment, evidenced by the number of comments FTA 
received on the proposed circular. In addition, the circular does not 
contain any binding requirements that are not already effective through 
statutory changes or regulatory changes established through a notice 
and comment process during which interested parties could have provided 
input.
    FTA reviewed all relevant comments and took them into consideration 
when developing this final circular. FTA addresses these comments in 
the corresponding sections below. Some comments were outside the scope 
of the circular, and FTA does not respond to those comments in this 
notice. Several comments suggested typographical updates or changes. 
These changes, where appropriate, were incorporated.
    In response to comments, FTA made changes to the final guidance 
which are discussed in detail in the corresponding sections below.

A. Chapter I

    Comment: A consulting firm asserted that the concept of ``premium'' 
in the definition of the term ``best value'' is confusing and lacks a 
clear definition.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to define the term ``premium'' further, 
as its meaning is context-specific and generally understood within the 
framework of best value procurements. In this context, premium refers 
to the additional cost a recipient may choose to pay for a proposal 
offering superior technical quality, performance, or other non-cost 
factors. Recipients are encouraged to clearly articulate evaluation 
criteria and the basis for

[[Page 4839]]

determining best value in their procurement documentation to ensure 
transparency and understanding.
    Comment: A consulting firm suggested removing the term ``Common 
Grants Rule'' from Chapter I, noting that it is not appropriate in the 
context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 2 CFR part 
200.
    FTA Response: FTA has struck the definition, because the term is 
not actually used in the Circular.
    Comment: A consulting firm suggested changing the defined term 
``grant'' to ``award'' in the definitions to ensure consistency with 
terminology used in other FTA circulars and reviews.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to replace the term ``grant'' with 
``award'' in this definition, as the purpose of the definition is to 
define grants specifically, as distinct from other forms of financial 
assistance awards. (Compare with the nearby definition of ``cooperative 
agreement'' in the circular.) However, FTA has changed the definite 
article ``the'' to the indefinite article ``an'' (``Grant means an 
instrument . . .'') to reflect the existence of other forms of 
assistance awards.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that there are no mechanisms or 
tests to verify the accuracy of self-certifications and suggested 
instead asking recipients to affirm their agreement to comply with 
procurement regulations.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise the approach to self-
certifications, as the current process is well established and aligns 
with Federal requirements and standard oversight practices. Self-
certifications serve as a formal acknowledgment of a recipient's 
commitment to comply with procurement regulations, and recipients 
remain responsible for ensuring their accuracy and validity. 
Additionally, FTA conducts periodic reviews and audits to verify 
compliance, providing further assurance beyond self-certification.
    Comment: A consulting firm suggested deleting references to the 
Best Practices Procurement Manual (BPPM), arguing that it lacks 
authority, does not cover all areas, contains incorrect examples, and 
is often copied by recipients without proper analysis, making it 
unhelpful for ensuring compliance. Similarly, a state department of 
transportation noted that the proposed circular, C 4220.1G, referenced 
the Best Practices Procurement Manual, last updated in 2016, and 
suggested either removing these references or updating the manual to 
include new requirements from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act and 2 CFR part 200, which was last updated in October 2024.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to remove references to the Best 
Practices Procurement Manual (BPPM), as it serves as a valuable 
resource offering practical examples and guidance to assist recipients 
in navigating complex procurement requirements. The BPPM does not carry 
regulatory authority. It complements regulations and FTA's other 
guidance by providing illustrative scenarios and best practices. 
Recipients can use the BPPM as another guidance tool, applying their 
own judgment and analysis to ensure compliance with Federal procurement 
standards.
    Comment: An individual commenter suggested that in construction 
manager/general contractor (CM/GC) contracts, the Guaranteed Maximum 
Price (GMP) should be negotiated before contract award, with a fixed 
price finalized at 60-90% design completion, and an ``off-ramp'' 
available for the owner to seek competitive bids if needed. For 
Progressive Design-Build contracts (PDB), the commenter highlighted a 
concern that because the GMP or Target Maximum Price (TMP) is 
determined late in the design process, it prevents a fair and 
reasonable price determination at the time of award and may lead to 
uncontrolled cost escalation without a firmly established in upfront 
budget.
    FTA Response: FTA acknowledges the commenters' concerns regarding 
CM/GC and PDB contract structures and has made clarifications in the 
Circular to address them. With respect to CM/GC contracts, FTA 
recognizes the value of early contractor involvement in the design 
process to optimize lifecycle costs, value engineering, and scheduling 
outcomes. While the reference to CM/GC contributing to design up to the 
60-90% design stage reflects common industry practice, it is not 
intended to preclude earlier involvement where it aligns with project 
goals. The definition aims to provide general guidance rather than 
prescriptive instructions on implementing alternative contracting 
methods.
    Regarding the timing of GMP negotiations, FTA acknowledges that 
practices may vary based on project-specific factors and local 
preferences. The Circular now clarifies that GMP or equivalent price 
negotiations may occur either before or after the 60-90% design stage, 
depending on the recipient's risk tolerance and procurement strategy. 
FTA also notes that recipients have the flexibility to structure GMP 
negotiations to include ``off-ramps'' for competitive bidding if the 
GMP does not align with budgetary or value expectations.
    For PDB contracts, FTA recognizes the potential risk of cost 
escalation if the GMP or TMP is established late in the design process. 
However, PDB remains an allowable contracting method under FTA 
regulations. FTA emphasizes the importance of strong project management 
capacity when using alternative contracting approaches to mitigate 
risks and ensure effective outcomes. Lastly, while the term 
``Guaranteed Maximum Price'' is widely understood in the industry, FTA 
acknowledges that some recipients may prefer terms like ``final 
construction price'' to better reflect their procurement and project 
management processes.
    Comment: A city agency commented that the new definition in Chapter 
I, Section 5b for Approval, Authorization, Concurrence, Waiver is 
overly general and suggested retaining the more specific language from 
the previous version (4220.1F).
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise Chapter I, Section 5b to 
reintroduce the prior definition from C 4220.1F. The updated definition 
aligns with Federal procurement standards, and further specificity is 
unnecessary to meet compliance objectives.
    Comment: A city agency commented that Chapter I, Section 5dd should 
clarify that the term ``recipient'' refers to the entire legal entity, 
not just a specific component, as was explicitly stated in the prior 
version (C 4220.1F).
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise this section to restate that 
the term ``recipient'' applies to the entire legal entity. The 
recipient is the entity with authority to enter into an assistance 
agreement with FTA and to execute certifications, which may at times be 
a unit of local government. The updated language provides sufficient 
clarity and aligns with Federal regulatory standards.
    Comment: A city agency commented that Chapter I, Section 6 should 
reinstate references to the Master Agreement, as its removal has 
created a gap in clarity.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to reinstate the description of the 
Master Agreement in this section. The purpose of Chapter I Section 6 is 
to describe FTA's role and oversight activities. The Master Agreement 
is not an oversight activity by FTA, but is the document incorporated 
into every financial assistance award describing the recipient's 
obligations.

