70344 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

deletion of this outdated FAR text is 

consistent with this E.O. 

II. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD, GSA, and NASA have prepared 

a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. The 

FRFA is summarized as follows: 

This rule amends the FAR to delete 

obsolete coverage relating to the year 2000 

compliance at FAR 39.002, 39.101(a) and 

39.106. Also, the rule makes conforming 

changes to FAR 39.107 and the introductory 

text to the clause at FAR 52.239–1. The year 

2000 coverage is no longer needed because 

all of the issues addressing the transition to 

year 2000 compliance language have been 

resolved. Based upon FPDS data, there were 

9021 IT contractors in FY 2013, of which 

6284 were small businesses. The impact on 

small businesses is expected to be neutral 

since we are deleting an obsolete 

requirement. 

The Regulatory Secretariat has 

submitted a copy of the FRFA to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. Interested 

parties may obtain a copy of the FRFA 

from the Regulatory Secretariat. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule does not contain any new 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 39 and 

52 

Government procurement. 

Dated: November 17, 2014. 

William Clark, 

Acting Director, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

amend 48 CFR parts 39 and 52 as set 

forth below: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 39 and 52 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113. 

PART 39—ACQUISITION OF 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

39.002 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend section 39.002 by removing 

the definition ‘‘Year 2000 compliant’’. 

39.101 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend section 39.101 by removing 

paragraph (a); and redesignating 

paragraphs (b) through (e) as paragraphs 

(a) through (d), respectively. 

39.106 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove section 39.106. 

39.107 [Redesignated as 39.106] 

■ 5. Redesignate section 39.107 as 

section 39.106. 

PART 52–SOLICITATION PROVISIONS 

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 

52.239–1 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend section 52.239–1 by 

removing from the introductory text 

‘‘39.107’’ and adding ‘‘39.106’’ in its 

place. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27660 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 44, 46, and 52 

[FAC 2005–78; FAR Case 2012–032; Item 

IV; Docket No. 2012–0032, Sequence 

No. 1] 

RIN 9000–AM65 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Higher-Level Contract Quality 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

issuing a final rule amending the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

clarify when to use higher-level quality 

standards in solicitations and contracts. 

The rule also updates the examples of 

higher-level quality standards by 

removing obsolete standards and adding 

new industry standards that pertain to 

quality assurance for avoidance of 

counterfeit items. 

DATES: Effective: December 26, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, at 

202–501–0650, for clarification of 

content. For information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules, contact 

the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 

202–501–4755. Please cite FAC 2005– 

78, FAR Case 2012–032. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD, GSA, and NASA published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register at 

78 FR 72620 on December 3, 2013, to 

revise FAR subpart 46.2, Contract 

Quality Requirements. The rule sought 

to ensure that agencies assess the risk of 

nonconforming items when determining 

whether higher-level quality standards 

should be used by the Government and 

relied on by contractors. Six 

respondents submitted comments on the 

proposed rule. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

The Civilian Agency Acquisition 

Council and the Defense Acquisition 

Regulations Council (the Councils) 

reviewed the comments in the 

development of the final rule. A 

discussion of the comments and the 

changes made to the rule as a result of 

those comments are provided as 

follows: 

A. Summary of Significant Changes 

From the Proposed Rule 

1. Revised FAR 46.202–4, Higherlevel contract quality requirements to— 

a. Clarify that higher-level quality 

standards include both overarching 

quality management system standards 

and product or process specific quality 

standards; 

b. Delete reference to SAE AS6174; 

and 

c. Add the commodity specific quality 

management system standard for 

automotive production, ISO/TS 16949. 

2. Clarified that the contracting officer 

will list the title, number, date, and 

tailoring (if any) of applicable higherVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25NOR3.SGM 25NOR3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70345 

level quality standard(s) in the clause 

prescribed at FAR 46.311. 

3. Revised FAR 52.246–11, Higherlevel Contract Quality Requirements, to 

clarify that the prime contractor is 

responsible for flowing down applicable 

requirements of the higher-level quality 

standard in subcontracts for critical and 

complex items at any tier. 

B. Analysis of Public Comments 

1. Design and Testing 

Comment: One respondent recognized 

the need to consider ‘‘testing’’ and 

‘‘design’’ as considerations for 

identifying higher-level contract 

requirements. See FAR 42.202–4(a)(1). 

