Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71975 

II. Reopening of Comment Period 

The Commission’s Agricultural 

Advisory Committee has scheduled a 

meeting to be held on December 9, 2014, 

and adopted an agenda that includes 

consideration, among other matters, of 

two issues associated with the Position 

Limits rulemaking: Deliverable supply 

and exemptions for bona fide hedging 

positions. To provide interested persons 

with a sufficient period of time to 

respond to questions raised and points 

made at the Agricultural Advisory 

Committee meeting, the Commission is 

reopening both the Position Limit 

Proposal and the Aggregation Proposal 

for an additional 45-day comment 

period. Comments should be limited to 

the following issues as they pertain to 

agricultural commodities: Hedges of a 

physical commodity by a commercial 

enterprise; and the process for 

estimating deliverable supplies used in 

the setting of spot month limits, as each 

pertains to agricultural commodities. 

Both comment periods will reopen on 

December 9, 2014, and close on January 

22, 2015. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 1, 

2014, by the Commission. 

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Note: The following appendices will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendices to Position Limits for 

Derivatives and Aggregation of 

Positions Reopening of Comment 

Periods—Commission Voting Summary 

and Commissioner’s Statement 

Appendix 1—Commission Voting 

Summary 

On this matter, Chairman Massad and 

Commissioners Wetjen, Bowen, and 

Giancarlo voted in the affirmative. No 

Commissioner voted in the negative. 

Appendix 2—Statement of 

Commissioner Sharon Y. Bowen 

I support this reopening of the comment 

period for our position limits rule. As I’ve 

previously said, this is a key rule and we are 

well-served by giving stakeholders another 

chance to comment. 

However, we cannot allow this rule to 

linger indefinitely on our docket. It has been 

over a year since we re-proposed this rule 

and nearly four years since it was first 

proposed. We need to finish this rule next 

year, and I believe we can release a final rule 

by spring 2015. 

As we continue to finalize and fine-tune 

our Dodd-Frank rulemakings, we have to 

avoid the temptation to simply ratchet back 

or weaken prior versions of those rules. In 

fact, I think the best way of viewing changes 

to our rules is not that we are tweaking them, 

but rather that we are enhancing them. 

Sometimes that may mean making the rules 

more cost-effective and leaner, but at other 

times that will mean making them stronger 

than before. Enhancing a rule can mean 

reducing burdens to business while 

strengthening protections for the public. I 

believe our position limits proposal is exactly 

the sort of rule that needs to be enhanced, 

and I look forward to working with my fellow 

Commissioners to finish and release this rule 

in a timely fashion. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28482 Filed 12–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 1, 4, 9, 22, and 52 

[FAR Case: 2013–020; Docket No. 2013– 

0020; Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 9000–AM74 

Federal Acquisition Regulation: 

Information on Corporate Contractor 

Performance and Integrity 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are 

proposing to amend the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

implement a section of the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 to include in the 

Federal Awardee Performance and 

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 

to the extent practicable, identification 

of any immediate owner or subsidiary, 

and all predecessors of an offeror that 

held a Federal contract or grant within 

the last three years. The objective is to 

provide a more comprehensive 

understanding of the performance and 

integrity of the corporation before 

awarding a Federal contract. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat at one of the addresses 

shown below on or before February 2, 

2015 to be considered in the formation 

of the final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to FAR Case 2013–020 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

searching for ‘‘FAR Case 2013–020’’. 

Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that 

corresponds with ‘‘FAR Case 2013– 

020.’’ Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Comment Now’’ screen. Please 

include your name, company name (if 

any), and ‘‘FAR Case 2013–020’’ on your 

attached document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Hada Flowers, 

1800 F Street NW., 2nd floor, 

Washington, DC 20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite ‘‘FAR Case 2013–020’’ in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, 

at 202–219–0202 for clarification of 

content. For information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules, contact 

the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 

202–501–4755. Please cite FAR Case 

2013–020. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing 

to revise the FAR to implement section 

852 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Pub. L. 112–239) with regard to Federal 

contracts. Section 852 requires that the 

FAPIIS include, to the extent 

practicable, information on any parent, 

subsidiary, or successor entities to a 

corporation in a manner designed to 

give the acquisition officials using the 

database a comprehensive 

understanding of the performance and 

integrity of the corporation in carrying 

out Federal contracts and grants. This 

proposed rule addresses the collection 

of information with regard to offerors 

that are responding to a solicitation for 

a Federal contract. The data on 

immediate owner and direct 

subsidiaries of an entity will be 

available through FAPIIS, based on the 

data obtained from offerors in response 

to the FAR provision 52.204–17, 

Ownership or Control of Offeror, which 

was published in the Federal Register at 

79 FR 31187, on May 30, 2014, as a final 

rule under FAR Case 2012–024. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

A. Information Required 

1. Owner/Subsidiary (Proposed FAR 

9.104–6(a)(2)(i)) 

After reviewing section 852, the 

Defense Acquisition Regulation Council 

and the Civilian Agency Acquisition 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

71976 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Council (the Councils) determined that 

the further the distance between the 

entities, the less relevant the 

information is likely to be for 

establishing responsibility of the offeror. 

Furthermore, the cost and complexity 

maintaining a system that monitors the 

interrelationships of companies and 

their changes in ownership, and direct 

and indirect subsidiaries that could 

occur may be resource intensive for both 

the Government and the contractor and 

outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the 

Councils have determined that it is not 

practicable to establish 

interrelationships beyond the 

immediate owner and the direct 

subsidiary. The data on the immediate 

owner of an entity will be available 

through FAPIIS, based on the data 

obtained from offerors in response to the 

FAR provision 52.204–17, Ownership or 

Control of Offeror, which was published 

in the Federal Register at 79 FR 31187, 

on May 30, 2014, as a final rule under 

FAR Case 2012–024, effective November 

1, 2014. This proposed rule 2013–020 

will not be finalized until after the final 

rule under FAR Case 2012–024 becomes 

effective. For discussion of subsidiaries, 

see the information below in paragraph 

B. 

2. Predecessor/Successor (Proposed 

FAR 9.1046(a)(2)(ii)) 

Although the law requested 

information on successor entities, the 

Councils concluded that any entity 

making an offer would have to be the 

successor, because by definition the 

predecessor no longer exists, having 

been replaced by the successor. 

Therefore, the proposed provision 

requests offerors to provide information 

about all predecessors of the offeror that 

received a Federal contract or grant 

within the last three years. The 

information on predecessors of the 

offeror provided from the proposed 

provision at FAR 52.204–WW will be 

shown with the entity’s record in the 

System for Award Management (SAM) 

and in FAPIIS. 

With regard to identification of 

predecessors, the Councils have limited 

the identification of predecessor entities 

to within the last three years. This 

timeframe is consistent with the period 

required by FAR 42.1503(g) for 

consideration of most past performance 

information, and the timeframe 

generally used when reviewing 

prospective contractor’s integrity and 

past performance information within 

the last three years to make a 

responsibility determination. 

B. Source of Information on Ownership 

and Predecessor of Offeror 

By obtaining the information on 

ownership directly from each offeror, 

the Government can define exactly what 

information it is seeking. Furthermore, 

there is already a final FAR rule (FAR 

case 2012–024, Commercial and 

Government Entity Code (CAGE), 

published in the Federal Register at 79 

FR 3118, on May 30, 2014; effective 

November 1, 2014) that provides 

information on owners of each offeror. 

It is not necessary to request 

information on subsidiaries from the 

offeror, because if the subsidiary is in 

the SAM database, the subsidiary will 

provide the information on its 

immediate owner, which would then be 

shared with FAPIIS. If the subsidiary 

has not received any Government 

awards, the subsidiary will have no 

information available in FAPIIS, making 

it unnecessary for the owner to identify 

such a relationship. The following 

example demonstrates how FAPIIS will 

link owners with subsidiaries: 

If companies B, C, and D have reported 

that— 

B is owned by A; 

C is owned by A; and 

D is owned by C, 

Then FAPIIS will identify— 

Subsidiaries B and C for offeror A; 

Owner A for offeror B; 

Owner A and subsidiary D for offeror C; 

and 

Immediate owner C (not higher-level 

owner A) for offeror D. 

The Councils propose a new 

provision 52.204–WW, entitled 

‘‘Predecessor of Offeror’’ to gather 

information on all predecessors of the 

offeror that held a Federal contract or 

grant within the last three years. 

C. Definitions (Proposed FAR 52.204– 

WW and FAR 52.204–17(a)) 

1. ‘‘Owner.’’ The proposed definition 

of the term ‘‘owner’’ is consistent with 

the definition in the provision 52.204– 

17, Ownership or Control of Offeror (see 

final rule for FAR Case 2012–024, 

Commercial and Government Entity 

Code, published in the Federal Register 

at 79 FR 31187, on May 30, 2014 and 

effective November 1, 2014). 

2. ‘‘Subsidiary.’’ The term 

‘‘subsidiary’’ is used throughout the 

FAR without definition, except as used 

with regard to inverted domestic 

corporations (FAR 9.108–1). The 

Councils have not defined ‘‘subsidiary’’ 

in this case, because it is necessary for 

the term ‘‘subsidiary’’ to be the exact 

reverse of the term ‘‘immediate owner.’’ 

Any offeror that identifies an entity as 

its immediate owner is the subsidiary of 

that other entity. These relationships 

will be identified in FAPIIS, based on 

the identified immediate owners. 

Therefore, it is unnecessary to define 

‘‘subsidiary.’’ 

3. ‘‘Predecessor’’ and ‘‘successor.’’ 

The Councils have proposed definitions 

of ‘‘predecessor’’ and ‘‘successor’’ to be 

included in paragraph (a) of the 

proposed provision 52.204–WW, 

Predecessor of Offeror. The term 

‘‘successor’’ does not include new 

offices/divisions of the same company. 

An entity that has only changed its 

name will not be considered to be a 

successor. Identification of changes in 

name is not necessary for purposes of 

this case, because as long as the CAGE 

Code is still the same, FAPIIS will 

provide the prior information relating to 

the entity. A ‘‘predecessor’’ means an 

entity that is replaced by a successor 

and includes any predecessors of the 

predecessor. A ‘‘successor’’ means an 

entity that has replaced a predecessor by 

acquiring the assets and carrying out the 

affairs of the predecessor under a new 

name (often through acquisition or 

merger). The term ‘‘successor’’ does not 

include new offices/divisions of the 

same company or a company that only 

changes its name. The extent of the 

responsibility of the successor for the 

liabilities of the predecessor may vary, 

depending on State law and specific 

circumstances. 

D. Use of Information on Other Entities 

FAR 9.104–3(c) already sets forth the 

FAR policy on consideration of the 

integrity and past performance of 

affiliates, which as defined in the FAR 

includes owners and subsidiaries, when 

they may adversely affect the 

prospective contractor’s responsibility. 

The Councils have not proposed any 

change to this policy because it is 

adequate to protect the interests of the 

Government. 

E. Availability to the Public 

The statute specifically requires the 

additional information on corporate 

structure to be available ‘‘in a manner 

designed to give the acquisition officials 

using the database a comprehensive 

understanding of the performance and 

integrity of the corporation in carrying 

out Federal contracts and grants.’’ 

However, section 3010 of the 

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–212) added the 

requirement that all the information in 

FAPIIS, except for past performance 

information, shall be posted on a 

publicly available Internet Web site. 

Therefore, any information in FAPIIS 

with regard to immediate owner, 

subsidiaries, and predecessors, will be 

available to the public. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71977 

F. Applicability 

This rule applies to commercial items, 

including commercially available offthe-shelf items, as well as acquisitions 

below the simplified acquisition 

threshold. 

The information on predecessors is 

needed for all offerors for which a CAGE 

code is required. The information will 

be stored in the SAM database. 

Determinations and findings were 

signed in February 2010 under FAR 

Case 2008–027, that section 872 of the 

NDAA for FY 2009, which established 

the FAPIIS database, applies to the 

acquisition of commercial items, 

including commercially available offthe-shelf (COTS) items. That 

determination stated that an exemption 

for commercial item acquisitions 

(including COTS items) would exclude 

a significant portion of Federal 

contractors, thereby undermining an 

overarching public policy to achieve 

greater integrity and performance 

quality in contracting. We should apply 

extensions of information to be used in 

FAPIIS to acquisitions of commercial 

items, including COTS items, for the 

same reasons we stated with regard to 

the original statute that established 

FAPIIS. 

The representation will also apply to 

solicitations that do not exceed the 

simplified acquisition threshold. 

Determinations and findings will be 

approved by the appropriate authorities 

prior to publication of the final rule. 

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 do not expect 

this rule to have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, 

et seq., because the burden is minimal 

to provide the CAGE Code and the name 

of all predecessors that held a Federal 

contract or grant within the last three 

years. However, an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been 

performed and is summarized as 

follows: 

The objective of this rule is to provide 

acquisition officials using FAPIIS a 

comprehensive understanding of the 

performance and integrity of the corporation 

in carrying out Federal contracts. The legal 

basis for the rule is section 852 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239). 

The proposed provision in this rule would 

require each offeror to represent whether the 

offeror is or is not, within the last three years, 

a successor to a predecessor that held a 

Federal contract or grant within the last three 

years. If the offeror has indicated that it is 

such a successor, then the offeror must 

provide the CAGE code and legal name of all 

predecessors that held a Federal contract or 

grant within the last three years. The data on 

immediate owner and direct subsidiaries of 

an entity will be available through FAPIIS, 

based on the data obtained from offerors in 

response to the FAR provision 52.204–17, 

Ownership or Control of Offeror, that 

requires this information for the CAGE code. 

The Federal Government received offers from 

approximately 413,800 unique vendors in FY 

2011. Approximately 275,900 of these offers 

were by unique small businesses, which will 

be required to respond to the proposed 

provision. 

The proposed rule requires approximately 

one submission per year, with an estimated 

average of .1 preparation hours per response. 

The response time will be less for most 

respondents, only required to check a box. 

Only those respondents that check ‘‘is’’ will 

have to provide a minimal amount of 

information (CAGE Code and legal name of 

all predecessors that held a Federal contract 

or grant within the last three years). A midlevel professional skill would be required in 

some instances to know whether the entity is 

a successor, as defined in the proposed rule. 

The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with any other Federal rules. 

There are no exemptions from the rule for 

small entities, because the law does not 

provide for any such exemption. However, 

the proposed rule limits the review of 

predecessor entities to three years. 

The Regulatory Secretariat has 

submitted a copy of the IRFA to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. A copy of the 

IRFA may be obtained from the 

Regulatory Secretariat. DoD, GSA and 

NASA invite comments from small 

business concerns and other interested 

parties on the expected impact of this 

rule on small entities. 

DoD, GSA, and NASA will also 

consider comments from small entities 

concerning the existing regulations in 

subparts affected by the rule in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested 

parties must submit such comments 

separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 

(FAR Case 2013–020), in 

correspondence. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. chapter 35) applies. The 

proposed rule contains information 

collection requirements. Accordingly, 

the Regulatory Secretariat has submitted 

a request for approval of a new 

information collection requirement 

concerning Identification of Predecessor 

Entities to the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

A. Public reporting burden for this 

collection of information is estimated to 

average .1 hours per response, including 

the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. 

The annual reporting burden 

estimated as follows: 

Respondents: 413,800. 

Responses per respondent: 1. 

Total annual responses: 413,800. 

Preparation hours per response: .1. 

Total response Burden Hours: 41,380. 

B. Request for Comments Regarding 

Paperwork Burden. 

Submit comments, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, 

not later than February 2, 2015 to: FAR 

Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, 

Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to 

the General Services Administration, 

Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 

ATTN: Ms. Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street 

NW., 2nd floor, Washington, DC 20405. 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: whether this collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of functions of the FAR, 

and will have practical utility; Whether 

our estimate of the public burden of this 

collection of information is accurate, 

and based on valid assumptions and 

methodology; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways in 

which we can minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, through the use of 

appropriate technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Requesters may obtain a copy of the 

supporting statement from the General 

Services Administration, Regulatory 

Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. 

Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd 

floor, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite 

‘‘OMB Control Number 9000–00XX; 

Identification of Predecessors,’’ in all 

correspondence. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

71978 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1, 4, 9, 

22, and 52 

Government procurement. 

Dated: November 25, 2014. 

William Clark, 

Acting Director, Office of Government-wide 

Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition 

Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy. 

