53128 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 167 / Monday, August 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Chapter 1 

[Docket FAR 2010–0076, Sequence 7] 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Federal Acquisition Circular 2005–45; 

Introduction 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Summary presentation of rules. 

SUMMARY: This document summarizes 

the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) rules agreed to by the Civilian 

Agency Acquisition Council and the 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

Council (Councils) in this Federal 

Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005–45. A 

companion document, the Small Entity 

Compliance Guide (SECG), follows this 

FAC. The FAC, including the SECG, is 

available via the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

DATES: For effective dates see separate 

documents, which follow. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

analyst whose name appears in the table 

below in relation to each FAR case. 

Please cite FAC 2005–45 and the 

specific FAR case numbers. For 

information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules, contact the 

Regulatory Secretariat at (202) 501– 

4755. 

LIST OF RULES IN FAC 2005–45 

Item Subject FAR case Analyst 

I .................... Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition—Related Thresholds .............................................................. 2008–024 Jackson. 

II ................... Definition of Cost or Pricing Data ................................................................................................... 2005–036 Chambers. 

III .................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act)—Buy American Requirements for Construction Materials.2009–008 Davis. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Summaries for each FAR rule follow. 

For the actual revisions and/or 

amendments made by these FAR cases, 

refer to the specific item number and 

subject set forth in the documents 

following these item summaries. 

FAC 2005–45 amends the FAR as 

specified below: 

Item I—Inflation Adjustment of 

Acquisition—Related Thresholds (FAR 

Case 2008–024) 

This final rule amends the FAR to 

implement section 807 of the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Section 807 

requires an adjustment every 5 years of 

acquisition-related thresholds for 

inflation using the Consumer Price 

Index for all urban consumers, except 

for Davis-Bacon Act, Service Contract 

Act, and trade agreements thresholds. 

The Councils have also used the same 

methodology to adjust nonstatutory FAR 

acquisition-related thresholds in 2010. 

This is the second review of FAR 

acquisition-related thresholds. The 

Councils published a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register at 75 FR 5716, 

February 4, 2010. 

The effect of the final rule on heavilyused thresholds is the same as stated in 

the preamble to the proposed rule: 

• The micro-purchase base threshold 

of $3,000 (FAR 2.101) is not changed. 

• The simplified acquisition 

threshold (FAR 2.101) is raised from 

$100,000 to $150,000. 

• The FedBizOpps preaward and 

post-award notices (Part 5) remain at 

$25,000 because of trade agreements. 

• Commercial items test program 

ceiling (FAR 13.500) is raised from 

$5,500,000 to $6,500,000. 

• The cost or pricing data threshold 

(FAR 15.403–4) is raised from $650,000 

to $700,000. 

• The prime contractor 

subcontracting plan (FAR 19.702) floor 

is raised from $550,000 to $650,000, and 

the construction threshold of $1,000,000 

increases to $1,500,000. 

Item II—Definition of Cost or Pricing 

Data (FAR Case 2005–036) 

This final rule amends the FAR by 

redefining ‘‘cost or pricing data,’’ adding 

a definition of ‘‘certified cost or pricing 

data,’’ and changing the term 

‘‘information other than cost or pricing 

data,’’ to ‘‘data other than certified cost 

or pricing data.’’ The rule clarifies the 

existing authority for contracting 

officers to require certified cost or 

pricing data or data other than certified 

cost or pricing data, and the existing 

requirements for submission of the 

various types of pricing data. The rule 

is required to eliminate confusion and 

misunderstanding, especially regarding 

the authority of the contracting officer to 

request data other than certified cost or 

pricing data when there is no other 

means to determine that proposed 

prices are fair and reasonable. Most 

significantly, the rule clarifies that data 

other than certified cost or pricing data 

may include the identical types of data 

as certified cost or pricing data but 

without the certification. Because the 

rule clarifies existing requirements, it 

will have only minimal impact on the 

Government, offerors, and automated 

systems. 

Item III—American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery 

Act)—Buy American Requirements for 

Construction Materials (FAR Case 

2009–008) 

This final rule converts the interim 

rule published in the Federal Register at 

74 FR 14623, March 31, 2009, to a final 

rule with changes. This final rule 

implements section 1605 of Division A 

of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) of 

2009. It prohibits the use of funds 

appropriated for or otherwise made 

available by the Recovery Act for any 

project for the construction, alteration, 

maintenance, or repair of a public 

building or public work unless all of the 

iron, steel, and manufactured goods 

used in the project are produced in the 

United States. Section 1605 mandates 

application of the Recovery Act Buy 

American requirement in a manner 

consistent with U.S. obligations under 

international agreements. Least 

developed countries continue to be 

treated as designated countries per 

congressional direction. Section 1605 

also provides for waivers under certain 

limited circumstances. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 167 / Monday, August 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 53129 

Dated: August 18, 2010. 

Edward Loeb, 

Director, Acquisition Policy Division. 

Amy G. Williams, 

Acting Deputy Director, Defense Procurement 

and Acquisitions Policy (Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System). 

Joseph A. Neurauter, 

Deputy Associate Administrator and Senior 

Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, U.S. General Services Administration. 

Sheryl J. Goddard, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for 

Procurement, National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21024 Filed 8–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 

15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 28, 32, 36, 42, 50, 

and 52 

[FAC 2005–45; FAR Case 2008–024; Item 

I; Docket 2010–0079, Sequence 1] 

RIN 9000–AL51 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition— 

Related Thresholds 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council 

(Councils) have agreed on a final rule 

amending the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) to implement section 

807 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005. Section 807 requires an 

adjustment every 5 years of acquisitionrelated thresholds for inflation using the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban 

consumers, except for Davis-Bacon Act, 

Service Contract Act, and trade 

agreements thresholds. The Councils 

have also used the same methodology to 

adjust nonstatutory FAR acquisitionrelated thresholds in 2010. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. 

Michael Jackson, Procurement Analyst, 

at (202) 208–4949. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the Regulatory 

Secretariat at (202) 501–4755. Please 

cite FAC 2005–45, FAR case 2008–024. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The first review of acquisition-related 

thresholds to implement section 807 of 

the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Pub. L. 108–375) was conducted under 

FAR Case 2004–033 during FY 2005. 

The final rule for the first review was 

published in the Federal Register at 71 

FR 57363, September 28, 2006. This is 

the second review of FAR acquisitionrelated thresholds. DoD, GSA, and 

NASA published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register at 75 FR 5716, 

February 4, 2010. The preamble to the 

proposed rule contained a detailed 

explanation of— 

• What an acquisition-related 

threshold is; 

• What acquisition-related thresholds 

are not subject to escalation adjustment 

under this case; 

• How the Councils analyze statutory 

and nonstatutory acquisition-related 

thresholds; and 

• The effect of this rule on the most 

heavily-used thresholds. 

Eight respondents submitted 

comments on the proposed rule, which 

are addressed in the following section. 

The final rule has been coordinated 

with the Department of Labor and the 

Small Business Administration in areas 

of the regulation for which they are the 

lead agency. Any changes to Cost 

Accounting Standards thresholds will 

be dealt with under a separate case. 

B. Analysis of Public Comments 

1. Statutory Thresholds 

a. All Statutory Thresholds 

Comment: One respondent, while 

recognizing that this is a statutory 

requirement, believed that no inflation 

adjustments should be made at this 

time. The respondent views the 

threshold increases as a way to reduce 

Government oversight of Federal 

contracts and considers such reduction 

unwise, because of various 

congressional oversight hearings and 

reports of Inspectors General and the 

Government Accountability Office that 

have revealed ‘‘widespread systemic 

gaps in Government contracting 

oversight.’’ 

Response: As noted, this is a statutory 

requirement. Further, the intent is not to 

reduce Government oversight but to 

maintain the status quo, by adjusting 

thresholds to keep pace with inflation. 

If thresholds are not adjusted for 

inflation, the number of contracts 

subject to the acquisition-related 

threshold will continue to grow, 

because more and more contracts will 

be below the stated thresholds. 

b. Prime Contractor Subcontracting Plan 

Thresholds (FAR 19.702) 

Comment: One respondent stated that 

they were particularly pleased with the 

proposal to increase the threshold 

values in FAR part 19 relative to the 

need to submit an acceptable 

subcontracting plan. They consider the 

current threshold to be administratively 

burdensome. The respondent further 

recommended that the Councils should 

pursue legislative action to raise the 

threshold to a minimum of one million 

dollars. 

Another respondent recommended 

increasing the prime contractor 

subcontracting plan threshold to 

$700,000, to be the same as the 

increased cost or pricing data threshold. 

Response: The final rule raises the 

subcontracting threshold to $650,000, as 

required by the law that this case is 

implementing. Pursuing legislative 

changes is outside the scope of this case. 

c. Miller Act (FAR 28.102 and 52.228– 

15) 

Comment: Three respondents 

addressed the proposed increase in the 

Miller Act threshold. These respondents 

emphasized the importance of 

performance and payment bonds as a 

protection for subcontractors and 

taxpayers. 

• One respondent stated that the law 

is ‘‘an unfortunate and contradictory 

statutory requirement.’’ The respondent 

considered that the threshold increase 

will undermine the original protective 

purposes of the bonding requirements 

set forth in the Miller Act, because more 

Federal construction projects will be 

undertaken without the benefit of 

payment bond protection. In particular, 

this respondent noted that 

subcontractors are frequently small 

businesses, for whom lack of a payment 

bond may be disastrous. The respondent 

requested the Councils explain 

accurately to Congress the significant 

negative impact that such increases will 

have. 

• Another respondent stated that the 

threshold increase is bad public policy, 

and the Councils should reconsider 

whether such thresholds are 

‘‘acquisition-related thresholds’’ as 

contemplated by the Act. 

• The third respondent urged the 

Councils not to increase the Miller Act 

surety bond threshold, but did not 

suggest rationale for noncompliance 

with the statutory requirement. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES3