25440 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules

State City/town/county Source of flooding Location

#Depth in feet above

ground. *Elevation in feet.

(NGVD)

Existing Modified

At the border of Newton County and

Sabine Parish.

None *117

Maps are available for inspection at the Newton County Courthouse, Highway 190 West, Newton, Texas.

Send comments to The Honorable Lon Sharver, Newton County Judge, P.O. Box J, Newton, Texas 75966.

Texas ..................... Parker County (Unincorporated

Areas).

Clear Fork Trinity River .... At Tarrant County-Parker County Line ..... None *734

Just downstream of Armageddon Ranch

Road.

None *752

At Underwood Road ................................. None *808

Approximately 150 feet upstream of

Crown Road Bridge.

*847 *843

At City of Weatherford corporate limits .... *859 *856

Stream CF (WP)–1 ........... Approximately 1,200 feet downstream of

East Bankhead Drive.

None *827

Approximately 120 feet downstream of

East Bankhead Drive.

None *835

Just upstream of East Bankhead Drive ... None *841

Maps are available for inspection at the Floodplain Department, Office of the County Judge, One Courthouse Square, Weatherford, Texas.

Send comments to The Honorable Ben Long, County Judge, Parker County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Weatherford, Texas

76086.

Texas ..................... Weatherford (City)

Parker County.

Clear Fork Trinity River .... At the corporate limits approximately

1,000 feet downstream of West Lake

Drive.

*859 *856

Approximately 400 feet upstream of West

Lake Road.

None *860

Maps are available for inspection at the Department of Code Enforcement, City of Weatherford, City Hall, 303 Palo Pinto Street, Weatherford,

Texas.

Send comments to The Honorable Sherry Watson, Mayor, City of Weatherford, P.O. Box 255, Weatherford, Texas 76086.

Texas ..................... Willow Park (City) Clear Fork Trinity River .... At the corporate limits approximately 400

feet downstream of East Bankhead

Highway.

*833 *830

Approximately 100 feet upstream of Interstate Highway 20.*839 *834

At the upstream corporate limits approximately 6,300 feet upstream of Interstate Highway 20 westbound.*845 *843

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, City of Willow Park, 101 Stage Coach Trail, Willow Park, Texas.

Send comments to The Honorable William Clemens, Mayor, City of Willow Park, 101 Stage Coach Trail, Willow Park, Texas 76086.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

Dated: May 13, 1996.

Richard W. Krimm,

Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 96–12717 Filed 5–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

48 CFR Parts 1515 and 1552

[FRL–5505–3]

Acquisition Regulation; Source

Selection Process

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise its

acquisition regulation (48 CFR Chapter

15) coverage on the source selection

process. EPA is aware that Part 15 of the

Federal Acquisition Regulation is

currently undergoing revision. The

Agency believes that its changes will

not conflict with any subsequent

revisions to Part 15. Additionally, the

Agency believes that the changes to its

acquisition regulation are needed now

as an interim measure to streamline the

process and empower Contracting

Officers at EPA. This rule is also

necessary to implement portions of the

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of

1994.

DATE: Comments should be submitted

not later than July 22, 1996.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25441

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted to the contact listed below

at the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Acquisition Management

(3802F), 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Comments and data may also

be submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to:

Senzel.Louise@epamail.epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be submitted

as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect in 5.1 format or ASCII file

format. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic comments on

this proposed rule may be filed on-line

at many Federal Depository Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Louise Senzel, Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Acquisition

Management (3802F), 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:

(202) 260–6204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Executive Order 12866

The proposed rule is not a significant

regulatory action for the purposes of

Executive Order 12866; therefore, no

review is required by the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because this proposed rule

does not contain information collection

requirements that require the approval

of OMB under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA certifies that this proposed

rule does not exert a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The

requirements to contractors under the

proposed rule impose no reporting,

record-keeping, or any compliance

costs.

D. Unfunded Mandates

This proposed rule will not impose

unfunded mandates on state or local

entities, or others.

E. Regulated Entities

EPA contractors are entities

potentially affected by this action.

Specifically, those entities competing

under solicitations for negotiated

procurements will be affected.

Category Regulated entity

Industry ..................... EPA Contractors.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1515

and 1552

Government procurement.

Authority: The provisions of this

regulation are issued under 5 U.S.C. 301; Sec.

205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as amended, 40 U.S.C.

486(c).

Dated: May 7, 1996.

Betty L. Bailey,

Director, Ofice of Acquisition Management.

Therefore, 48 CFR chapter 15 is

proposed to be amended as set forth

below:

PARTS 1515 AND 1552—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citations for parts

1515 and 1552 continue to read as

follows:

Authority: Sec. 205(c), 63 Stat. 390, as

amended, 40 U.S.C. 486(c).

§ 1515.407 [Amended]

2. Section 1515.407 is amended by

removing paragraph (a)(1) and by

redesignating paragraphs (a) (2) and (3)

as (a) (1) and (2).

3. Section 1515.604 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) to

read as follows:

1515.604 Responsibilities and duties.

* * * * *

(a) Source Selection Official. The

Source Selection Official (SSO) is the

official responsible for overall

management of the source selection

process. Duties of the SSO include, but

are not limited to, appointing members

and chairpersons of the Source

Evaluation Board, the Technical

Evaluation Panel (TEP), and the

Business Evaluation Panel (BEP); and

approving solicitation related

documents. However, the Contracting

Officer is responsible for approving

amendments to solicitation documents.

The SSO may waive the requirement in

1515.612(a)(v) for at least one member

of the TEP to be an individual not

involved in managing the current

contract. The SSO also approves the

competitive range determination and

makes the source selection decision.

* * * * *

(c) Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP).

The Program Office has the

responsibility for developing the

technical evaluation criteria and

statement of work for the solicitation.

The TEP has the responsibility for

evaluating the technical aspects of the

offerors’ technical proposals. Based on

the recommendation of the Program

Office, the SSO has the discretion of

assigning this evaluation responsibility

to the Project Officer, if appropriate, or

to the TEP. When offerors’ past

performance is evaluated as part of the

technical proposal evaluation process,

the past performance evaluation shall be

conducted by the TEP, or by the

Contracting Officer and the Project

Officer. Based on input from the Project

Officer, the Contracting Officer has the

discretion of assigning this

responsibility to the TEP or to the

Contracting Officer and Project Officer.

(d) Business Evaluation Panel (BEP).

(1) The Contracts Office has the

responsibility for reviewing solicitation

evaluation criteria and the Statement of

Work from a business perspective;

evaluating the business, pricing, and

contractual aspects of the offerors’

business and technical proposals; and

examining other factors such as the

responsibility of the offerors. Based on

the recommendation of the Contracting

Officer, the SSO has the discretion to

designate these responsibilities to the

Contracting Officer or designating a

BEP. Sections 1515.612(a) (vi) and (vii)

are applicable only when the SSO has

designated a BEP. (2) When no BEP is

convened, the Contracting Officer shall

perform a preliminary cost evaluation of

each offeror’s cost/price proposal to

identify any cost elements that appear

unreasonable or questionable. When

cost analysis is employed, the

Contracting Officer shall perform a

detailed cost analysis of the business

proposal which includes an evaluation

of the offeror’s subcontracting program,

management structure, and any other

relevant factors which may prevent

award to an offeror. This analysis may

be included in a separate report, in the

competitive range determination, or in

the pre/post-negotiation memorandum.

4. Section 1515.604–70 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

1515.604–70 Personal conflicts of interest.

* * * * *

(c) Each EPA employee (including

special employees) involved in source

evaluation and selection is required to

comply with the Office of Government

Ethics ethics provisions at 5 CFR part

2635.

5. Section 1515.605 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

1515.605 Evaluation factors.

* * * * *

(a) The Contracting Officer shall insert

the provisions at 1552.215–70, ‘‘EPA

Source Evaluation and Selection

Procedures—Negotiated Procurement’’

and either: the provision in 1552.215–
25442 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules

71, ‘‘Evaluation Factors for Award,’’

where all evaluation factors other than

cost or price when combined are

significantly more important than cost

or price; or the provision in Alternate I

to 1552.215–71, where all evaluation

factors other than cost or price when

combined are significantly less

important than cost or price; or the

provision in Alternate II to 1552.215–71,

where award will be made to the offeror

with the lowest-evaluated cost or price

whose technical proposal meets the

minimum needs of the Government; or

the provision in Alternate III where all

evaluation factors other than cost or

price when combined are approximately

equal to cost or price. The Contracting

Officer may use provisions substantially

the same as 1552.215–71, Alternate I to

1552.215–71, Alternate II to 1552.215–

71, or Alternate III to 1552.215–71

without requesting a deviation to the

EPAAR.

(b) Technical evaluation criteria

should be prepared in accordance with

FAR 15.605 and inserted into paragraph

(b) of the provision at 1552.215–71,

Alternate I, and Alternate III. If

technical evaluation criteria are used in

Alternate II, the criteria should be

prepared in accordance with FAR

15.605 and inserted into paragraph (b).

When past performance is to be used as

an evaluation factor, the Contracting

Officer must develop a criteria for

evaluating past performance and

include such criteria in section M of the

solicitation.

(c) Evaluation Methodologies.

Evaluation criteria may be developed

using methodologies other than

numerical scoring, e.g., adjectival

ratings or color scoring. The relative

importance of the evaluation criteria

must be clearly identified in the

solicitation. The Contracting Officer

should identify and prepare evaluation

criteria consistent with FAR 15.605.

6. Section 1515.608 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1)(ii), and

(b)(2)(i); by adding paragraph (b)(3); by

removing paragraph (c) and by

redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as

(c) and (d) to read as follows:

1515.608 Proposal evaluation.

(a) * * *

(1) Technical proposals shall be

evaluated solely on the factors specified

in the solicitation and in accordance

with FAR 15.608. Additionally, the

evaluation of technical proposals

(including past performance factors)

shall be accomplished using the scoring

plan shown below or one specifically

developed for the solicitation.

Contracting Officers may request that

the TEP also indicate whether proposals

are acceptable or unacceptable, and/or

whether the offerors’ response to

individual criteria are acceptable or

unacceptable.

SCORING PLAN

Value Descriptive statement

0 ...... The factor is not addressed, or is totally deficient and without merit.

1 ...... The factor is addressed, but contains

deficiencies and/or weaknesses that

can be corrected only by major or

significant changes to relevant portions of the proposal, or the factor is

addressed so minimally or vaguely

that there are widespread information gaps. In addition, because of

the deficiencies, weaknesses, and/

or information gaps, serious concerns exist on the part of the TEP

about the offeror’s ability to perform

the required work.

2 ...... Information related to the factor is incomplete, unclear, or indicates an

inadequate approach to, or understanding of the factor. The TEP believes there is question as to whether the offeror would be able to perform satisfactorily.

3 ...... The response to the factor is adequate. Overall, it meets the specifications and requirements, such

that the TEP believes that the

offeror could perform to meet the

Government’s minimum requirements.

4 ...... The response to the factor is good

with some superior features. Information provided is generally clear,

and the approach is acceptable with

the possibility of more than adequate performance.

5 ...... The response to the factor is superior

in most features. The goal of the

technical evaluation is to understand each offeror’s proposal and to

assess each proposal relative to the

specified evaluation factors. The

TEP report(s) should address any

perceived strengths, as well as any

perceived weaknesses or deficiencies, and risks associated with

the offerors’ performance. Scores

may or may not change from the

initial evaluation to the supplemental evaluation, depending on

the offeror’s response to interrogatories. The supplemental TEP report must explain the rationale for

no change in score as well as any

decrease or increase in score as a

result of the offeror’s response to

interrogatories.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) * * *

(ii) Any interrogatories the

Contracting Officer should submit to

offerors to clarify their technical

proposals to address any weaknesses,

deficiencies, or questions associated

with their technical proposals. The

Contracting Officer may review the

technical proposals and TEP evaluation,

and submit any additional

interrogatories deemed appropriate.

(2)(i) A statement that the respective

technical evaluation panel members are

free from actual or potential personal

conflicts of interest and are in

compliance with the Office of

Government Ethics ethics provisions at

5 CFR Part 2635.

* * * * *

(3) The Contracting Officer may

release the cost/price proposals to the

entire TEP or solely to the TEP

Chairperson, after the TEP has

completed its evaluation of initial

proposals. The TEP or Chairperson

should evaluate cost/price proposals to

determine whether the offerors’ cost/

price proposals adequately reflect their

technical proposals and the

requirements of the solicitation, and

demonstrate that the proposed price or

cost provides an adequate

understanding of the requirements of

the solicitation. Any inconsistencies

between the proposals and the

solicitation requirements should be

identified. Any inconsistencies between

the cost and technical proposals should

also be identified.

* * * * *

7. Section 1515.609 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

1515.609 Competitive range.

(a) * * *

(b) * * *

(c)(1) When a single proposal is the

only proposal in the competitive range,

as part of the required discussion in the

competitive range determination,

Contracting Officers shall address at a

minimum the following factors: whether

the requirement could have been broken

up into smaller components; whether

the solicitation provided adequate

response time; whether the requirement

could have been satisfied with reduced

staffing levels (discussion may be

combined with the first factor); and if

applicable, whether the work required

onsite could otherwise be performed at

a contractor’s facility, avoiding the cost

and logistical implications of relocating

employees.

(2) In cases where only a single

proposal has been received and a

competitive range determination has not

been prepared, the discussion of the

reasons for receipt of the single proposal

which otherwise would be contained in

the competitive range determination

shall be included in the source selection

document. The discussion in the source
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 21, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25443

selection document at a minimum shall

address the factors referenced in

paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(3) The Contracting Officer shall

provide a copy of the competitive range

determination or source selection

document to the Competition Advocate

for review and concurrence prior to

approval.

8. Section 1515.611 is revised to read

as follows:

1515.611 Best and final offers.

The Contracting Officer shall establish

a common cut-off date for receipt of

revised proposals and/or confirmations

of negotiations (best and final offers)

upon completion of negotiations.

9. Section 1515.612 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(1) (iii), (iv) and

(v); and by adding paragraph (c) to read

as follows:

1515.612 Formal source selection.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) SEB Membership—The SSO will

determine the organizational levels of

the individuals to serve on the SEB.

(iv) TEP Chairperson—The SSO will

determine, based on the

recommendation of the requesting

program office, the Chairperson of the

TEP. For recompetes or follow-on

contracts, the Chairperson should

normally not be the incumbent

contract’s Project Officer.

(v) TEP Membership—At least two

members, in addition to the Project

Officer, who are knowledgeable of the

procurement’s technical aspects. If the

procurement is a follow-on to an

existing contract, at least one of the TEP

members should be someone who is not

involved in managing the current

contract, preferably from outside of the

program division which originated the

requirement. See 1515.605(a) for waiver

of this requirement.

* * * * *

(c) Source selection plan. No separate

source selection plan is required. The

Contracting Officer may include the

information required by FAR 15.612(c)

in the individual acquisition plan.

10. Section 1552.215–70 is revised to

read as follows:

1552.215–70 EPA Source Selection and

Selection Procedures—Negotiated

Procurements (XX 1996)

As prescribed in 1515.605, insert the

following provision.

EPA Source Selection and Selection

Procedures—Negotiated Procurements (XX

1996)

(a) The Government will perform source

selection in accordance with FAR part 15 and

the EPA Source Evaluation and Selection

Procedures in EPAAR Part 1515 (48 CFR part

1515). The significant features of this

procedure are:

(1) The Government will perform either

cost analysis or price analysis of the offeror’s

cost/business proposal in accordance with

FAR parts 15 and 31, as appropriate. In

addition, the Government will also evaluate

proposals to determine contract cost or price

realism. Cost or price realism relates to an

offeror’s demonstrating that the proposed

cost or price provides an adequate reflection

of the offeror’s understanding of the

requirements of this solicitation, i.e., that the

cost or price is not unrealistically low or

unreasonably high.

(2) The Government will evaluate technical

proposals as specified in 1552.215–71,

Evaluation Factors for Award.

(b) In addition to evaluation of the

previously discussed elements, the

Government will consider in any award

decision the responsibility factors set forth in

FAR part 9.

(End of Provision)

11. Section 1552.215–71 is revised as

follows:

1552.215–71 Evaluation Factors for Award.

As prescribed in 1515.605, insert one

of the following provisions.

Evaluation Factors for Award (XX 1996)

(a) The Government will make award to the

responsible offeror(s) whose offer conforms

to the solicitation and is most advantageous

to the Government, cost or price and other

factors considered. For this solicitation, all

evaluation factors other than cost or price

when combined are significantly more

important than cost or price.

(b) Technical Evaluation Criteria.

(End of Provision)

Evaluation Factors for Award (XX 1996)

Alternate I (XX 96)

(a) The Government will make award to the

responsible offeror(s) whose offer conforms

to the solicitation and is most advantageous

to the Government, cost or price, and other

factors considered. For this solicitation, all

evaluation factors other than cost or price

when combined are significantly less

important than cost or price.

(b) Technical Evaluation Criteria.

(End of Provision)

Evaluation Factors for Award—Proposal

Meets the Minimum Needs of the

Government With the Lowest Evaluated

Cost/Price. Alternate II (XX 1996)

(a) The Government will make award to the

lowest-evaluated cost or price, technically

acceptable, responsible offeror whose offer

meets the minimum needs of the

Government. In the event that there are two

or more technically acceptable, equal price

(cost) offers, the Government will consider

other factors, as listed below in descending

order of importance:

(b) Technical Evaluation Criteria.

(End of Provision)

Evaluation Factors for Award (XX 1996)

Alternate III (XX 96)

(a) The Government will make award to the

responsible offeror(s) whose offer conforms

to the solicitation and is most advantageous

to the Government, cost or price, and other

factors considered. For this solicitation, all

evaluation factors other than cost or price

when combined are approximately equal to

cost or price.

(b) Technical Evaluation Criteria.

(End of Provision)

1552.215–72 [Removed]

12. Section 1552.215–72 is removed.

[FR Doc. 96–12628 Filed 5–20–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 246, 280, 281, 282, 298,

299, 300, 301, 371, 380, and 695

[Docket No. 960419115–6115–01; I.D.

032196A]

RIN 0648–AI22

International Fisheries; Consolidation

of Regulations

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to

consolidate 10 CFR parts into one part

that would contain regulations

governing international fisheries in the

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

and on the high seas. All but one of the

consolidated parts implement an

international agreement, convention, or

treaty to which the United States is a

party. The consolidated text would be

reorganized into a more logical and

cohesive order, duplicative and

outdated provisions would be

eliminated, and editorial changes would

be made for readability, clarity, and

uniformity. Framework procedures

would be added for the specifications of

annual management measures under

two parts. In addition, an obsolete CFR

part would be removed. The purpose of

this proposed rule is to make the

regulations more concise, better

organized and, therefore, easier for the

public to use. This proposed action is

part of the President’s Regulatory

Reinvention Initiative.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 14, 1996.