Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21367

§ 301–76.2 What is disposable pay?

Disposable pay is the part of the

employee’s compensation remaining

after the deduction of any amounts

required by law to be withheld. These

deductions do not include discretionary

deductions such as savings bonds,

charitable contributions, etc. Deductions

may be made from any type of pay, e.g.,

basic pay, special pay, retirement pay,

or incentive pay.

Dated: April 13, 2000.

David J. Barram,

Administrator of General Services.

[FR Doc. 00–9774 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

48 CFR Parts 919 and 952

RIN 1991–AB45

Acquisition Regulations: MentorProtege Program

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) is amending its acquisition

regulations to encourage DOE prime

contractors to assist small

disadvantaged firms certified by the

Small Business Administration under

Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act

(8(a)), other small disadvantaged

businesses, Historically Black Colleges

and Universities and other minority

institutions of higher learning, womenowned small businesses and small

business concerns owned and

controlled by service disabled veterans

in enhancing their capabilities to

perform contracts and subcontracts for

DOE and other Federal agencies. The

program seeks to foster long-term

business relationships between DOE

prime contractors and these small

business entities and minority

institutions of higher learning and to

increase the overall number of these

small business entities and minority

institutions that receive DOE contract

and subcontract awards.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will take effect

May 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene Tates, Mentor-Protege Program,

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–

4556; or Robert M. Webb, U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of

Procurement and Assistance

Management, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585,

(202) 586–8264.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

II. Resolution of Comments

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act

E. Review Under the National Environmental

Policy Act

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995

H. Treasury and General Government

Appropriation Act, 1999

I. Congressional Notification

I. Background

On June 9, 1995, DOE published final

guidelines for its Mentor-Protege Pilot

Initiative (60 FR 30529). The purpose of

the Initiative was to develop a program

that encouraged DOE prime contractors

to help energy-related small

disadvantaged, 8(a), and women-owned

small businesses in enhancing their

business and technical capabilities to

ensure full participation in the mission

of DOE. In addition, the Initiative

sought to foster the establishment of

long term business relationships

between these small business entities

and DOE prime contractors and to

increase the overall number of these

small business entities eligible to

receive DOE contract and subcontract

awards. In order to achieve the goal of

the Initiative, DOE prime contractors

entered into formal agreements with

qualified small businesses to provide

developmental assistance. In many

cases, this assistance has enabled small

businesses to benefit from the vast

wealth of knowledge acquired by large,

successful firms doing business with

DOE.

The success of the DOE business

mentoring relationships and the

continuing need to develop small

disadvantaged business, 8(a) firms and

women-owned small businesses

capabilities to perform contracts and

subcontracts for DOE led DOE to

propose the creation of a permanent

DOE Mentor-Protege Program. DOE

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking on December 6, 1999 (64 FR

68072), which proposed a program

having the same goals and objectives as

the original DOE Mentor-Protege Pilot

Initiative. Some refinements were

proposed to provide additional

incentives for prime contractor

participation in the Mentor-Protege

Program. After carefully considering the

public comments received on the notice

of proposed rulemaking, DOE today

publishes a final rule.

II. Resolution of Comments

Fourteen comments were received in

response to the proposed rule. The

comments and DOE’s responses are as

follows:

Comment: It is unclear whether or not

DOE would reimburse Mentors for costs

incurred by providing developmental

assistance to Protege firms.

Response: The Mentor-Protege rule is

clear on this issue. DOE has stated

throughout the rule that developmental

assistance costs are allowable if they are

incurred by the Mentor in the

performance of a DOE contract spelled

out in the Mentor-Protege Agreement

and are otherwise allowable in

accordance with the cost principles

applicable to that contract.

Comment: Do existing Mentor-Protege

Agreements developed under the DOE

Mentor-Protege Pilot Initiative have to

be amended when this rule becomes

effective?

Response: Existing agreements do not

have to be amended. The new rule

applies only to new agreements.

Comment: The rule does not cover

small business concerns owned and

controlled by service disabled veterans.

Response: DOE has revised the rule to

include small business concerns owned

and controlled by service disabled

veterans, as defined in the Veterans

Entrepreneurship and Small Business

Development Act of 1999, Pub. L. No.

106–50.

Comment: Which small

disadvantaged businesses, other than

8(a) firms, are eligible to participate in

the Program?