Therefore, the DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose amending 48 CFR parts 1, 4, 9, 

22, and 52 as set forth below: 

■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

parts 1, 4, 9, 22, 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 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 ‘‘52.204–WW’’ and its 

corresponding OMB Control No. ‘‘9000– 

00XX’’. 

PART 4—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 

■ 3. Amend section 4.1202 by 

redesignating paragraphs (a)(6) through 

(29) as paragraphs (a)(7) through (30), 

respectively; and adding a new 

paragraph (6) to read as follows; 

4.1202 Solicitation provision and contract 

clause. 

(a) * * * 

(6) 52.204–WW, Predecessor of 

Offeror. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend section 4.1804 by adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

4.1804 Solicitation provisions and 

contract clause. 

* * * * * 

(d) Insert the provision at 52.204– 

WW, Predecessor of Offeror, in all 

solicitations that include the provision 

at 52.204–16, Commercial and 

Government Entity Code Reporting. 

PART 9—CONTRACTOR 

QUALIFICATIONS 

■ 5. Amend section 9.104–6 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 

9.104–6 Federal Awardee Performance 

and Integrity Information System. 

(a)(1) Before awarding a contract in 

excess of the simplified acquisition 

threshold, the contracting officer shall 

review the integrity and performance 

information available in the Federal 

Awardee Performance and Integrity 

Information System (FAPIIS), available 

at www.ppirs.gov, then select FAPIIS, 

including FAPIIS information from the 

System for Award Management 

Exclusions and the Past Performance 

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). 

(2) In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 

2313(d)(3), FAPIIS also identifies— 

(i) An affiliate that is an immediate 

owner or subsidiary of the offeror, if any 

(see 52.204–17, Ownership or Control of 

Offeror); and 

(ii) All predecessors of the offeror that 

held a Federal contract or grant within 

the last three years (see 52.204–WW, 

Predecessor of Offeror). 

(b) When making a responsibility 

determination, the contracting officer 

shall consider all the information 

available through FAPIIS with regard to 

the offeror and any immediate owner, 

predecessor, or subsidiary identified for 

that offeror in FAPIIS, as well as other 

past performance information on the 

offeror (see subpart 42.15). 

(1) For evaluation of information 

available through FAPIIS relating to an 

affiliate of the offeror, see 9.104–3(c). 

(2) For source selection evaluations of 

past performance, see 15.305(a)(2). 

Contracting officers shall use sound 

judgment in determining the weight and 

relevance of the information contained 

in FAPIIS and how it relates to the 

present acquisition. Since FAPIIS may 

contain information on any of the 

offeror’s previous contracts and 

information covering a five-year period, 

some of that information may not be 

relevant to a determination of present 

responsibility, e.g., a prior 

administrative action such as debarment 

or suspension that has expired or 

otherwise been resolved, or information 

relating to contracts for completely 

different products or services. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend section 9.105–1 by revising 

introductory paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

9.105–1 Obtaining information. 

* * * * * 

(c) In making the determination of 

responsibility, the contracting officer 

shall consider information available 

through FAPIIS (see 9.104–6) with 

regard to the offeror and any immediate 

owner, predecessor, or subsidiary 

identified for that offeror in FAPIIS, 

including information that is linked to 

FAPIIS such as from the System for 

Award Management Exclusions, and the 

Past Performance Information Retrieval 

System (PPIRS), as well as any other 

relevant past performance information 

on the offeror (see 9.104–1(c) and 

subpart 42.15). In addition, the 

contracting officer should use the 

following sources of information to 

support such determinations: 

* * * * * 

PART 22—APPLICATION OF LABOR 

LAWS TO GOVERNMENT 

ACQUISITIONS 

22.1006 [Amended] 

■ 7. Amend section 22.1006 by 

removing from paragraph (a)(2)(i)(C) the 

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

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

and removing from paragraph (e)(4)(i) 

the words ‘‘52.204–8(c)(2)(iv)’’ and 

adding ‘‘52.204–8(c)(2)’’ in its place. 

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS 

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 

■ 8. Amend section 52.204–8 by— 

■ a. Revising the date of the clause; 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) 

thru (vii) as paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) thru 

(viii), respectively; and 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (c)(2)(ii). 