However, the respondent seeks 

clarification on the inclusion of control 

of ‘‘design’’ and ‘‘testing’’ for complex 

and critical item contracts. 

Response: Control of design and/or 

testing are complex processes that 

require heightened controls in many 

applications. While not all higher-level 

quality standards specify controls for 

design or testing some of them do, such 

as ISO 9001, which provides detailed 

requirements/guidelines concerning 

control of design and testing. 

2. Agency Guidance 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended that agency guidance on 

implementing higher-level quality 

requirements be completed before any 

new FAR policy and that it should focus 

on larger acquisitions to avoid the 

indiscriminate use of higher-level 

quality requirements. This respondent 

further recommended establishing a 

working group with industry to help 

define Governmentwide criteria for use 

of higher-level quality requirements so 

as to avoid each agency having a 

different policy. The same respondent 

recommended that contracting officer 

higher-level quality standards 

determinations be made subject to 

higher-level acquisition approval 

authority and subject matter expert 

concurrence and that these documents 

should be included in the contract file. 

Response: The purpose of the rule is 

to ensure a considered approach to the 

use of higher-level quality standards so 

they will not be applied 

indiscriminately. Agency procedures 

will provide guidance to the contracting 

officer about higher-level standards to 

determine when they are necessary and 

which standards should apply. 

3. Standards List 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended a collaborative approach 

between the contracting officer and the 

contractor when determining which 

higher-level quality standards apply to 

the prime and subcontractors. Another 

respondent recommended allowing 

contractors to have the flexibility to 

adopt systems and practices that reflect 

an appropriate standard. Another 

respondent recommended allowing 

industry to propose alternate quality 

standards or be given an opportunity to 

rebut or deviate from the standard 

assigned in the clause at FAR 52.246– 

11. 

Response: This rule eliminates the 

ability for the offeror to indicate its 

selection of quality standard(s) by 

checking a block. This option of 

allowing the offeror to indicate its 

choice of standard was eliminated to 

ensure that the Government adequately 

assesses the necessity and 

appropriateness of the higher-level 

quality standard chosen. This rule does 

not change a contractor’s ability to work 

with the Government acquisition team 

prior to receipt of proposals to discuss 

the solicitation, including higher-level 

quality standards, through exchanges 

such as conferences, public hearings, 

one-on-one meetings, draft requests for 

proposal, etc. 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended that FAR 46.202–4(b) 

state that if the FAR 52.246–11 clause is 

used, the cited standards will take 

precedence over any other higher-level 

quality requirements separately cited in 

any other contract document (e.g. 

Statement of Work (SOW), Contract Data 

Requirements). 

Response: The Order of Precedence, 

FAR 52.212–8, clause already provides 

the order to follow when there is an 

inconsistency in the solicitation or 

contract and states that the contract 

clause takes precedence over the 

specifications. 

4. Commercial Items 

Comments: Several respondents 

commented that it is unclear whether 

higher-level quality requirements apply 

to commercial item/commercially 

available off-the-shelf item suppliers. 

One respondent recommended that FAR 

46.202–4 and 46.311 be revised to 

clearly state that 52.246–11 is not to be 

included in contracts for commercial 

items. 

Response: FAR 52.246–11 does not 

apply to commercial items or 

commercially available off-the-shelf 

items. 

5. Flowdown 

Comment: One respondent 

commented that it is unclear whether 

higher-level quality requirements flow 

down to subcontractors/suppliers, and 

recommended that the requirements not 

flow down to allow contractors to 

manage their own supply chain risk. 

Response: Higher-level quality 

standards generally require contractors 

to apply the standards to their 

subcontractors. In those circumstances, 

the contractor is contractually obligated 

to comply with these standards and also 

ensure its subcontractors adhere. 

However, because the FAR clause 

52.246–11 did not specifically address 

flowdown, the clause at 52.246–11 is 

being revised to clarify that the prime 

contractor is responsible for flowing 

down applicable requirements of the 

higher-level quality standards in 

subcontracts for critical and complex 

items, at any tier. 

6. Obsolescence 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended strengthening policy 

associated with obsolescence 

management. Another respondent 

recommended including new DoD 

policies on product obsolescence, 

diminishing manufacturing sources and 

attempts to leverage DoD expedited 

process for identification and 

replacement of obsolete electronic parts. 

Response: The FAR rule does not 

address obsolescence management and 

diminishing manufacturing sources as 

these areas are outside the scope of this 

FAR case. 

7. Purchasing System Review 

Comment: Respondents commented 

that the additional oversight of the 

quality management system as a part of 

the Contractor Purchasing System 

Review (CPSR) process is duplicative. 

One respondent indicated that industry 

already has strong self-governance in 

place to ensure compliance consisting of 

certification by independent bodies and 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

(DCMA), who routinely performs 

quality management system 

assessments. Also, the commenter 

indicated that the proposed rule does 

not provide guidance on how third 

party approvals such as AS9100 will be 

utilized to avoid duplication of cost and 

effort. 

Response: Review of quality 

management systems as a part of the 

CPSR process has been a longstanding 

process. A third party audit establishes 

that the contractor has a documented 

process in place whereas Government 

Contract Quality Assurance (QA) 

validates that the contractor is executing 

to their process. Attention to 

implementation of higher-level quality 

standards during the course of 

purchasing system reviews is consistent 

with Government Contract Quality 

Assurance functions and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
70346 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

responsibilities stated in FAR part 46. It 

is noted that third party audits are 

performed by organizations that are 

hired by the contractor, not the 

Government, and who do not have 

formal/legal responsibilities to represent 

the Government’s interests. 

Comment: One respondent 

commented that higher-level quality 

requirements should not be part of the 

contractors purchasing system review 

because a single counterfeit incident 

could cause withdrawal of purchasing 

system approval. Another respondent 

recommended adding language that a 

deficiency solely related to the 

implementation of higher-level quality 

standards will not prevent the overall 

purchasing system from functioning as 

if approved. 

Response: If the contractor is subject 

to a QA standard covering detection of 

counterfeits and a single incidence of a 

counterfeit part is documented as 

delivered during a CPSR review, the 

administrative contracting officer would 

be required to examine the 

circumstances to determine whether it 

is an isolated incident and whether the 

occurrence could have been prevented 

by the prime contractor’s proper 

adherence to its policies, procedures, 

and internal controls before withholding 

approval of the purchasing system (FAR 

44.301 and 44.305–1). 

Comment: One respondent 

commented that a satisfactory 

purchasing system should obviate the 

need to identify standards on individual 

contracts as proposed by FAR 52.246– 

11. 

Response: There are four sections to a 

Quality Management System (QMS) and 

the purchasing system is one of six parts 

in one section; therefore, an acceptable 

purchasing system does not mean the 

entire QMS is acceptable. 

Comment: One respondent 

commented that the FAR case presents 

unbounded content for review during a 

CPSR process and lacks alignment with 

the Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System (DFARS) case, which added 

nine elements to the CPSR process. 

Response: This rule does not change 

the methodology for conducting a CPSR. 

It adds content in that, when higherlevel QA is applicable to the contract, 

the Government will, as one part of the 

purchasing system review, confirm that 

the contractor is including appropriate 

quality requirements in their purchases 

orders. The CPSR review criteria 

pertaining to the implementation of 

higher-level quality requirements are 

bounded by the applicable portions of 

the contractor’s quality standard(s) (e.g., 

ISO 9001 Clause 7.4–Purchasing). This 

has been a long-standing process to 

include this review in CPSRs. The 

elements added to the DFARS, 

mentioned by the respondent, are 

additional elements of the CPSR for DoD 

coverage of a contractor’s counterfeit 

electronic part detection and avoidance 

system that are not included in the FAR. 

8. Risk-Based Approach 

Comment: Two respondents 

commented that this rule takes a 

positive step in applying a risk-based 

approach to the assessment of materials 

entering the supply chain. 

Response: Noted. 

9. Scope 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended excluding counterfeit 

parts standards from higher-level 

quality requirements. 

Response: The Councils disagree with 

eliminating higher-level quality 

standards that address counterfeit items 

due to the significant and growing risk, 

in quality, reliability, and safety that 

counterfeiting poses to the Government. 

This FAR rule case specifically removes 

outdated or obsolete standards and adds 

new examples of higher-level quality 

standards, including a standard related 

to counterfeiting. 

10. Small Business 

Comment: Two respondents 

commented that this rule will have 

unintended consequences on small 

businesses, including small business 

withdrawal from the market place, 

which will reduce competition. 

Response: This rule is not meant to 

limit small business participation in 

Government contracting; the purpose of 

the rule is to ensure that agencies have 

procedures in place to assess the risk of 

nonconforming items when determining 

whether higher-level quality standards 

should be used by the Government and 

relied on by all contractors. When 

contracting for complex or critical items 

where higher-level quality standards are 

necessary it would not be prudent to 

make exceptions based on business size. 

11. Source Selection Process 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended providing source 

selection policy guidance such as choice 

of contract type, source selection 

process, and evaluation of performance 

risk and price, when using higher-level 

quality requirements. 

Response: The FAR subpart 15.1 

outlines source selection processes and 

techniques that are available strategies 

depending on the type of acquisition. 

This approach allows the acquisition 

team to exercise discretion and use 

business judgment to determine the best 

approach for a particular acquisition. 

12. Standards List 

Comment: One respondent supported 

incorporating requirements for detection 

and avoidance of counterfeit electronic 

parts into key Quality Management 

Systems (QMS) standards (e.g. ISO 9000 

and AS9100) and including counterfeit 

electronic parts avoidance and detection 

standards among the higher-level 

quality standards. 

Response: Noted. 

Comment: One respondent 

recommended that the standards listed 

in the proposed FAR 46.202–4(b) be 

more generic; also, applying examples 

like nuclear standards may mislead 

personnel into what the minimum 

requirements are. 

Response: FAR 46.202–4(b) includes a 

list of examples of more specific 

standards to assist with selecting 

common standards. 

Comments: One respondent 

recommended adding ISO/TS16949 to 

the list of higher-level quality standards. 

Another respondent supported 

standards that are specific to quality 

management systems (e.g. AS9100, 

ISO9001 and AS9003) and also 

incorporating counterfeit parts 

mitigation strategies through AS5553. 

One respondent commented that there 

are a number of different standards 

including SAE standard AS5553, ISO 

27000 series, and Open Group Trusted 

Technology Provider Standard that help 

with counterfeit avoidance and supply 

chain risk management. 

Response: The Councils added 

different examples of higher-level 

quality standards at FAR 46.202–4(b) to 

allow agencies flexibility to choose the 

standard that best meets their quality 

requirements. The standards listed are 

examples that could be used by agencies 

but this list is not exhaustive. The 

Councils concurred with adding the 

commodity specific quality management 

system standard for automotive 

production, ISO/TS16949. This case 

further clarifies language at FAR 

46.202–4(b) that higher-level quality 

standards include both overarching 

quality management system standards 

and product or process specific quality 

standards. While the rule does not add 

a comprehensive list of higher-level 

quality standards, it does not preclude 

the use of standards not listed in the 

examples at FAR 46.202–4(b). 

Comments: Several respondents 

commented that SAE AS6174 should 

not be included in the list of higherlevel quality requirements since the 

document does not provide guidance to 

industry or Government in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 70347 

implementing meaningful counterfeit 

avoidance processes for material. Two 

respondents commented that AS6174 

should not be cited as guidance as it is 

not mature enough to use at this stage. 

Response: The Councils have 

accepted this comment and have 

deleted reference to SAE AS6174 listed 

in FAR 46.202–4(b). 

Comments: Two respondents 

commented that the proposed rule 

extends beyond electronic parts, which 

is outside of section 818 requirements 

and recommends the Government 

collaborate with industry on a risk 

assessment of counterfeit trends to 

determine the extent that non-electronic 

parts represent a counterfeiting risk. 

One respondent recommended that 

before expanding the scope of the rule 

beyond electronic parts, steps should be 

taken to (1) collect information from 

Federal agencies and departments on 

the extent to which counterfeit material 

other than electronics has been 

identified as a cause of product or 

system failure; (2) call for routine 

assessment of trends to determine the 

extent to which other material 

commodities emerge as a significant 

counterfeiting risk; and (3) encourage 

development of standards to address 

other material types. Another 

respondent recommended a phased-in 

approach to implementation to align 

with other section 818 regulatory cases. 

Response: This rule does not directly 

implement any specific aspect of section 

818, but recognizes the quality, 

reliability, and safety risk that 

counterfeit electronic parts represent. 

This case removes outdated or 

obsolete standards and adds new 

examples of higher-level quality 

standards, including a standard related 

to counterfeiting. Contracting officers, 

along with technical personnel, are not 

restricted to the list of examples of 

higher-level quality standards, and may 

elect other standards that meet the 

Government’s needs. 

III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This is not a significant 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under section 6(b) of 

E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S. C. 

804. 

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

DoD, GSA, and NASA have prepared 

a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA) consistent with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S. C. 601, et seq. The 

FRFA is summarized as follows: 

The Government must identify items that 

are critical to accomplishment of the agency 

mission and apply higher-level quality 

requirements to those items. The contractor 

has an obligation to ensure that its 

deliverables meet the specified quality 

requirements, which also entails ensuring 

that its subcontractors adhere to the higher 

level quality standard where appropriate. 

This case proposes to (a) specify the higherlevel quality requirement and (b) add this to 

the list of issues to be considered during 

contractor purchasing system reviews. 

Two respondents expressed concern that 

this rule would have significant effects on 

small businesses, which would result in their 

withdrawal from participation in 

Government contracting. The FAR revisions 

made by the rule do not increase the burden 

on businesses, including small businesses, 

and the rule was not modified to allow for 

differing quality standards based on business 

size. No changes were made to the rule as a 

result of these comments. However, in 

response to another respondent, it was 

clarified that flowdown of the higher-level 

quality assurance standards will only apply 

to subcontracts involving critical or complex 

items, thus small business who do not 

comply with the higher level standards may 

still compete on other subcontracts. 

Large and small businesses provide critical 

items directly to the Government or to 

Government prime contractors and these 

companies may be impacted by this rule. 

However, there is no easy way to identify the 

number of contracts that contain higher-level 

quality standards and how many of these are 

awarded to both large and small businesses. 

Interested parties may obtain a copy 

of the FRFA from the Regulatory 

Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat 

has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The final rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S. C. 

chapter 35). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 44, 46, 

and 52 

Government procurement. 

Dated: November 17, 2014. 

William Clark, 

Acting Director, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

amend 48 CFR parts 44, 46, and 52 as 

set forth below: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 44, 46, and 52 continues to read 

as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113. 

PART 44—SUBCONTRACTING 

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 

■ 2. Amend section 44.303 by— 

■ a. Removing from the end of 

paragraph (i) ‘‘and’’; 

■ b. Removing from the end of 

paragraph (j) the period and adding ‘‘; 

and’’ in its place; and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (k). 

The addition reads as follows: 

44.303 Extent of review. 

* * * * * 

(k) Implementation of higher-level 

quality standards. 

PART 46—QUALITY ASSURANCE 

■ 3. Revise section 46.202–4 to read as 

follows: 

46.202–4 Higher-level contract quality 

requirements. 

(a) Agencies shall establish 

procedures for determining when 

higher-level contract quality 

requirements are necessary, for 

determining the risk (both the 

likelihood and the impact) of 

nonconformance, and for advising the 

contracting officer about which higherlevel standards should be applied and 

included in the solicitation and 

contract. Requiring compliance with 

higher-level quality standards is 

necessary in solicitations and contracts 

for complex or critical items (see 

46.203) or when the technical 

requirements of the contract require— 

(1) Control of such things as design, 

work operations, in-process controls, 

testing, and inspection; or 

(2) Attention to such factors as 

organization, planning, work 

instructions, documentation control, 

and advanced metrology. 

(b) Examples of higher-level quality 

standards include overarching quality 

management system standards such as 

ISO 9001, ANSI/ASQC E4, ASME NQA– 

1, SAE AS9100, SAE AS9003, and ISO/ 

TS 16949, and product or process 

specific quality standards such as SAE 

AS5553. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
70348 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 4. Revise section 46.311 to read as 

follows: 

46.311 Higher-level contract quality 

requirement. 

(a) The contracting officer shall insert 

the clause at 52.246–11, Higher-Level 

Contract Quality Requirement, in 

solicitations and contracts when the 

inclusion of a higher-level contract 

quality requirement is necessary (see 

46.202–4). 

(b) For each higher-level quality 

standard, the contracting officer shall 

fill in the title, number, date, and 

tailoring (if any). 

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS 

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 

■ 5. Revise section 52.246–11 to read as 

follows: 

52.246–11 Higher-Level Contract Quality 

Requirement. 

As prescribed in 46.311, insert the 

following clause: 

Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement 

(DEC 2014) 

(a) The Contractor shall comply with the 

higher-level quality standard(s) listed below. 

[Contracting Officer insert the title, number, 

date, and tailoring (if any) of the higher-level 

quality standards.] 

(b) The Contractor shall include applicable 

requirements of the higher-level quality 

standard(s) listed in paragraph (a) of this 

clause and the requirement to flow down 

such standards, as applicable, to lower-tier 

subcontracts, in— 

(1) Any subcontract for critical and 

complex items (see 46.203(b) and (c)); or 

(2) When the technical requirements of a 

subcontract require— 

(i) Control of such things as design, work 

operations, in-process control, testing, and 

inspection; or 

(ii) Attention to such factors as 

organization, planning, work instructions, 

documentation control, and advanced 

metrology. 

(End of clause) 

[FR Doc. 2014–27661 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 1, 16, 22, 31, 52, and 53 

[FAC 2005–78; Item V; Docket No. 2014– 

0053; Sequence No. 4] 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Technical Amendments 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document makes 

amendments to the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) in order to make 

editorial changes. 

DATES: Effective: November 25, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 

1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, 

Washington, DC 20405, 202–501–4755, 

for information pertaining to status or 

publication schedules. Please cite FAC 

2005–78, Technical Amendments. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In order to 

update certain elements in 48 CFR parts 

1, 16, 22, 31, 52, and 53 this document 

makes editorial changes to the FAR. 

List of Subject in 48 CFR Parts 1, 16, 22, 

31, 52, and 53 

Government procurement. 

Dated: November 17, 2014. 

William Clark, 

Acting Director, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

amend 48 CFR parts 1, 16, 22, 31, 52, 

and 53 as set forth below: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 1, 16, 22, 31, 52, and 53 continues 

to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113. 

PART 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION 

REGULATIONS SYSTEM 

1.106 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend section 1.106 in the table 

following the introductory text, by 

adding in numerical sequence, FAR 

segment ‘‘52.203–13’’ and its 

corresponding OMB Control Number 

‘‘9000–0164’’. 

PART 16—TYPES OF CONTRACTS 

16.103 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend section 16.103 by removing 

paragraph (d) introductory text and 

paragraph (d)(3). 

PART 22—APPLICATION OF LABOR 

LAWS TO GOVERNMENT 

ACQUISITIONS 

22.1006 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend section 22.1006 by— 

■ a. Removing from paragraph 

(a)(2)(i)(C) ‘‘52.204–8(c)(2)(ii) or (iii)’’ 

and adding ‘‘52.204–8(c)(2)(iii) or (iv)’’ 

in its place; 

■ b. Removing from paragraph (e)(2)(i) 

‘‘52.204–8(c)(2)(ii)’’ and adding 

‘‘52.204–8(c)(2)(iii)’’ in its place; and 

■ c. Removing from paragraph (e)(4)(i) 

‘‘52.204–8(c)(2)(iii)’’ and adding 

‘‘52.204–8(c)(2)(iv)’’ in its place. 

PART 31—CONTRACT COST 

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 

31.109 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend section 31.109 by— 

■ a. Adding the word ‘‘and’’ at the end 

of paragraph (h)(15); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (h)(16); and 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (h)(17) as 

paragraph (h)(16). 

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS 

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 

■ 6. Amend section 52.204–8 by 

removing paragraphs (c)(1)(xxi)(i) 

through (vi); and adding paragraph 

(c)(2) to read as follows: 

52.204–8 Annual Representations and 

Certifications. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) The following certifications are 

applicable as indicated by the 

Contracting Officer: 

[Contracting Officer check as 

appropriate.] 

l (i) 52.204–17, Ownership or 

Control of Offeror. 

l (ii) 52.222–18, Certification 

Regarding Knowledge of Child Labor for 

Listed End Products. 

l (iii) 52.222–48, Exemption from 

Application of the Service Contract 

Labor Standards to Contracts for 

Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of 

Certain Equipment—Certification. 

l (iv) 52.222–52, Exemption from 

Application of the Service Contract 

Labor Standards to Contracts for Certain 

Services—Certification. 

l (v) 52.223–9, with its Alternate I, 

Estimate of Percentage of Recovered 

Material Content for EPA-Designated 

Products (Alternate I only). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3