Response: All small disadvantaged

businesses that meet the eligibility

requirements in paragraphs (a)(2)–(4) of

§ 919.7007 are eligible to participate.

Comment: Why, under § 919.7008(d)

of the rule, does DOE only permit

protests regarding the small business

size of a firm, and not a firm’s status as

a small disadvantaged business, etc.?

Response: Small disadvantaged

business status cannot be protested

under this rule because the DOE

Mentor-Protege Program is not limited

to small disadvantaged businesses. Even

if a firm is not a small disadvantaged

business, it could still qualify as a small

business.

Comment: A prospective Mentor

should be required under § 919.7005 to

provide evidence that the business is

currently performing a DOE contract

which contains a subcontracting plan.

Response: DOE can identify its

current contractors, so there is no need

for such a requirement.

21368 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Comment: DOE should allow

designees of the chief executive officers

of Mentor and Protege firms to execute

the Mentor-Protege Agreements.

Response: DOE agrees that delegation

is appropriate for larger, Mentor firms,

but it would not be necessary for

smaller, Proteges. Therefore, in

§ 919.7009, DOE allows the Mentor

firm’s chief executive officer to

designate another company official to

execute the Mentor-Protege Agreement.

Comment: DOE should delete the

procedure in proposed § 919.7010(f) for

completing performance in the case of

withdrawal or termination by either

party to the Agreement.

Response: DOE has deleted the

procedure for completing performance

because the terms of awarded

subcontracts will still be binding in the

event of Agreement termination.

Comment: DOE’s request for a

description of developmental assistance

to be provided to Protege firms under

proposed § 919.7010(c) is duplicated by

DOE’s request for an explanation of how

the developmental assistance will

increase subcontracting opportunities

for the Protege under proposed

§ 919.7010(j).

Response: DOE disagrees with this

comment. The mere description of the

planned developmental assistance

required by paragraph (c) does not

explain how such assistance is expected

to increase subcontracting opportunities

of the Protege firm. These are separate

provisions that need to be discussed

separately in the Agreement.

Comment: Under what specific

conditions could DOE terminate its

recognition of a Mentor-Protege

Agreement?

Response: DOE does not attempt to

specify in this rule the conditions or

situations that would warrant

termination of DOE’s recognition of an

approved DOE Mentor-Protege

agreement. That is left for case-by-case

decision.

Comment: Which contracting officer

is responsible for oversight if the Mentor

has more than one DOE contract?

Response: The contracting officer for

each contract identified in the MentorProtege Agreement, under § 919.7010(k),

is the official responsible for oversight

of the contract under his/her

responsibility.

Comment: DOE should delete the

word ‘‘field’’ as used in § 919.7013 in

the term ‘‘field technical program

manager’’ because technical program

managers could be located in either the

field or DOE headquarters.

Response: DOE agrees and deletes the

word ‘‘field’’ from § 919.7013 and

§ 919.7010(j).

Comment: The proposed rule would

add an unnecessary layer of

requirements, administered from DOE

Headquarters, on contractors who

already have programs that accomplish

the goals of improving relationships

with small, small disadvantaged,

women-owned, and minority

institutions.

Response: DOE disagrees and thinks

the program established by these

regulations provides additional

incentives for its contractors to provide

assistance to the potential Protege firms.

The program’s reporting requirements in

§ 919.7013 are necessary for proper

program evaluation.

Comment: DOE should change the

Protege eligibility requirement in

§ 919.7007(a)(3) that a firm must have

been in business for at least two years

to no more than one year. In today’s

high-tech economy, a one-year old

company is considered ‘‘established.’’

Response: The highly technical nature

of DOE’s global mission requires that a

Protege have at least two years of

business experience.

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

Today’s regulatory action has been

determined not to be a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review,’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4,

1993). Accordingly, this rule was not

subject to review under that Executive

Order by the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing

regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations, section 3(a) of

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),

imposes on Executive agencies the

general duty to adhere to the following

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity; (2) write

regulations to minimize litigation; and

(3) provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct rather than a general

standard and promote simplification

and burden reduction.

With regard to the review required by

section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive

Order 12988 specifically requires that

Executive agencies make every

reasonable effort to ensure that the

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the

subject law’s preemptive effect, if any;

(2) clearly specifies any effect on

existing Federal law or regulation; (3)

provides a clear legal standard for

affected conduct while promoting

simplification and burden reduction; (4)

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)

adequately defines key terms; and (6)

addresses other important issues

affecting clarity and general

draftsmanship under any guidelines

issued by the Attorney General. Section

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires

Executive agencies to review regulations

in light of applicable standards in

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to

determine whether they are met or it is

unreasonable to meet one or more of

them. DOE has completed the required

review and determined that this final

rule meets the relevant standards of

Executive Order 12988.

C. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires

preparation of an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis for any rule that

must be proposed for public comment

and that is likely to have significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. However, the

analysis requirement does not apply if

the agency certifies that the rule, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The entities to

which this rulemaking would apply are

large business and small business firms

that receive a form of incentive for

assuming the role of Mentor to 8(a)

firms, other small disadvantaged

businesses, small women-owned

businesses, Historically Black

Universities and Colleges, and other

minority institutions of higher learning,

and small business concerns owned and

controlled by disabled veterans. It is

expected that under this rule the protege

entities would directly benefit from the

forms of mentoring provided for in the

rule. There would not be an adverse

economic impact on contractors or

subcontractors. Accordingly, DOE

certifies that this rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

and therefore, no regulatory flexibility

analysis has been prepared.

D. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act

This rule would require DOE

contractors serving as mentors to submit

semi-annual progress reports to the DOE

Mentor-Protege Program Manager at

DOE Headquarters (see § 919.7013). The

information in the progress reports is

necessary to determine if the schedules

and developmental assistance levels

contained in Mentor-Protege

Agreements are being met. Performance

under the Agreements is the basis for

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21369

awarding incentive fees to mentor firms.

DOE submitted the proposed collection

of information to the Office of

Management and Budget for review and

approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

The Office of Management and Budget

has not yet approved the collection of

information in this rule. An agency may

not conduct or sponsor and a person is

not required to respond to a collection

of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number (5

CFR 1320.5(b)).

E. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

DOE has concluded that this rule falls

into a class of actions which would not

individually or cumulatively have

significant impact on the human

environment, as determined by DOE’s

regulations (10 CFR part 1021, subpart

D) implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

Specifically, this rule is categorically

excluded from NEPA review because

the amendments to the DEAR would be

strictly procedural (categorical

exclusion A6). Therefore, this rule does

not require an environmental impact

statement or environmental assessment

pursuant to NEPA.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 4, 1999) imposes certain

requirements on agencies formulating

and implementing policies or

regulations that preempt State law or

that have other federalism implications.

Agencies are required to examine the

constitutional and statutory authority

supporting any action that would limit

the policymaking discretion of the

States and carefully assess the necessity

for such actions. DOE has examined

today’s rule and has determined that it

does not have a substantial direct effect

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. No further

action is required by Executive Order

13132.

G. Review Under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) generally

requires a Federal agency to perform a

detailed assessment of costs and

benefits of any rule imposing a federal

mandate with costs to State, local or

tribal governments, or to the private

sector of $100 million or more. This

rulemaking would only affect private

sector entities, and the impact is less

than $100 million.

H. Treasury and General Government

Appropriations Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and

General Government Appropriation,

1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Federal

Agencies to issue a Family

Policymaking Assessment for any

proposed rule that may affect family

well being. Today’s rule would not have

any impact on the autonomy or integrity

of the family as an institution.

Accordingly, DOE concluded that it is

not necessary to prepare a Family

Policymaking Assessment.

I. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will

submit to Congress a report regarding

the issuance of today’s final rule. The

report will state that it has been

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major

rule,’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 919 and

952

Government procurement.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 17,

2000.

Richard H. Hopf,

Director, Office of Procurement and

Assistance Management.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, Chapter 9 of Title 48 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as set forth below.

PART 919—SMALL BUSINESS

PROGRAMS

1. The authority citation for Parts 919

and 952 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486 (c); 42 U.S.C.

7101, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2201; 50 U.S.C. 2401,

et seq.

2. A new subpart 919.70 is added in

Subchapter D to read as follows:

Subpart 919.70—The Department of Energy

Mentor-Protege Program

Sec.

919.7001 Scope of subpart.

919.7002 Definitions.

919.7003 General policy.

919.7004 General prohibitions.

919.7005 Eligibility to be a Mentor.

919.7006 Incentives for DOE contractor

participation.

919.7007 Eligibility to be a Protege.

919.7008 Selection of Proteges.

919.7009 Process for participation in the

program.

919.7010 Contents of Mentor-Protege

Agreement.

919.7011 Developmental assistance.

919.7012 Review and approval process of

agreement by OSDBU.

919.7013 Reports.

919.7014 Solicitation provision.

Subpart 919.70—The Department of

Energy Mentor-Protege Program

919.7001 Scope of subpart.

The Department of Energy (DOE)

Mentor-Protege Program is designed to

encourage DOE prime contractors to

assist small disadvantaged firms

certified by the Small Business

Administration (SBA) under Section

8(a) of the Small Business Act (8(a)),

other small disadvantaged businesses,

women-owned small businesses,

Historically Black Colleges and

Universities, and other minority

institutions of higher learning, and

small business concerns owned and

controlled by service disabled veterans

in enhancing their capabilities to

perform contracts and subcontracts for

DOE and other Federal agencies. The

program seeks to foster long-term

business relationships between these

small business entities and DOE prime

contractors, and to increase the overall

number of these small business entities

that receive DOE contract and

subcontract awards.

919.7002 Definitions.

Historically Black Colleges and

Universities (HBCUs) means an

institution determined by the Secretary

of Education to meet the requirements

of 34 CFR 608.2.

Other minority institutions of higher

learning means an institution

determined by the Secretary of

Education to meet the requirements of

20 U.S.C. 1067k.

Small business concern owned and

controlled by service-disabled veterans

means a small business concern as

defined in Public Law 106–50, Veterans

Entrepreneurship and Small Business

Development Act of 1999.

Small disadvantaged business means

a small business concern owned and

controlled by socially and economically

disadvantaged individuals that meets

the requirements of 13 CFR part 124,

subpart B.

Women-owned small business means

a small business concern that meets the

requirements of 15 U.S.C. 637(d)(3)(D).

919.7003 General policy.

(a) DOE contractors eligible under 48

CFR 919.7005 may enter into

agreements with businesses certified by

the SBA in the 8(a) Program, other small

disadvantaged businesses, womenowned small businesses, HBCUs, other

minority institutions of higher learning,

and small business concerns owned and

controlled by service disabled veterans

to provide those firms appropriate

21370 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

developmental assistance to enhance

the capabilities of Proteges.

(b) Costs incurred by a Mentor to

provide developmental assistance, as

described in 919.7011, are allowable

only to the extent that they are incurred

in performance of a contract identified

in the Mentor-Protege Agreement and

are otherwise allowable in accordance

with the cost principles applicable to

that contract.

(c) Headquarters Office of Small and

Disadvantaged Business Utilization

(OSDBU) is the DOE Program Manager

for the Mentor-Protege Program.

919.7004 General prohibitions.

DOE will not reimburse the costs of a

Mentor in providing any form of

developmental assistance to a Protege

except as provided in 919.7003(b).

919.7005 Eligibility to be a Mentor.

To be eligible for recognition by DOE

as a Mentor, an entity must be

performing at least one contract for

DOE.

919.7006 Incentives for DOE contractor

participation.

(a) Under cost-plus-award fee

contracts, approved Mentor firms may

earn award fees associated with their

performance as a Mentor. The award fee

plan may include provision for the

evaluation of the contractor’s utilization

of 8(a) firms, other small disadvantaged

businesses, women-owned small

businesses, HBCUs, other minority

institutions of higher learning and small

business concerns owned and

controlled by service disabled veterans.

DOE may evaluate the Mentor’s

performance in the DOE Mentor-Protege

Program under any Mentor-Protege

Agreement(s) as a separate element of

the award fee plan.

(b) Mentors shall receive credit for

subcontracts awarded pursuant to their

Mentor-Protege Agreements toward

subcontracting goals contained in their

subcontracting plan.

919.7007 Eligibility to be a Protege.

(a) To be eligible for selection as a

Protege, a firm must:

(1) Be a small business certified under

Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act

by SBA, other small disadvantaged

business, a women-owned small

business, HBCU, or any other minority

institution of higher learning, or a small

business concern owned and controlled

by service disabled veterans;

(2) Be eligible for receipt of

government contracts;

(3) Have been in business for at least

two (2) years prior to application for

enrollment into the Mentor-Protege

Program; and

(4) Be able to certify as a small

business according to the Standard

Industrial Code for the services or

supplies to be provided by the Protege

under its subcontract with the Mentor.

(b) A prospective Mentor may rely in

good faith on written representations by

a prospective Protege that the Protege

meets the requirements in paragraph (a)

of this section.