The revised and added text reads as 

follows: 

52.204–8 Annual Representations and 

Certifications. 

* * * * * 

Annual Representations and 

Certifications (Date) 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

ll (ii) 52.204–WW, Predecessor of 

Offeror. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Add section 52.204–WW, to read as 

follows: 

52.204–WW Predecessor of Offeror. 

As prescribed in 4.1804(d), insert the 

following provision: 

Predecessor of Offeror (Date) 

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision— 

Commercial and Government Entity 

(CAGE) code means— 

(1) An identifier assigned to entities 

located in the United States and its outlying 

areas by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

Logistics Information Service to identify a 

commercial or government entity, or 

(2) An identifier assigned by a member of 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) or by NATO’s Maintenance and 

Supply Agency (NAMSA) to entities located 

outside the United States and its outlying 

areas that DLA Logistics Information Service 

records and maintains in the CAGE master 

file. This type of code is known as an NCAGE 

code. 

Predecessor means an entity that is 

replaced by a successor and includes any 

predecessors of the predecessor. 

Successor means an entity that has 

replaced a predecessor by acquiring the 

assets and carrying out the affairs of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71979 

predecessor under a new name (often 

through acquisition or merger). The term 

‘‘successor’’ does not include new offices/ 

divisions of the same company or a company 

that only changes its name. The extent of the 

responsibility of the successor for the 

liabilities of the predecessor may vary, 

depending on State law and specific 

circumstances. 

(b) The offeror represents that it ❏ is or ❏ 

is not a successor to a predecessor that held 

a Federal contract or grant within the last 

three years. 

(c) If the offeror has indicated ‘‘is’’ in 

paragraph (b) of this provision, enter the 

following information for all predecessors of 

the offeror that held a Federal contract or 

grant within the last three years (If more than 

one predecessor list in reverse chronological 

order): 

Predecessor CAGE code: llll (or mark 

‘‘Unknown’’). 

Predecessor legal name: llll. 

(Do not use a ‘‘doing business as’’ name.) 

(End of provision) 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend section 52.212–3 by— 

■ a. Revising the date of the clause; 

■ b. Removing from the introductory 

paragraph the words ‘‘paragraphs (c) 

through (p)’’ and adding ‘‘paragraphs (c) 

through (q)’’ in its place; 

■ c. Adding to paragraph (a), in 

alphabetical order, the definitions 

‘‘predecessor’’ and ‘‘successor’’; 

■ d. Removing from paragraph (b)(2) the 

words ‘‘paragraphs at (c) through (p)’’ 

and adding ‘‘paragraphs at (c) through 

(q)’’ in its place; and 

■ e. Adding paragraph (q). 

The revised text reads as follows: 

52.212–3 Offeror Representations and 

Certifications—Commercial Items. 

* * * * * 

Offeror Representations and Certifications— 

Commercial Items (Date) 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

Predecessor means an entity that is 

replaced by a successor and includes any 

predecessors of the predecessor. 

* * * * * 

Successor means an entity that has 

replaced a predecessor by acquiring the 

assets and carrying out the affairs of the 

predecessor under a new name (often 

through acquisition or merger). The term 

‘‘successor’’ does not include new offices/ 

divisions of the same company or a company 

that only changes its name. The extent of the 

responsibility of the successor for the 

liabilities of the predecessor may vary, 

depending on State law and specific 

circumstances. 

* * * * * 

(q) Predecessor of Offeror. (Applies in all 

solicitations that include the provision at 

52.204–16, Commercial and Government 

Entity Code Reporting.) 

(1) The offeror represents that it ❏ is or ❏ 

is not a successor to a predecessor that held 

a Federal contract or grant within the last 

three years. 

(2) If the offeror has indicated ‘‘is’’ in 

paragraph (q)(1) of this provision, enter the 

following information for all predecessors 

that held a Federal contract or grant within 

the last three years (If more than one 

predecessor, list in reverse chronological 

order): 

Predecessor CAGE code: llll (or mark 

‘‘Unknown’’). 

Predecessor legal name: llll. 

(Do not use a ‘‘doing business as’’ name) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–28484 Filed 12–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS