[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 249 (Thursday, December 28, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67113-67115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31335]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Part 15


Federal Acquisition Regulation; Contracting by Negotiations; FAR 
Part 15 Rewrite

AGENCIES: Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are solicited from both government and industry 
personnel on how FAR Part 15 can be rewritten to better support 
contracting by negotiation. The Director of Defense Procurement, in 
concert with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, is sponsoring 
an initiative to rewrite Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, 
Contracting by Negotiation. The goal is to make Part 15 easier to 
understand and to eliminate policies, procedures, or requirements that 
impose unnecessary burdens on contractors or contracting officers. 
Regulatory requirements that are not required by statute, required to 
ensure adequately standardized government business practices, or 
required to protect the public interest will be considered for 
elimination. Innovative means of simplifying the procurement process 
and enhancing its efficiency will be considered for incorporation into 
the regulation.

    Comments may be submitted in two formats: (1) By letter to the 
address below, or (2) by electronic response on the Acquisition Reform 
Network's FAR Part 15 Rewrite Forum located on the 

[[Page 67114]]
Internet at http://www-far.npr.gov. All comments received will be 
posted in the Acquisition Reform Network's FAR Part 15 Rewrite Forum.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Part 15 Rewrite Committee Chair, Ms. 
Melissa Rider, DAR Council, Attn: IMD 3D139, PDUSD(A&T)DP/DAR, 3062 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20301-3062.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Melissa Rider, telephone (703) 602-0131. FAX (703) 602-0350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An interagency team has been established to 
rewrite FAR Part 15. The team members are drawn from the Department of 
Defense, civilian agencies, and the Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy. The team chair is Ms. Melissa Rider, with the Department of 
Defense. The team vice chair is Ms. Frances Sullivan, with the National 
Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA).
    The team is soliciting comments on recommended changes to Part 15. 
The following topics have already been raised by the Administrator, 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy, as potential areas of interest. 
Comments are requested on these topics, and any other ideas interested 
parties may offer.
    1. Use of Shall: In what way do you think Part 15 is overly 
prescriptive or overly permissive? We would appreciate your comments on 
this issue.
    2(a). Government-Industry Communications; Draft Solicitations: The 
team is considering expanding the use of draft RFPs. We would 
appreciate your input regarding the positive or negative impacts of 
using draft RFPs and any other comments you may have on the subject.
    2(b). Government-Industry Communications; Discussions: Within the 
confines of applicable law, the team is considering expanding the 
nature, scope, and timing of discussions held during the course of a 
procurement. We would appreciate your comments regarding the pros and 
cons of changing what constitutes discussions.
    2(c). Government-Industry Communications; Oral Presentations: FAR 
15.402(f) provides for oral solicitations in certain circumstances, but 
makes no provisions for oral circumstances, but makes no provisions for 
oral presentations. The team is considering adding guidance on the use 
of oral presentations. The team would appreciate your comments 
regarding the use of oral presentations, including experiences (good 
and bad) your organization has had with their use.
    3. Commercial Items: FAR 15.4, Solicitations and Receipt of 
Proposals and Quotations, and FAR 15.6, Source Selection, do not apply 
to acquisitions made using simplified acquisition procedures. We would 
appreciate your comments regarding whether commerical items should also 
be exempted from any of Part 15?
    4. Source Selection: The team would appreciate your comments on how 
the Part 15 coverage of greatest value contracting can be enhanced.
    5(a). Competitive Range; No Cost Proposal: Current coverage at FAR 
15.609(a) requires the contracting officer to determine the competitive 
range ``on the basis of cost or price and other factors.'' It has been 
suggested that it would be better for both the Government and the 
offeror to determine the competitive range without requiring a cost 
proposal. The Contracting Officer would still be able to get certain 
cost information (e.g., labor rates, past performance on cost control, 
etc.) to help determine which offerors are not in the running based on 