919.7008 Selection of Proteges.

(a) A Mentor firm is solely responsible

for selecting one or more Protege

entities from firms eligible under 48

CFR 919.7007.

(b) A Mentor may have more than one

Protege; however, a Protege may have

only one Mentor.

(c) The selection of Protege firms by

Mentor firms may not be protested,

except as provided in paragraph (d) of

this section.

(d) Only protests regarding the small

business size status of a firm to be a

Protege will be considered and shall be

submitted to the DOE Office of Small

and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

for resolution. If that office is unable to

resolve a protest, it will refer the matter

to the Small Business Administration

for resolution in accordance with 13

CFR part 121.

919.7009 Process for participation in the

program.

A prospective Mentor must submit

the following to the DOE MentorProtege Program Manager.

(a) A statement that it is eligible, as of

the date of application, for the award of

Federal contracts;

(b) A statement that it is currently

performing at least one contract for

DOE;

(c) The DOE contract number, type of

contract, period of performance

(including options), title of technical

program effort, name of DOE technical

program manager (including contact

information) and the DOE contracting

activity; and

(d) An original and two copies of the

Mentor-Protege Agreement signed by

the chief executive officer or designee of

the Mentor firm and the chief executive

officer of the Protege firm.

919.7010 Contents of Mentor-Protege

Agreement.

The proposed Mentor-Protege

Agreement must contain:

(a) Names, addresses and telephone

numbers of Mentor and Protege firms

and a point of contact within each firm

who will oversee the Agreement;

(b) Requirements for the Mentor firm

or the Protege firm to notify the other

entity, DOE Headquarters OSDBU, and

the contracting officer in writing at least

30 days in advance of the Mentor firm’s

or the Protege firm’s intent to

voluntarily terminate or withdraw from

the Mentor-Protege Agreement (such

termination would not terminate any

existing subcontract between the Mentor

and the Protege);

(c) A description of the form of

developmental assistance program that

will be provided by the Mentor to the

Protege firm, including a description of

any subcontract work, and a schedule

for providing the assistance and the

criteria for evaluation of the Protege’s

developmental success (48 CFR

919.7011);

(d) A listing of the number and types

and estimated amount of subcontracts to

be awarded to the Protege firm;

(e) Term of the Agreement;

(f) Procedures to be invoked should

DOE terminate its recognition of the

Agreement for good cause (such

termination of DOE recognition would

not constitute a termination of the

subcontract between the Mentor and the

Protege);

(g) Provision for the Mentor firm to

submit to the DOE Mentor-Protege

Program Manager a ‘‘lessons learned’’

evaluation developed by the Mentor at

the conclusion of the Mentor-Protege

Agreement;

(h) Provision for the submission by

the Protege firm of a ‘‘lessons learned’’

evaluation to the DOE Mentor-Protege

Program Manager at the conclusion of

the Mentor-Protege Agreement;

(i) Description of how the

development assistance will potentially

increase subcontracting opportunities

for the Protege firm;

(j) Provision for the Mentor firm to

brief the DOE Mentor-Protege Program

Manager, the technical program

manager(s), and the contracting officer

at the conclusion of each year in the

Mentor-Protege Program regarding

program accomplishments as pertains to

the approved Agreement (where

possible, this review may be

incorporated into the normal program

review for the Mentor’s contract);

(k) Recognition that costs incurred by

a Mentor to provide developmental

assistance, as described in 48 CFR

919.7011, are allowable only to the

extent that they are incurred in

performance of a contract identified in

the Mentor-Protege Agreement and are

otherwise allowable in accordance with

the cost principles applicable to that

contract (the DOE Mentor-Protege

Program has no appropriation for paying

for developmental assistance); and

(l) Other terms and conditions, as

appropriate.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 21371

919.7011 Developmental assistance.

(a) The forms of developmental

assistance a Mentor may provide to a

Protege include, but are not limited to:

(1) Management guidance relating to:

(i) Financial management,

(ii) Organizational management,

(iii) Overall business management

planning,

(iv) Business development, and

(v) Marketing assistance;

(2) Engineering and other technical

assistance;

(3) Noncompetitive award of

subcontracts under DOE or other

Federal contracts where otherwise

authorized;

(4) Award of subcontracts in the

Mentor’s commercial activities;

(5) Progress payments based on costs;

(6) Rent-free use of facilities and/or

equipment owned or leased by Mentor;

and

(7) Temporary assignment of Mentor

personnel to the Protege for purposes of

training.

(b) Costs incurred by a Mentor to

provide developmental assistance, as

described in paragraph (a) of this

section, are allowable only to the extent

provided at 48 CFR 919.7003(b).

919.7012 Review and approval process of

agreement by OSDBU.

(a) OSDBU will review the proposed

Mentor-Protege Agreement under 48

CFR 919.7010 and will complete its

review and assessment no later than 30

days after receipt. OSDBU will provide

a copy of its assessment to the cognizant

DOE technical program manager and

contracting officer for review and

concurrence.

(b) If OSDBU approves the

Agreement, the Mentor may implement

the developmental assistance program.

(c) Upon finding deficiencies that

DOE considers correctable, the OSDBU

will notify the Mentor and request

information to be provided within 30

days that may correct the deficiencies.

The Mentor may then provide

additional information for

reconsideration. The review of any

supplemental material will be

completed within 30 days after receipt

by the OSDBU and the Agreement either

approved or disapproved.

919.7013 Reports.

(a) Prior to performing an evaluation

of a Mentor’s performance under its

Mentor-Protege Agreement for use in

award fee evaluations, the MentorProtege Program Manager must consult

with the cognizant DOE technical

program manager and must provide a

copy of the performance evaluation

comments regarding the technical effort

and Mentor-Protege development to the

contracting officer.

(b) The DOE Mentor-Protege Program

Manager must submit semi-annual

reports to the cognizant contracting

officer regarding the participating

Mentor’s performance in the Program

for use in the award fee determination

process.

(c) The Mentor firm must submit

progress reports to the DOE MentorProtege Program Manager semiannually.

919.7014 Solicitation provision.

The cognizant contracting officer

must insert the provision at 952.219–70,

DOE Mentor-Protege Program, in all

solicitations with an estimated value in

excess of the simplified acquisition

threshold.

PART 952—SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT

CLAUSES

3. A new subsection 952.219–70, DOE

Mentor-Protege Program is added as

follows:

952.219–70 DOE Mentor-Protege program.

In accordance with 919.7014 insert

the following provision in applicable

solicitations.

DOE Mentor-Protege Program

(May 2000)

The Department of Energy has established

a Mentor-Protege Program to encourage its

prime contractors to assist firms certified

under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act

by SBA, other small disadvantaged

businesses, women-owned small businesses,

Historically Black Colleges and Universities

and Minority Institutions, other minority

institutions of higher learning and small

business concerns owned and controlled by

service disabled veterans in enhancing their

business abilities. If the contract resulting

from this solicitation is awarded on a costplus-award fee basis, the contractor’s

performance as a Mentor may be evaluated as

part of the award fee plan. Mentor and

Protege firms will develop and submit

‘‘lessons learned’’ evaluations to DOE at the

conclusion of the contract. Any DOE

contractor that is interested in becoming a

Mentor should refer to the applicable

regulations at 48 CFR 919.70 and should

contact the Department of Energy’s Office of

Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization.

[FR Doc. 00–9981 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

48 CFR Part 970

RIN 1991–AB02

Acquisition Regulation: Financial

Management Clauses for Management

and Operating (M&O) Contracts

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) amends its Acquisition

Regulation to designate certain

Department of Energy Acquisition

Regulation (DEAR) M&O contract

clauses and Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) clauses as Standard

Financial Management Clauses to be

included in M&O contracts unless the

Chief Financial Officer (CFO) concurs in

a deviation. Additionally, this final rule

will revise selected existing financial

management clauses and add financial

management related clauses.

DATES: This final rule is effective May

22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael L. Righi, Office of Policy (MA–

51), Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20585; 202–586–8175

(phone); 202–586–0545 (facsimile); or

michael.l.righi@pr.doe.gov (Internet).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

II. Discussion of Public Comments

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Review of Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996

I. Background

On November 18, 1998, the

Department of Energy (DOE or

Department) published in the Federal

Register (63 FR 64024) a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking to amend the

DEAR to designate certain Department

of Energy Acquisition Regulation

(DEAR) M&O contract clauses and

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

clauses as Standard Financial

Management Clauses to be included in

M&O contracts unless the Chief

Financial Officer (CFO) concurs in a

deviation. Additionally, this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking proposed to

revise selected existing financial