`[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31557-31561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15436]



[[Page 31557]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 2, 8, 9, 13, 17, 36, 42, and 53

[FAC 2005-34; FAR Case 2006-022; Item I; Docket 2008-0002; Sequence 2]
RIN 9000-AK99


Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2006-022, Contractor 
Performance Information

AGENCIES: 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 revise the 
contractor performance information process. This change primarily 
emphasizes the use of a standard performance information reporting 
system, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). This 
change aligns with the President's March 4, 2009 Memorandum on 
Government Contracting specifically with regards to managing the 
Government's risk associated with the goods and services being procured 
and ensuring projects are completed effectively and efficiently.

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact 
Ms. Jeritta Parnell, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-4082. For 
information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the 
Regulatory Secretariat at (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-34, FAR 
case 2006-022.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    Past performance information (PPI) can decrease the Government's 
risk in contracting by rating, at a minimum, quality of work, 
timeliness, cost, and business relations of contractors for projects 
above a specified threshold. PPI incentivizes contractors to perform 
well in order to be rewarded with future contracts.
    The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and the Chief 
Acquisition Officer's Acquisition Council for E-GOV (ACE) established a 
working group to review regulations, policies, and guidance associated 
with contractor performance information. The working group proposed 
changes to a number of FAR parts. The Councils have agreed to some, but 
not all the changes under this final rule.
    The purpose of the final rule is to ensure that the FAR clearly 
reflects the use of the Governmentwide performance information 
repository, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at 
http://www.ppirs.gov; requires the evaluation of past performance for 
orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold placed against 
Federal Supply Schedule contracts, or under a task order or delivery 
order against a contract awarded by another Federal agency (i.e. 
Governmentwide acquisition contract or multi-agency contract); 
recommends past performance information for orders under single agency 
contracts; consolidates the collection of past performance guidance in 
FAR Part 42; and, clarifies that the Agency shall identify those 
responsible for preparing interim and final evaluations.
    The Councils published a proposed rule with request for comments in 
the Federal Register at 73 FR 17945, April 2, 2008. Forty comments from 
ten respondents were received.

B. Discussion of Public Comments

    The comments received were grouped under five general topics. A 
summary of these topics and a discussion of the comments and the 
changes made to the proposed rule as a result of those comments are 
provided below:
Miscellaneous Comments
    Comment: One Respondent recommended adding a definition for 
``completed contracts'' under FAR 2.101.
    Response: The definition of past performance is revised from 
``completed contracts'' to ``physically completed contracts.''
    Comment: One respondent disagreed with the revisions as written in 
the third person.
    Response: In this particular instance, third person is appropriate. 
There was no change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: Two respondents suggested adding language to include the 
FAR clause 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, as well as 
the FAR clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which 
requires an assessment of the other nine elements of a subcontracting 
plan and utilizing small businesses.
    Response: This case addresses goals as required by FAR 52.219-9. 
This case continues the current FAR focus on compliance with the goals. 
There was no change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent recommended that past performance 
assessments should address small business utilization as a whole in 
addition to subcontracting plan requirements by referencing FAR 52.219-
8 and 52.219-16.
    Response: It is not beneficial to further reference FAR 52.219-8, 
Utilization of Small Business Concerns, as addressed in the preceding 
comment and response. Furthermore, it is not beneficial to include a 
reference to FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages--Subcontracting Plan, 
since this clause establishes procedures for the payment of liquidated 
damages in the event that the contractor failed to meet the 
requirements established under FAR 52.219-9, and does not set forth 
contractual performance requirements that may be assessed. There was no 
change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent suggested that the requirement for the 
inclusion of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting, be excepted 
for delivery or task orders against Federal Supply Schedules or 
Governmentwide contracts.
    Response: Contractor subcontracting plans under Federal Supply 
Schedules and Governmentwide contracts are established on a contract 
level, not task order level. The Councils agree that it would be 
inappropriate to require an evaluation of contractor performance for 
individual task orders against a small business subcontracting plan 
that has been established on a contract level for Federal Supply 
Schedules and Governmentwide contracts. Contracting officers may 
include such an assessment on single agency task order and delivery 
order contracts when deemed appropriate. FAR 42.1502(c) and (d) are 
revised to reflect this change.
    Comment: One respondent indicated support for the proposed rule as 
written.
    Response: The Councils have noted this comment.
Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
    Comment: One respondent recommended two changes - changing from the 
``Government wide Past Performance Information Retrieval System 
(PPIRS)'' to the ``Government wide past Performance Information 
Retrieval System-Report Card (PPIRS-RC),'' and adding an additional

[[Page 31558]]

paragraph to reference the PPIRS-Report Card.
    Response: PPIRS is the universally accepted database used by all 
agencies. The FAR does not preclude the usage of additional systems. 
There was no change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent suggested revising the performance 
information system to improve access to provide more timely, accurate 
and detailed performance assessments for acquisition personnel.
    Response: These kinds of improvements to the past performance 
system are outside the scope of this case. This rule, however, will 
improve the contractor performance information process. There was no 
change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: Two respondents suggested including a reference to PPIRS 
in FAR 15.305(a)(2).
    Response: There was no intent to change the evaluation criteria set 
forth in FAR 15.305. There was no change made to the final rule as a 
result of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent recommended moving the language from FAR 
42.1503(e) to FAR Part 15 since this language appears to be information 
regarding source selection.
    Response: This language deals with retention of past performance 
information rather than required procedures to be utilized in a source 
selection, and is therefore a post award function that is appropriately 
retained in FAR 42.1503(e). There was no change made to the final rule 
as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent recommended clarification for information 
retention. The respondent suggested the following language: ``Agencies 
shall not retain past performance information longer than three years 
(six years for construction and architect engineer contracts.)''
    Response: These documents are part of the official contract file 
and must be retained. The intent of this language is to ensure that 
past performance data is current and relevant. The use of the past 
performance information that may be obtained from PPIRS for acquisition 
evaluations is limited to the 3-year timeframe (six years for 
construction and architect engineer contracts). PPIRS archives past 
performance data three years after the data is input into PPIRS. There 
was no change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent questioned the period of retention of past 
performance information for construction.
    Response: This language was merely consolidated and relocated under 
FAR Part 42 without change. Due to the nature of construction and A&E 
contracts, retention of such past performance information is 
necessarily longer than for contracts for other products/services. 
There was no change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent suggested the wording is unclear in FAR 
42.1503(e).
    Response: The language was revised to delete ``For source selection 
purposes'' to clarify that this is a post award function rather than a 
source selection function.
    Comment: One respondent suggested adding another paragraph to FAR 
42.1503 to address information retention.
    Response: Previous FAR language regarding retaining records is 
outdated. Rather than being destroyed, PPIRS electronic records will be 
retained through archiving beyond the specified 3 and 6 year 
timeframes. The language was revised at the time of the proposed rule 
to reflect timeframes for access and use of this information. There was 
no change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
Past Performance Reporting
    Comment: One respondent recommended changing the term 
``evaluation'' to ``assessment'' or ``report card.''
    Response: The terms ``evaluation'' and ``assessment'', as used in 
FAR Part 42, are synonymous in this context. There was no change made 
to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent would like a clarification to the language 
that states that agencies shall submit past performance reports 
electronically to PPIRS in accordance with agency procedures.
    Response: The intent of the language is to require submission of 
past performance evaluations to PPIRS in a method prescribed under 
agency procedures. The language at FAR 42.1503(c) has been revised to 
clarify that the process for submitting such reports to PPIRS shall be 
in accordance with agency procedures.
    Comment: One respondent recommended additional language in the last 
sentence of FAR 42.1502(a) as follows: ``The content and format of 
performance evaluations shall be established in accordance with agency 
procedures and should be tailored to the size, content, and complexity 
of the requirements.''
    Response: The Councils interpret the intent of the comment was to 
obtain greater detail in the evaluations. The language is sufficient as 
proposed. There was no change made to the final rule as a result of 
this comment.
    Comment: One respondent suggested expanding the case to cover 
responsibilities for negative past performance information received 
from surveys or questionnaires.
    Response: The FAR already has sufficient provisions allowing 
contracting officers to discuss negative past performance information 
with offerors. There was no change made to the final rule as a result 
of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent suggested that some form of incentive or 
other documented means be provided to encourage and ensure that 
information is timely provided into the system.
    Response: This is a requirement of agencies in the normal course of 
duties assigned to their designated personnel as required in FAR 
42.1502 and 42.1503. As such, an additional incentive would be 
inappropriate. There was no change made to the final rule as a result 
of this comment.
    Comment: Three respondents suggested that the identification of an 
``individual'' responsible for preparing evaluations is too restrictive 
and recommended flexibility for each agency to determine the 
responsible individual or individuals by title or organizational 
element.
    Response: The Councils agree with the comment. The language at FAR 
42.1503(a) is revised to read ``Agency procedures shall identify those 
responsible for preparing interim and final evaluations.''
    Comment: One respondent recommended that past performance 
evaluations should be required for all contracts that are terminated 
for default.
    Response: The Councils have noted this comment and will consider 
this issue under a separate rule. There was no change made to the final 
rule as a result of this comment.
Past Performance Evaluation
    Comment: One respondent recommended that evaluations over the 
simplified acquisition threshold be submitted when ``an extraordinary 
event or occurrence takes place.'' Furthermore, the respondent 
questioned the value of performance evaluations on each order over the 
simplified acquisition threshold.
    Response: The information is necessary and required. There was no 
change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.

[[Page 31559]]

    Comment: One respondent suggested a change to the mandatory 
evaluation of orders over the simplified acquisition threshold from 
``shall'' to ``may.''
    Response: The Councils do not agree with changing ``shall'' to 
``may.'' It is the intent of this rule to capture the universe of 
contracts which includes task orders against basic contracts. Likewise, 
nothing prevents prudent contracting officers from addressing 
extraordinary circumstances on contracts under the simplified 
acquisition threshold where a past performance evaluation may be 
warranted. There was no change made to the final rule as a result of 
this comment.
    Comment: Two respondents recommended revising FAR 13.106-
2(b)(3)(ii) to read ``May be based on one or more of the following:'' 
to encourage contracting officers to use more than one tool in 
identifying offerors' past performance information.
    Response: The Councils agree with this comment. FAR 13.106-
2(b)(3)(ii) is revised to read ``May be based on one or more of the 
following:''
    Comment: One respondent suggested that PPIRS is not a mandatory 
source of information and that other sources are available.
    Response: PPIRS is the universally accepted database used by all 
agencies. PPIRS is not the only source for past performance information 
that may be utilized in source selection evaluations. However, under 
this rule, agencies are now required to submit past performance 
information to PPIRS. Agencies will establish procedures to effect 
these electronic submissions. There was no change made to the final 
rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent suggested amending FAR 13.106-2(b)(3)(ii) 
to include other available sources as previously addressed.
    Response: FAR 13.106-2(b)(3)(ii) is revised to read ``May be based 
on one or more of the following:''
    Comment: Two respondents recommended defining ``relevant past 
performance information.''
    Response: Relevancy is subjective and should be left to the 
contracting officer's discretion on a case by case basis. There was no 
change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent suggested providing objective criteria and 
weights for acquisition officials.
    Response: This requirement is addressed in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i). 
These past performance evaluations are subjective based on the current 
acquisition. Assigning weighted values to evaluation criteria, 
including past performance, is the purview of the Source Selection 
Authority. There was no change made to the final rule as a result of 
this comment.
Thresholds
    Comment: One respondent recommended that the reference to the 
Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) should be limited to the lowest 
dollar value for the SAT in the definition of FAR 2.1.
    Response: Due to the extraordinary nature of the performance under 
contracts that qualify for higher simplified acquisition thresholds, it 
would not be appropriate to require the preparation of evaluations at 
the lowest SAT for each contract. Agency designated personnel have the 
discretion to prepare and submit to PPIRS an evaluation of contractor 
performance at any threshold when they deem it appropriate. There was 
no change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: One respondent suggested that the threshold specific to 
orders placed against an FSS, GWAC, or other multi-agency contract be 
raised to $550,000 rather than all orders exceeding the SAT.
    Response: It is the intent of this rule to capture the universe of 
contracts that includes task orders against basic contracts. There was 
no change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment: Two respondents recommended changing the language in FAR 
42.1502(c) and 42.1502(d) as follows: ``task order contract or a 
delivery order contract'' to ``indefinite-delivery contract.''
    Response: The phrase ``task order contract or delivery order 
contract'' is more specific. This change was not intended to cover 
definite quantity contracts as proposed by the commenter. There was no 
change made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
Summary of Changes to the Proposed Rule
    The Councils made the following changes to the proposed rule as a 
result of the public comments and Council deliberations. The final rule 
reflects the following changes:
FAR 2.101
    The definition of past performance was revised to clarify the term 
``completed contract'' as one that is physically completed in 
accordance with FAR 4.804-4.
FAR 8.406-7
    The addition of language to advise ordering activities that past 
performance evaluations required in FAR 42.1502(c) are applicable to 
orders.
FAR 13.106-2
    Language was revised to encourage contracting officers to utilize 
more than one tool in identifying offerors' past performance 
information.
FAR 42.1502(c) and (d)
    Language was added to clarify the consideration of small business 
goals in past performance evaluations for Governmentwide acquisition 
contracts, multi-agency contracts, and single-agency task order and 
delivery order contracts.
FAR 42.1503(a)
    Language was revised to clarify that agency procedures shall 
identify those responsible for preparing interim and final evaluations.
FAR 42.1503(c)
    Language was revised to clarify that agencies shall be responsible 
for establishing procedures for reporting past performance information 
to PPIRS.
FAR 42.1503(e)
    Language was revised to delete the phrase ``For source selection 
purposes'' in order to clarify that this language deals with retention 
of past performance information rather than required procedures to be 
utilized in a source selection.

C. Regulatory Analyses

    This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not 
subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, 
Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This is not a 
major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration certify that this 
final rule will not 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 rule does not 
impose any additional requirements on small businesses. The collection 
and reporting of past performance information is an internal process to 
the Government. The rule merely puts into effect the current practices 
of prudent contracting officers. In addition, the rule provides clearer 
instruction to contracting officers by restating in a better format the 
current language.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to 
the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require 
the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35, et seq.

[[Page 31560]]

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2, 8, 9, 13, 17, 36, 42, and 53

    Government procurement.

    Dated: June 25, 2009.
Al Matera,
Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.

0
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 2, 8, 9, 13, 17, 36, 
42, and 53 as set forth below:

0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2, 8, 9, 13, 17, 36, 42, and 
53 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 
U.S.C. 2473(c).

PART 2--DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

0
2. Amend section 2.101 in paragraph (b)(2) by adding, in alphabetical 
order, the definition ``Past performance'' to read as follows:


2.101  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    Past performance means an offeror's or contractor's performance on 
active and physically completed contracts (see 4.804-4).
* * * * *

PART 8--REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

0
3. Add section 8.406-7 to read as follows:


8.406-7  Contractor Performance Evaluation.

    Ordering activities must prepare an evaluation of contractor 
performance for each order that exceeds the simplified acquisition 
threshold in accordance with 42.1502(c).

PART 9--CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

0
4. Amend section 9.105-1 by revising the second sentence of the 
introductory text of paragraph (c); and removing paragraph (c)(7). The 
revised text reads as follows:


9.105-1  Obtaining information.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * In addition to the Governmentwide performance information 
repository, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) (at 
www.ppirs.gov), the contracting officer should use the following 
sources of information to support such determinations:
* * * * *

PART 13--SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

0
5. Amend section 13.106-2 by revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to read as 
follows:


13.106-2  Evaluation of quotations or offers.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) May be based on one or more of the following:
    (A) The contracting officer's knowledge of and previous experience 
with the supply or service being acquired;
    (B) Customer surveys, and past performance questionnaire replies;
    (C) The Governmentwide Past Performance Information Retrieval 
System (PPIRS) at www.ppirs.gov; or
    (D) Any other reasonable basis.
* * * * *

PART 17--SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS

0
6. Amend section 17.207 by removing from the end of paragraph (c)(3) 
the word ``and''; removing the period from the end of paragraph (c)(4) 
and adding ``; and'' in its place; and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read 
as follows:


17.207  Exercise of options.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) The contractor is not listed on the Excluded Parties List 
System (EPLS) (see FAR 9.405-1).
* * * * *

PART 36--CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

0
7. Revise section 36.201 to read as follows:


36.201  Evaluation of contractor performance.

    See 42.1502(e) for the requirements for preparing past performance 
evaluations for construction contracts.


36.602-3  [Amended]

0
8. Amend section 36.602-3 by removing from paragraph (a) ``36.604'' and 
adding ``36.603'' in its place.

0
9. Amend section 36.603 by revising paragraph (d)(4); and removing from 
paragraph (d)(5) ``36.604(c)'' and adding ``42.1502(f)'' in its place. 
The revised text reads as follows:


36.603  Collecting data on and appraising firms qualifications.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Assuring that the file contains a copy of each pertinent 
performance evaluation (see 42.1502(f)).
* * * * *

0
10. Revise section 36.604 to read as follows:


36.604  Performance evaluation.

    See 42.1502(f) for the requirements for preparing past performance 
evaluations for architect-engineer contracts.


36.701  [Amended]

0
11. Amend section 36.701 by removing paragraph (d).


36.702  [Amended]

0
12. Amend section 36.702 by removing paragraph (c).

PART 42--CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES

0
13. Revise section 42.1502 to read as follows:


42.1502  Policy.

    (a) Past performance evaluations shall be prepared as specified in 
paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section at the time the work under 
the contract or order is completed. In addition, interim evaluations 
shall be prepared as specified by the agencies to provide current 
information for source selection purposes, for contracts or orders with 
a period of performance, including options, exceeding one year. These 
evaluations are generally for the entity, division, or unit that 
performed the contract or order. The content of the evaluations should 
be tailored to the size, content, and complexity of the contractual 
requirements.
    (b) Except as provided in paragraphs (e), (f) and (h) of this 
section, agencies shall prepare an evaluation of contractor performance 
for each contract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold.
    (c) Agencies shall prepare an evaluation of contractor performance 
for each order that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold placed 
against a Federal Supply Schedule contract, or under a task order 
contract or a delivery order contract awarded by another agency (i.e. 
Governmentwide acquisition contract or multi-agency contract). This 
evaluation shall not consider the requirements under paragraph (g) of 
this section.
    (d) For single-agency task order and delivery order contracts, the 
contracting officer may require performance evaluations for each order 
in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold when such evaluations 
would produce more useful past performance

[[Page 31561]]

information for source selection officials than that contained in the 
overall contract evaluation (e.g., when the scope of the basic contract 
is very broad and the nature of individual orders could be 
significantly different). This evaluation need not consider the 
requirements under paragraph (g) of this section unless the contracting 
officer deems it appropriate.
    (e) Past performance evaluations shall be prepared for each 
construction contract of $550,000 or more, and for each construction 
contract terminated for default regardless of contract value. Past 
performance evaluations may also be prepared for construction contracts 
below $550,000.
    (f) Past performance evaluations shall be prepared for each 
architect-engineer services contract of $30,000 or more, and for each 
architect-engineer services contract that is terminated for default 
regardless of contract value. Past performance evaluations may also be 
prepared for architect-engineer services contracts below $30,000.
    (g) Past performance evaluations shall include an assessment of 
contractor performance against, and efforts to achieve, the goals 
identified in the small business subcontracting plan when the contract 
includes the clause at 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.
    (h) Agencies shall not evaluate performance for contracts awarded 
under Subpart 8.7.

0
14. Amend section 42.1503 by revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (e) 
to read as follows:


42.1503  Procedures.

    (a) Agency procedures for the past performance evaluation system 
shall generally provide for input to the evaluations from the technical 
office, contracting office and, where appropriate, end users of the 
product or service. Agency procedures shall identify those responsible 
for preparing interim and final evaluations. Those individuals 
identified may obtain information for the evaluation of performance 
from the program office, administrative contracting office, end users 
of the product or service, and any other technical or business advisor, 
as appropriate. Interim evaluations shall be prepared as required.
* * * * *
    (c) Agencies shall submit past performance reports electronically 
to the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at 
www.ppirs.gov. The process for submitting such reports to PPIRS shall 
be in accordance with agency procedures.
    (d) Any past performance information systems used for maintaining 
contractor performance information and/or evaluations should include 
appropriate management and technical controls to ensure that only 
authorized personnel have access to the data.
    (e) Agencies shall use the past performance information in PPIRS 
that is within three years (six for construction and architect-engineer 
contracts) of the completion of performance of the evaluated contract 
or order.

PART 53--FORMS


53.236-1  Construction.

0
15. Amend section 53.236-1 by removing and reserving paragraph (a).

0
16. Amend section 53.236-2 by revising the section heading as set forth 
below; and removing paragraph (c). The revised text reads as follows:


53.236-2  Architect-engineer services (SF's 252 and 330).

* * * * *


53.301-1420 and 53.301-1421  [Removed]

0
17. Remove sections 53.301-1420 and 53.301-1421.
[FR Doc. E9-15436 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S`