cost, but would not get a complete cost proposal prior to determining 
the competitive range. The team solicits your comments on benefits or 
disadvantages of deleting the requirement to consider cost in making 
the initial competitive range determination.
    5(b). Competitive Range; When there is doubt: The team directs your 
attention to FAR Case number 95-008, which was published as a proposed 
rule in the Federal Register on November 6, 1995 (60 FR 56035). You may 
provide comments on the proposed rule, which deletes the statement that 
a proposal should be included in the competitive range for the purpose 
of conducting discussions, if there is doubt as to whether the proposal 
is in the competitive range, through the GSA case manager noted in the 
proposed rule. The public comment period for the proposed rule ends on 
January 5, 1996.
    5(c). Competitive Range; Reasonable Chance: The team solicits your 
comments on the benefits or disadvantages of changing the standard for 
inclusion in the competitive range.
    5(d). Competitive Range; Two-phase Acquisitions: In using a two-
phase process, the agency would solicit information in the first phase 
regarding an offeror's capability to perform the contract. The offeror 
would not prepare a detailed cost or technical proposal in the first 
phase. Based on an offeror's capabilities, it would be invited to the 
second phase wherein the agency would ask for detailed technical 
proposals and cost information. Several agencies are already 
considering similar methods. If you have had experience using similar 
methods or would like to share your opinions on the topic, we would 
appreciate your comments.
    6(a). Contract Pricing; Subcontracts: The current coverage at FAR 
15.806-1(d) states that the prices of negotiated subcontractors should 
``in no instance * * * be accepted as the sole evidence that [such] 
prices are fair and reasonable.'' It has been suggested that this 
language be removed. We would appreciate any comments you want to share 
on the subject.
    6(b). Contract Pricing: TINA: If there are additional revisions you 
believe would further the efforts of the TINA drafting team, please let 
us know. The team would also like to solicit your opinions regarding 
the field pricing support coverage at FAR 15.805-5.
    7. Agency supplementation: The public's views are sought on the 
extent to which agency supplementation of FAR Part 15, other than 
internal agency procedures, should be limited.
    8. Evolving (changes to) solicitations on commercial item 
acquisitions: Under traditional procurement thinking, contracting 
officials are expected to have completed intensive needs and product 
analyses before they initiate the formal competitive procurement 
process, which requires substantial acquisition leadtimes. The public's 
views are sought regarding whether and how the FAR provisions for 
making changes to evaluation factors and contract requirements in the 
acquisition of commercial items should be modified to ensure that 
agencies may more efficiently and effectively match their needs with 
commercially available technologies and products.
    9. Open negotiation techniques: In the commercial marketplace, 
competitions may involve techniques in which the buyer releases or 
otherwise makes available the bid prices of all vendors without 
revealing competitive secrets (e.g., cost breakdowns, vendor name, 
etc.). These sorts of auctioning techniques are currently prohibited in 
the FAR. The public's view are sought on whether such prohibitions can 
and should be narrowed or eliminated.
    10. Use of source selection standards: Currently, agencies develop 
evaluation standards to establish a uniform baseline to determine how 
well an offeror's proposal satisfies the source selection evaluation 
criteria. Evaluation criteria and standards can be difficult to 
determine, particularly with respect to commercial items and in cases 
where the Government's requirements are stated in terms of performance 
objectives rather than detailed 

[[Page 67115]]
specifications. In such cases, the offeror's lack of knowledge of the 
standards may hinder its ability to know the basis upon which the offer 
will be evaluated.
    The public's views are sought regarding what types of acquisitions, 
if any, might warrant the release of evaluation standards as part of 
the solicitation. The public's views are also sought on whether there 
are circumstances in which proposals should be evaluated against one 
another as opposed to a set of standards.
    11. Unsolicited proposals: The public's views are sought on whether 
the FAR provisions addressing the handling of unsolicited proposals 
discourage industry from investing independent research and development 
funds in unique and innovative ideas and, therefore, should be 
modified.
Linda W. Neilson,
Deputy Director, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
[FR Doc. 95-31335 Filed 12-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M