B. Chapter II

    Comment: A consulting firm suggested removing references to

[[Page 4840]]

revenue contracts, stating that they are not evaluated for compliance.
    FTA Response: The FTA declines to remove references to revenue 
contracts, as they remain an important aspect of third-party 
contracting activities.
    Comment: A consulting firm suggested removing references to the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), expressing concern that 
recipients might rely on it as a primary procurement guide rather than 
using it solely as a reference.
    FTA Response: The FTA declines to remove references to the FAR, 
because it is important to plainly distinguish between the FAR and the 
procurement standards of 2 CFR part 200 so recipients are not confused. 
Additionally, recipients may at times use the FAR as an additional 
source of guidance.
    Comment: A city agency commented that Chapter II, Section 2.a(1) 
distinguishes Cooperative Agreements but does not reference Joint 
Partnership Agreements, creating inconsistency with earlier chapters.
    FTA Response: FTA has revised this section to provide a more 
concise statement regarding its applicability to grants and cooperative 
agreements. Grants and cooperative agreements are forms of financial 
assistance awarded by FTA. FTA declines to revise this section to 
include a reference to Joint Partnership Agreements, which are not a 
form of financial assistance awarded by FTA. The current language 
aligns with applicable regulatory requirements.
    Comment: A city agency commented that Chapter II, Section 2.b(8) 
should expand the definition of Force Account to include activities 
performed by contractors, as the current definition limits it to a 
recipient's own forces.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to expand the definition of Force 
Account to include contractor activities. The current definition 
reflects the Federal intent for force account work to refer 
specifically to the recipient's own non-contracted workforce.

C. Chapter III

    Comment: A consulting firm noted that all ability to accept gifts 
of ``nominal value'' should be removed, advocating for a zero-tolerance 
policy as the best practice.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to remove all ability to accept gifts of 
``nominal value'' because 2 CFR 200.318 authorizes a recipient or 
subrecipient to ``set standards for situations where the financial 
interest is not substantial or a gift is an unsolicited item of nominal 
value.''
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that the phrase ``sound and 
complete agreement'' is too ambiguous unless specific elements can be 
stated or evaluated.
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees that the term is ambiguous and declines 
to make a change. The phrase recognizes the broad discretion recipients 
have to design and form contracts. Furthermore, the statement that 
recipients should take care to include contract terms that form a sound 
and complete agreement is advisory. It is not intended to create 
criteria by which FTA will inspect recipients' contracts for Federal 
compliance.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that the term ``Industry 
Contract'' is unclear and should either be redefined or removed 
altogether.
    FTA Response: FTA disagrees that the term is unclear and declines 
to redefine or remove the term ``Industry Contract.'' FTA believes the 
term is contextually clear within the procurement framework and allows 
for broad application across diverse procurement scenarios.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that the term ``reasonable 
documentation'' lacks clarity and is overly subjective, which could 
lead to inconsistent compliance assessments.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise the term ``reasonable 
documentation.'' The term allows for recipients to exercise their 
discretion across diverse procurement scenarios and aligns with 
standard Federal practices for documentation. It would be impractical 
to attempt to specify recordkeeping requirements to apply to everything 
a recipient might procure, from micro-purchases to mega-projects.
    FTA encourages recipients to maintain records sufficient to 
demonstrate compliance with applicable procurement regulations.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that ``access to records'' should 
be a mandatory clause in all third-party contracts.
    FTA Response: The commenter was not specific about whose records he 
means to be accessed by whom. Nonetheless, FTA declines to add such a 
requirement for another mandatory clause in recipients' contracts. A 
recipient's obligation to maintain records related to its award and 
provide access to the Federal Government already is well established. A 
recipient must take whatever measures are required to assure 
compliance, which may, in some cases, include making provisions to 
obtain records from contractors. Specifying a new required clause is 
not necessary.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that the criteria for using 
reverse auctions are insufficient and should not be limited to the 
Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and commented that clear reasons 
for their use, similar to Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and Invitations 
for Bids (IFBs), should be provided.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to expand the use of reverse auctions 
for procurements above the SAT. This is because 2 CFR 200.320 specifies 
procurement methods to be used for procurements above the SAT and does 
not include reverse auctions. Reverse auctions are primarily suited for 
procurements involving standardized goods or services where price is 
the primary evaluation factor and technical complexity is minimal. 
Sealed bidding is the procurement method required by regulation for 
such procurements when they exceed the SAT. 2 CFR 200.320(b)(1).
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that audits are not clearly stated 
as a requirement and may cause confusion for recipients, suggesting 
their removal.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to remove references to audits as they 
are a requirement pursuant to 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, but has 
clarified the requirements to describe the procedure more accurately.
    Comment: A state department of transportation noted that one of the 
proposed changes required annual self-certification of the procurement 
policy. It was recommended to add criteria outlining the attributes 
that this self-certification should include.
    FTA Response: Self-certification is not a change. For many years, 
FTA has relied on recipients self-certifying their procurement systems 
annually. The certification is made as part of a recipient's annual 
Certifications and Assurances, which can be found on FTA's website here 
(along with previous years' versions): https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grantee-resources/certifications-and-assurances/certifications-assurances. The Certifications and Assurances are standardized for all 
recipients and provide the exact text of the certification. Therefore, 
it is not necessary for the Circular to describe the contents that must 
be included in such a certification.
    Comment: A state department of transportation noted that the 
Circular recommends reviewing Federal requirements when deploying an e-
commerce system but does not specify which requirements to follow. The 
commenter recommended FTA include these specific Federal requirements.

[[Page 4841]]

    FTA Response: FTA refers the commenter to Chapter III, Section 3, 
paragraph e, subparagraphs i-iii for these requirements.
    Comment: A transit bus manufacturer suggested using stronger 
language to encourage electronic procurement methods rather than 
printed documents in Chapter III, Section 3(e).
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise this section to include 
stronger language encouraging the use of electronic methods over 
printed documents. The existing guidance already supports and promotes 
the use of electronic documentation as a best practice while allowing 
recipients the flexibility to determine the most appropriate format for 
their specific circumstances. Mandating stronger language may not 
account for varying technological capabilities or regulatory 
requirements across different recipients and procurement environments. 
Recipients are encouraged to adopt electronic methods where feasible 
and practical to improve efficiency and reduce administrative burdens.

D. Chapter IV

    Comment: An individual commenter urged FTA to explicitly clarify 
whether third-party contractors must be registered in SAM.gov at the 
time of offer or quotation to be eligible for an award. The commenter 
described inconsistencies between the Circular's description of the 
requirement that a recipient verify a contractor's exclusion status 
(i.e., suspension or debarment) and the expectations of triennial 
reviewers, noting that SAM checks often seemed mandatory in practice 
despite the Circular's statement that checking SAM is strongly 
recommended.
    FTA Response: In response to the comment, FTA has added a statement 
to clarify that contractors are not required to be registered in SAM to 
do business with FTA recipients. FTA also has reworded the paragraph 
about verifying prospective contractors' exclusion status, to clarify 
that SAM is one of several methods available to a recipient to confirm 
a prospective contractor's non-exclusion.
    Comment: A county requested clarification on the percentage 
requirements for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) and which 
clauses must be flowed down to subcontractors in the proposed FTA 
Circular 4220.1G.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise Circular 4220.1G to provide 
the requested clarification because the Circular is focused on 
procurement standards and not the U.S. Department of Transportation's 
DBE program. The Circular directs readers to 49 CFR 26.49 and 2 CFR 
200.321(b)(3) for detailed requirements regarding DBE participation. 
The U.S. DOT's website is another useful source of guidance for 
administering a DBE program or competing for work as a DBE: https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/disadvantaged-business-enterprise. 
When a recipient is required to set a percentage goal for DBE 
contracting, the recipient creates its own goal, based on the 
availability of DBEs in its area. In other words, there is no one DBE 
goal for FTA recipients. Regarding flow-down clauses, FTA separately 
will update its guidance on flow-down clauses on the FTA website soon.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that the phrase ``sound business 
judgment'' should be removed as it cannot be objectively evaluated.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to remove the term ``sound business 
judgment.'' The term is intentionally broad to allow recipients 
flexibility in decision-making while maintaining accountability.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that if seat belt use is only 
encouraged and not mandated, it should be removed from the guidance.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to remove references to seat belt use. 
Executive Order 13043 (note at 23 U.S.C. 402) requires Federal agencies 
to encourage seat belt use in Federal grants. Furthermore, encouraging 
seat belt use remains an important safety consideration, even when it 
is not a requirement.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that if texting policies are only 
encouraged and not mandated, they should be removed from the guidance.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to remove references to texting 
policies. Executive Order 13513 (note at 23 U.S.C. 402) requires 
Federal agencies to encourage recipients to adopt policies to ban text 
messaging while driving in carrying out a Federal award. While not 
mandatory, encouraging safe texting practices supports broader safety 
objectives within transit operations.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that the civil rights clauses 
should be reviewed to determine if they should flow down to contractors 
and subcontractors, with revisions made as necessary.
    FTA Response: FTA intends separately to update its guidance on 
mandatory clauses and flow-down clauses on FTA's website. The existing 
guidance in the Circular aligns with the applicable Federal statutes.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that the word ``considered'' in 
Chapter IV, Section 3.b in references to Small and Disadvantaged 
Business Enterprises should be removed because it cannot be 
quantitatively measured or evaluated.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to remove the term ``considered'' in 
relation to Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises. Examples of 
what consideration means are provided in the paragraph at Section 3.b. 
The text of the Circular closely follows the text of 2 CFR 200.321, 
which requires, when possible, that the recipient ensure disadvantaged 
businesses are ``considered''.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that spare ratios are an agency 
planning function and not related to procurement. The commenter noted 
spare ratios already are discussed in FTA's Circular 5010.1F and should 
not be addressed in Circular 4220.1G. The commenter suggested spare 
ratios should be tracked through the Triennial Review.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to remove references to spare ratios 
from procurement guidance. Although spare ratios are addressed 
primarily in Circular 5010.1F, referring to spare ratios in the 
procurement circular helps ensure a recipient is aware of the spare 
ratio policy when undertaking a vehicle procurement. The Triennial 
Review serves as a broad assessment of a recipient's compliance across 
multiple areas, including procurement, maintenance, and financial 
management, and does review a recipient's spare ratio.
    Comment: An individual commenter noted difficulty finding 
confirmation of the Micro-purchase threshold increase to $50,000 in the 
proposed FTA Circular 4220.1G and mentioned their understanding that 
the threshold increase became effective on October 2, 2024.
    FTA Response: The Federal micro-purchase threshold has not changed; 
it is still $10,000. However, as of October 1, 2024, 2 CFR 
200.320(a)(1) permits a recipient to certify for itself a higher micro-
purchase threshold, up to $50,000 in certain instances. This higher 
threshold is not automatic and requires the recipient's self-
certification and supporting documentation. The circular discusses this 
change in Chapter VI, Section 4.
    Comment: An individual commenter sought clarification on two points 
in the proposed Circular 4220.1G: whether the removal of the 
prohibition on geographic preferences formally stated at 2 CFR 200.319 
affected the guidance provided in Chapter VI of the Circular regarding 
geographic preferences; and clarification of the statement regarding

[[Page 4842]]

Patent and Restricted Data Rights as a possible reason for a non-
competitive procurement, specifically the statement, ``However, the 
mere existence of such rights does not by itself justify a 
noncompetitive award,'' and whether such scenarios should be treated as 
unsolicited proposals.
    FTA Response: Circular 4220.1G does reflect the removal of the 
prohibition against geographic preference from 2 CFR 200.319. However, 
2 CFR 200.319 was not the only rule affecting geographic preferences in 
FTA procurements. The Circular presents FTA's explanation of the 
current status of geographic preferences across various procurement 
types, reading relevant statutes and regulations together.
    Additionally, the statement that ``the mere existence of [patent 
and restricted data] rights does not by itself justify a noncompetitive 
award,'' does not imply that these scenarios should be treated as 
unsolicited proposals. It means that just because a single company may 
own rights necessary to the delivery of the product or service being 
acquired, does not mean that company is the only possible source for 
the product or service. Recipients should conduct market research, 
including consideration of Brand Name or Equal products or services, 
and document their findings in the procurement file before pursuing a 
sole source award.
    Comment: A State department of transportation noted that in Chapter 
IV, the section on Small Procurements references DBEs but does not 
include small businesses or veteran-owned businesses.
    FTA Response: The Small Procurement section in Chapter IV does 
reference women owned businesses. FTA has added reference to veteran 
owned businesses to correctly reflect the requirements of 2 CFR 
200.321. Additionally, FTA refers the commenter to Chapter IV, section 
2, ``Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises,'' for information on 
small and veteran owned businesses.
    Comment: A state department of transportation noted that the 
section of Chapter IV related to small procurements allowed splitting a 
procurement to increase DBE participation, and that this appeared to be 
in conflict with other statements in Chapter IV that prohibit dividing 
procurements to meet the micro-purchase limit. The commenter requested 
clarification on whether splitting the procurement when using a DBE is 
permissible if the end result were procurements that met the micro-
purchase threshold.
    FTA Response: As noted in Chapter IV, Section 1(c)(2), a known 
requirement must not intentionally be divided into multiple smaller 
procurements to fall below the simplified acquisition threshold or 
micro-purchase threshold, regardless of the use of DBEs. The Uniform 
Requirements and U.S. DOT's DBE rule suggest ways to increase DBE 
participation by ``dividing procurement transactions into separate 
procurements'' (2 CFR 200.321) or ``breaking out contract work items 
into economically feasible units (for example, smaller tasks or 
quantities)'' (App. A to 49 CFR part 26). These suggestions must be 
interpreted consistently with the requirement not to undermine full and 
open competition. For example, it may be possible to unbundle a 
solicitation for multiple services or supplies that do not necessarily 
have to be combined under the same contract.
    Comment: A law firm on behalf of an industry coalition suggested 
FTA state that liquidated damages should not exceed incentives but 
rather should be balanced with incentives.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to specify that liquidated damages 
should not exceed incentives but rather should be balanced with them. 
Liquidated damages and incentive provisions serve distinct purposes in 
a contract, with liquidated damages addressing the costs associated 
with non-performance or delays, and incentives encouraging superior 
performance or early completion. Balancing these two elements in every 
contract may not always align with the specific goals or circumstances 
of the procurement. FTA's existing guidance allows recipients the 
flexibility to structure contracts, including liquidated damages and 
incentives, in a manner that reflects their unique project needs and 
risk assessments. Recipients are encouraged to ensure that both 
liquidated damages and incentives are reasonable, justifiable, and 
aligned with the overall objectives of the procurement.
    Comment: A city agency commented that Chapter IV, Section 2.b.5(b) 
omits the Percentage of Completion Method for progress payments, which 
was previously included in C 4220.1F. The commenter suggested including 
language on this method.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to add language about the Percentage of 
Completion Method. Until 2014, the now-superseded Common Rule at 49 CFR 
18.21(d) (2014) specified that recipients may use the percentage of 
completion method to pay their construction contractors. The current 
procurement standards at 2 CFR part 200 do not mention percentage of 
completion. Recipients retain flexibility in structuring construction 
progress payments under Federal requirements.
    Comment: A city agency commented that the last sentence at Chapter 
IV, Section 2.b(9)(d) contains unclear language regarding returning 
liquidated damages to the award budget, and recommended clarification.
    FTA Response: FTA has revised the last sentence of this section for 
clarity.
    Comment: A city agency commented that Chapter IV, Section 2.c(3)(b) 
should clarify whether DBEs have priority over other small, minority, 
or disadvantaged business enterprises as defined by the USDOT.
    FTA Response: There is no prioritization. Under U.S. DOT's 
disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) rule, a DBE means a for-profit 
small business that is at least 51% owned by one or more individuals 
who are both socially and economically disadvantaged. 49 CFR 26.5. The 
rule rebuttably presumes that women and persons of certain racial 
descent are socially disadvantaged. 49 CFR 26.67(a). Firm owners whom 
the rule does not presume to be socially disadvantaged can register 
their firms as DBEs by demonstrating their disadvantage through a 
narrative description. 49 CFR 26.67(d).
    Comment: A city agency commented that Chapter IV, Section 2.a(1) 
introduces a requirement for recipients to verify contractor employee 
classification. They requested additional guidance, including whether 
FTA will provide a standard contract clause or certification.
    FTA Response: The U.S. Office of Management and Budget added this 
to the Uniform Requirements in 2024. 89 FR 30136. As part of assessing 
a potential contractor's responsibility, the rule now requires the 
recipient or subrecipient to consider the contractor's proper 
classification of its employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 2 
CFR 200.318(h). The rule does not specify that the recipient must make 
a special investigation or acquire relevant information in any other 
particular manner. The commenter's suggestion that a certification or 
contract clause could be employed may be acceptable. FTA does not have 
further guidance to provide at this time.
    Comment: A city agency asked whether the Circular's new guidance 
regarding protection and types of data rights created a change to the 
required clauses recipients must include in their contracts. The 
commenter also asked where to find a list of required clauses

[[Page 4843]]

now that Appendix D no longer is part of the Circular.
    FTA Response: The Circular's guidance regarding data rights has not 
created a new required clause. FTA intends to update and maintain a 
table of required clauses separate from Circular 4220.1G on FTA's 
website.
    Comment: Regarding organizational conflicts of interest during 
contracting, a city agency asked whether a consultant who assisted in 
drafting reports or partial designs can still bid on future project 
phases if the recipient discloses the consultant's work to other 
potential bidders.
    FTA Response: The comment presents a fact-specific hypothetical 
that is beyond the scope of this comment process. FTA encourages the 
commenter to contact its FTA regional office if it has discovered or is 
trying to cure an organizational conflict of interest.
    Comment: A city agency commented that Chapter IV, Section 2.b(4) 
creates a barrier for non-profits and SBEs/DBEs by requiring an 
indirect cost rate for non-A&E services. They suggested flexibility to 
allow fixed or fully burdened rates, especially for community 
engagement work.
    FTA Response: The cost principles and requirements related to 
indirect cost rates found in 2 CFR part 200 specify how recipients may 
charge indirect costs to their FTA awards. FTA does not have rules 
about how the recipient's contractors charge indirect costs to the 
recipient. (An exception to this exists for A&E firms. The law requires 
a recipient to accept and use an A&E firm's indirect rate established 
in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. 49 U.S.C. 
5325(b).) That being said, the commenter's local rules may impose such 
requirements, but FTA cannot comment on local requirements.
    Comment: A transit bus manufacturer requested that FTA change its 
guidance that recipients ``may use'' progress payments and advance 
payments to say recipients ``should use'' such payments. The commenter 
also requested that FTA rephrase other parts of the section on advance 
and progress payments and include more examples to promote the use of 
advance and progress payments by recipients.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to replace the permissive ``may use'' 
with the more prescriptive ``should use''. The current language 
provides recipients with the flexibility to determine the most 
appropriate procurement approach based on their specific project needs 
and circumstances, while still adhering to Federal requirements. 
Additionally, FTA declines to provide exhaustive descriptions of 
circumstances where phrases like ``in some circumstances'' apply. The 
variability in procurement scenarios across agencies and projects makes 
it impractical to prescribe a one-size-fits-all definition. Recipients 
are encouraged to consult with their FTA Regional Offices for guidance 
when specific scenarios arise that require further clarification.
    Comment: In Chapter IV, Section 2(b)(9)(d), Liquidated Damages, a 
transit bus manufacturer suggested that FTA include statements 
balancing risk and related penalties, add descriptions of excusable 
delay on the part of contractors, and add a statement recommending that 
recipients allow contractors to be reimbursed for costs and damages 
associated with delivery delays requested or caused solely by the 
recipient. The commenter noted this is particularly relevant with 
respect to zero-emission bus delivery delays caused by charging or 
fueling infrastructure.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise this section to include 
specific descriptions of risk-balancing and excusable delay or to 
recommend contractor reimbursement for costs and damages associated 
with delivery delays caused solely by the recipient. The existing 
guidance provides sufficient flexibility for recipients to negotiate 
contract terms with their vendors, including provisions for liquidated 
damages, excusable delays, and risk-sharing, tailored to the specific 
circumstances of their procurements.
    Comment: A transit bus manufacturer suggested that in Chapter IV, 
Section 2(e), where the Circular discusses special considerations for 
rolling stock procurements, FTA include a paragraph on Excessive 
Bonding that discourages excessive bonding and includes descriptions of 
situations deemed excessive. The commenter suggested examples deemed 
excessive include bonding required when no payments are made until 
acceptance of vehicles, bonding that exceeds the amount of contracted 
work remaining or the amount of advance payments or progress payments, 
and bonding that exceeds the term of the period of performance. The 
commenter also suggested such a detailed list be included in the 
section on Excessive Bonding in Chapter VI. This commenter also 
suggested that Chapter IV, Section 2(e) clarify that Federal law only 
requires security for rolling stock procurements using advance or 
progress payments.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise this section to include a 
paragraph on Excessive Bonding with a detailed list of specific 
situations deemed excessive. Prescribing an exhaustive list of 
scenarios could unintentionally limit recipients' ability to make risk-
based determinations suited to their unique procurement needs. The 
situations described by the commenter may or may not be excessive based 
on the specific facts and circumstances of any particular procurement. 
Therefore, it is better for FTA not to be so prescriptive, and to leave 
that to the discretion of the parties to the contract. The current 
guidance already aligns with Federal procurement standards and provides 
recipients with flexibility to assess bonding requirements based on 
their project-specific risks and financial considerations.
    Regarding the clarification on security for advance or progress 
payments in rolling stock procurements, FTA affirms that it requires 
security only for rolling stock procurements involving advance or 
progress payments. However, this requirement is already addressed in 
the guidance in the section describing advance and progress payments, 
which have application beyond just rolling stock procurements, and 
further clarification is unnecessary. FTA notes that recipients may 
require security in excess of the minimums required by FTA.
    Comment: A transit bus manufacturer requested that FTA include in 
Chapter IV, Section 2(e)(3) (paragraph referring to FTA's minimum 
useful life policy for rolling stock), a statement that infrastructure 
and other property included in rolling stock purchases are also subject 
to the minimum useful life requirements in Circular 5010.1F. The 
commenter also requested FTA repeat the list of acceptable methods to 
determine minimum useful life from Circular 5010.1F, rather than 
referring to Circulars 5010.1F and 9050.1A.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise this section to include a 
statement about the useful life of infrastructure and other property 
related to rolling stock, or a list of acceptable methods for 
determining minimum useful life, rather than referencing Circulars 
5010.1F and 9050.1A. These circulars already provide detailed guidance 
on determining minimum useful life and duplicating their content within 
Circular 4220.1G would create unnecessary redundancy and potential 
inconsistencies across guidance documents. Recipients are encouraged to 
consult Circulars 5010.1F and 9050.1A for specific requirements 
regarding minimum useful life determinations for rolling stock and 
related infrastructure.

[[Page 4844]]

    Comment: A transit authority commented that in regions with a 
limited number of DBEs, meeting the specialized needs of Federally 
funded procurements is challenging. The commenter stated that the 
proposed tiered compliance standards and enhanced documentation 
requirements place significant administrative burdens on agencies 
without delivering corresponding benefits due to the scarcity of 
qualified DBEs in the region.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise the description of the DBE 
rule. The U.S. DOT DBE rule is a Department-wide rule administered by 
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and changes to it are 
beyond the scope of this circular update. FTA notes, however, that the 
DBE rule directs recipients to take into account the availability of 
DBEs when setting their DBE goals. 49 CFR 26.45.
    Comment: A transit authority commented that proactive measures to 
increase DBE participation, such as breaking contracts into smaller 
components or altering delivery schedules, are often impractical and 
may compromise cost efficiency and operational effectiveness. The 
transit authority commented that mandating these measures risks causing 
delays and increased costs for critical procurements.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to make changes in response to the 
comment. FTA declines to revise the description of the DBE rule. The 
U.S. DOT DBE rule is a Department-wide rule administered by the Office 
of the Secretary of Transportation, and changes to it are beyond the 
scope of this circular update. The DBE rule does not mandate the 
actions the commenter described; the DBE rule suggests them as actions 
a recipient can ``consider'' as part of good faith efforts to increase 
DBE participation. 49 CFR part 26, app. A para. IV.
    Comment: A transit authority commented that greater flexibility 
should be provided in compliance expectations for regions with limited 
DBE availability. The commenter specifically commented that FTA should 
allow recipients to demonstrate ``good faith efforts'' without punitive 
measures if participation goals cannot be met due to local constraints 
and offer exemptions or modified compliance standards for regions where 
DBE participation opportunities are demonstrably limited.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to make changes in response to the 
comment. The U.S. DOT DBE rule is a Department-wide rule administered 
by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and changes to it are 
beyond the scope of this circular update. The commenter should review 
the DBE rule, 49 CFR part 26, which does make provision for ``good 
faith efforts'' on the part of a recipient.
    Comment: A transit authority commented that rather than imposing 
rigid participation requirements, FTA should prioritize capacity-
building initiatives for DBEs in underserved regions. The commenter 
suggested that this approach would expand the pool of qualified DBEs 
over time and better align with long-term equity goals.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to make changes in response to the 
comment. The U.S. DOT DBE rule is a Department-wide rule administered 
by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and changes to it are 
beyond the scope of this circular update.
    Comment: A transit authority requested that FTA expand the 
Circular's guidance related to software-as-a-service (SaaS) agreements. 
The commenter requested that FTA add more detail addressing shared data 
ownership in SaaS agreements, the eligibility of SaaS licensing for 
Federal funds, and detailed clarification about the respective 
cybersecurity responsibilities of the customer and the SaaS vendor. The 
commenter also requested that FTA create a requirement about data 
portability at the end of a SaaS contract and develop model clauses and 
forms for recipients to use when procuring SaaS.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to make these revisions. The purpose of 
the Circular is to describe the Federal procurement standards and how 
they apply to recipients' transit related procurements. The commenter's 
suggestions are far more detailed and specific than the Federal 
standards and are beyond the scope of this Circular. The guidance in 
the Circular section acknowledges these data issues at a high level, 
while not being unnecessarily prescriptive, and allows recipients and 
their vendors to make these determinations for themselves.
    Comment: A transit authority commented that FTA should include a 
dedicated appendix featuring case studies of successful P3 
implementations, highlighting best practices and lessons learned, 
noting that examples would offer practical insights into how P3s have 
been structured, financed, and managed effectively in real-world 
scenarios.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to create a dedicated appendix featuring 
case studies of successful P3 implementations. While case studies can 
offer valuable insights, the purpose of FTA Circular 4220.1G is to 
provide regulatory guidance and requirements for federally funded 
procurements. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) conducts 
research on P3s and some of their reports may include case studies. 
Interested stakeholders may review these studies on TCRP's website: 
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/search/?term=public+private+partnerships.
    Comment: A transit authority commented that FTA should simplify 
compliance requirements for procuring products with recycled content, 
prioritize high-impact product categories, and allow greater 
flexibility for product categories with lower environmental impact. 
They suggested allowing agencies to document ``good faith efforts'' 
when such products are either unavailable in the market or cost-
prohibitive. Additionally, they recommended a self-certification 
process to reduce the administrative burden associated with compliance 
and requested a balance between benefits and practicality.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise the guidance. The requirements 
related to procurement of recovered or recycled materials are a 
governmentwide regulation, 2 CFR 200.323, and FTA cannot amend them. 
The text in the Circular closely follows the text of the regulation, 
which already allows for practicality.
    Comment: A transit authority commented that FTA should offer 
technical assistance and training to help agencies effectively 
incorporate recycled content requirements into their procurement 
processes. They suggested providing webinars, guides, or resources 
outlining best practices and market opportunities. They also suggested 
that FTA should promote collaboration through joint procurements or 
cooperative purchasing agreements for recycled-content products, which 
would enable smaller agencies to access competitive pricing and a 
broader range of product options.
    FTA Response: FTA acknowledges the request for additional support 
to procure recycled-content products, but such efforts are beyond the 
scope of the Circular update.
    Comment: A transit authority commented that FTA should incorporate 
the following verbiage to Chapter IV, Section 1.a: FTA prohibits, with 
limited exceptions, the use of capital assistance for the recipient's 
operating expenses.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to add the suggested language because 
the existing language in this section already reflects FTA's policy 
regarding the use

[[Page 4845]]

of capital assistance, and adding specific examples may create 
unnecessary redundancy or confusion. Recipients are expected to 
understand and adhere to statutory and regulatory limitations on the 
use of capital funds, as outlined in the applicable FTA circulars and 
other guidance documents.

E. Chapter V

    Comment: A consulting firm noted that interstate cooperative 
procurement contracts should also be allowed for non-rolling stock 
purchases as long as they comply with 2 CFR part 200.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to extend the use of interstate 
cooperative procurement contracts to non-rolling stock purchases. 
Current guidance aligns with section 3019(b) of the FAST Act, which 
authorizes such interstate purchasing from cooperative procurement 
contracts only for rolling stock and related equipment.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that the term ``open market'' 
needs to be clearly defined to avoid ambiguity.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to define the term ``open market'' 
further because the term is contextually understood within procurement 
practices, and additional definition is unnecessary.
    Comment: A state department of transportation commented that the 
proposed Third-Party Contracting Guidance (FTA C 4220.1G) should 
explicitly allow state and local agency technology procurement through 
interstate cooperative purchasing agreements and purchasing schedules, 
provided the participating states' procurement policies allow it, 
regardless of the state in which the agencies are located. The 
commenter suggested that restricting interstate purchasing schedules 
would disproportionately harm smaller and rural transit agencies, which 
often lack the resources to conduct independent procurements or 
establish state-specific schedules for modern transit technologies.
    FTA Response: Section 3019(b) of the FAST Act authorizes such 
interstate purchasing from cooperative procurements only for rolling 
stock and related equipment. FTA cannot amend it to include other 
products.
    Comment: A transit technology company commented in support of FTA's 
clarifications in Chapter V regarding joint procurement, state or local 
government purchasing schedules, and intergovernmental agreements. They 
noted that public sector entities often misunderstand FTA's stance on 
these arrangements and believe this clarification will encourage their 
use, ultimately improving efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the 
procurement process.
    FTA Response: FTA appreciates the comments of support for the 
proposed clarifications which are intended to provide transit agencies 
and stakeholders with guidance that ensures compliance with applicable 
laws and regulations while promoting efficiency and cost-effectiveness 
in procurement practices.
    Comment: A city agency commented that Chapter V, Section 4.d lacks 
clarity on why Interstate Purchasing Schedules are restricted, despite 
aligning with intergovernmental agreement principles. The commenter 
requested further explanation.
    FTA Response: FTA has added clarification to the Circular. 
Interstate purchasing schedules generally are ineligible for FTA 
funding because they curtail opportunities for competitive 
procurements. Section 3019(b) of the FAST Act makes an exception for 
interstate purchases of rolling stock and related equipment, but only 
for rolling stock and related equipment.

F. Chapter VI

    Comment: A consulting firm noted that evaluation criteria, 
including how proposals will be scored or rated, should be explicitly 
stated.
    FTA Response: Existing regulation, 2 CFR 200.320(b), requires that 
solicitations identify all evaluation factors and their relative 
importance. The Circular already states this requirement.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that the $50,000 threshold for 
contracts under the micro-purchase threshold should be tied to the 
total contract value rather than an annual limit.
    FTA Response: FTA has revised the Circular to clarify that the 
self-certification to use a higher threshold must occur annually. The 
threshold is not an annual ``budget'' for micro-purchases.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that task order contracts should 
be evaluated as competitive procurements among the pool of selected 
contractors.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to make this change, as the suggestion 
exceeds the requirements in the Federal procurement standards of 2 CFR 
part 200. The procurement standards do not prescribe how task orders 
are to be assigned under multiple award contracts. Recipients have 
discretion to manage their contracts and assign task orders 
effectively.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that the requirement to ``consider 
workforce impacts'' under cost and price analysis is unclear and should 
be clarified in terms of method and analysis depth.
    FTA Response: In 2024, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget 
amended 2 CFR 200.324(a) to add that a ``recipient or subrecipient 
should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the 
procurement transaction will displace public sector employees,'' as 
part of analyzing the cost or price of a procurement. (89 FR 30046). 
FTA will leave this term broad, to provide maximum discretion to 
recipients and to accommodate varied workforce considerations across 
projects.
    Comment: A consulting firm noted that cost analysis requirements 
should explicitly apply to single-bid or single-proposal conditions.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise the language to explicitly 
mandate a cost analysis for single-bid or single-proposal conditions. 
The provision as written notes that a recipient should perform a cost 
analysis when price competition is inadequate.
    Comment: A state department of transportation noted that the 
requirement to negotiate profit separately was removed from 2 CFR 
200.324 in the October 2024 update. However, the circular's language 
still included this requirement, creating a perceived conflict between 
the two regulations.
    FTA Response: FTA acknowledges this change to 2 CFR 200.324. It is 
considered a best practice to perform these tasks, and the Circular had 
preserved it as a recommendation, not a requirement. FTA has removed 
this from the final version of the Circular.
    Comment: A law firm on behalf of an industry coalition requested 
that FTA clarify that recipients planning to procure operations 
services through a multiyear contract should define the scope of work 
and performance metrics in their Request for Proposals. The commenter 
also noted that the contract should provide pricing flexibility. The 
commenter suggested that FTA should encourage recipients to seek input 
before putting out an RFP and include information that will aid bidders 
in developing proposals in the RFP. The commenter also suggested that 
RFPs should provide flexibility regarding substitutions of key staff.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise the Circular. The existing 
guidance in Chapter VI already emphasizes the importance of clearly 
defining requirements, evaluation criteria, and contract expectations 
in RFPs to ensure fair and effective competition, consistent with 
regulation, 2 CFR

[[Page 4846]]

200.320. Recipients have flexibility in structuring their RFPs and 
contracts to address the unique needs of their operations services 
procurements, including considerations for pricing structures and 
staffing substitutions. Furthermore, while seeking industry input 
before issuing an RFP may be useful, it is not universally required. 
The current guidance provides sufficient flexibility for recipients to 
develop RFPs that align with their procurement objectives while 
complying with Federal requirements.
    Comment: A law firm on behalf of an industry coalition suggested 
that FTA include a series of recommendations to recipients on what to 
include in contracts, such as provisions requiring the provision of 
detailed information from contract bidders, specifying a contract base 
period, bilateral rather than unilateral options for contract 
extension, inflation adjustment and force majeure clauses. This 
commenter also suggested FTA specify that fixed monthly fee and 
variable rate; variable rate; and cost plus rate structures are all 
appropriate for operations contracts.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to include these specific 
recommendations. FTA's existing guidance already provides recipients 
with the flexibility to structure contracts in a manner that best meets 
their operational and financial needs, provided they remain compliant 
with Federal procurement requirements. Similarly, FTA declines to 
prescribe specific pricing structures--such as fixed monthly fees, 
variable rates, or cost-plus rates--as universally appropriate for 
recipients. Recipients have discretion to select contract terms and 
pricing structures based on their procurement objectives, market 
conditions, and the specific requirements of each procurement.
    Comment: A city agency commented that Chapter VI, Section 2.g(1) 
should clarify whether contracts using negotiated hourly rates fall 
under the Cost Reimbursement category.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to amend the Circular to describe 
different types of cost reimbursement contracts, because these terms 
are generally understood in the contracting community, and recipients 
have broad discretion to craft contracts within the limits of the 
Federal procurement standards (e.g., cost-plus-percentage-of-cost 
contracts are ineligible). If the commenter has a question about a 
specific procurement, the commenter should contact its FTA regional 
office.
    Comment: A city agency commented that Chapter VI, Section h.2(c) 
should clarify the prohibition on using qualifications based selection 
(QBS) procedures to procure actual construction. They suggested adding 
a cross-reference for exceptions under alternative contracting methods.
    FTA Response: FTA has added a cross-reference to the section of the 
Circular discussing alternative contracting methods.
    Comment: A transit bus manufacturer suggested that in Chapter VI, 
Section 2(g), ``Contract Type Specified,'' FTA include language on 
price adjustment clauses and contract modifications on price increases.
    FTA Response: FTA declines to revise this section. The current 
guidance already provides recipients with flexibility to structure 
contracts, including incorporating price adjustment provisions where 
appropriate, as long as they remain consistent with Federal procurement 
requirements and principles of fair and reasonable pricing.

G. Chapter VII

    FTA is adopting as proposed the proposal to eliminate Chapter VII 
and replace it with a new paragraph in proposed Chapter III on 
Recipient Responsibilities and FTA's Role in Procurement Disputes.

Veronica Vanterpool,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-00992 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
```