66986 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

been considered in the past, or could

not be considered in the future, by

contracting officers or agency debarring

officials.

The FAR Council invited comments

on the two rules. In the interim rulestay, FAR Case 1999–010, comments

were requested on the length of the stay.

Ninety-eight public comments were

received. Ninety-one public comments,

93 percent of the public comments,

generally supported the interim rulestay. All comments were considered in

the finalization of the interim rule-stay.

The FAR Council has determined to

finalize the stay to terminate with the

publication of the finalization of the

accompanying proposed rule revoking

the December rule. In an accompanying

final rule, FAR case 2001–014,

published concurrently with this rule,

the final rule revokes the December

2000 rule.

When staying Code of Federal

Regulations text, if the previous text is

restored, the Federal Register requires

different numbering from the stayed

text. The stayed text uses the numbering

that was published in Federal

Acquisition Circular 97–21. The revised

numbering of the restored text is not a

substantive change. Terminating the

stay reverses this process and is also not

a substantive change.

This is a significant rule and was

subject to Office of Management and

Budget review under Section 6(b) of

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review, dated September

30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule

under 5 U.S.C. 804.

B. 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

action terminates stayed FAR revisions

implemented under FAR case 1999–010

published in the Federal Register on

December 20, 2000 (65 FR 80255), that

did not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

C. 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. 3501, et

seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 9, 14,

15, 31, and 52

Government procurement.

Dated: December 14, 2001.

Gloria M. Sochon,

Acting Director, Acquisition Policy Division.

Accordingly, the interim rule (stay)

published in the Federal Register at 66

FR 17754, April 3, 2001, is terminated,

and DoD, GSA, and NASA further

amend 48 CFR parts 9, 14, 15, 31, and

52 as set forth below:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

parts 9, 14, 15, 31, and 52 continues to

read as follows:

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C.

chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

PART 9—CONTRACTOR

QUALIFICATIONS

9.103 [Amended]

2. Amend section 9.103 by removing

paragraph (c); and by redesignating

paragraph (d) as paragraph (c).

9.104–1 [Amended]

3. Amend section 9.104–1 by

removing paragraph (e); and by

redesignating paragraphs (f), (g), and (h)

as (e), (f), and (g), respectively.

PART 14—SEALED BIDDING

14.404–2 [Amended]

4. Amend section 14.404–2 by

removing paragraph (j); and by

redesignating paragraphs (k), (l), and (m)

as (j), (k), and (l), respectively.

PART 15—CONTRACTING BY

NEGOTIATION

15.503 [Amended]

5. Amend section 15.503 by removing

paragraph (a)(2), and by redesignating

paragraph (a)(3) as (a)(2).

PART 31—CONTRACT COST

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

31.205–47 [Amended]

6. Amend section 31.205–47 in

paragraph (a) by removing the definition

‘‘Fraud’’; by removing paragraph (b)(3);

and by redesignating paragraphs (b)(4),

(b)(5), and (b)(6), as (b)(3), (b)(4), and

(b)(5), respectively.

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

52.209–5 [Amended]

7. Amend section 52.209–5 by

removing paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(D) and

(a)(1)(i)(E).

52.212–3 [Amended]

8. Amend section 52.212–3 by

removing paragraph (i); and by

redesignating paragraph (j) as (i).

[FR Doc. 01–31301 Filed 12–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 9, 14, 15, 31, and 52

[FAC 2001–03; FAR Case 2001–014; Item

II]

RIN 9000–AJ10

Federal Acquisition Regulation;

Contractor Responsibility, Labor

Relations Costs, and Costs Relating to

Legal and Other Proceedings—

Revocation

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Acquisition

Regulatory Council (FAR Council)

published in the Federal Register at 66

FR 17758, April 3, 2001, a proposed rule

(April proposed rule) with request for

public comment. The April proposed

rule proposed revoking a final rule

published in the Federal Register at 65

FR 80255, December 20, 2000

(December final rule). The December

final rule addressed responsibility, labor

relations costs, and costs incurred in

legal and other proceedings. This rule

finalizes the aforementioned April

proposed rule.

An interim FAR rule was published in

the Federal Register at 66 FR 17754,

April 3, 2001, concurrently with the

April proposed rule. The interim rule

immediately stayed the December final

rule (under FAR case 1999–010,

Responsibility, Labor Relations Costs,

and Costs Relating to Legal and Other

Proceedings). During the stay, the FAR

text was restored to the text as it existed

before January 19, 2001. The FAR

Council intended the stay to last for 270

days from April 3, 2001 (December 29,

2001), or until finalization of the April

proposed rule, whichever was sooner. In

a separate document being published

elsewhere in this issue, the FAR Council

is terminating the stay.

The FAR Council published in the

Federal Register at 66 FR 23134, May 7,

2001, an extension of the April

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66987

proposed rule public comment period

from June 4, 2001, to July 6, 2001, and

a notice of a public meeting on the April

proposed rule, which was conducted on

June 18, 2001.

DATES: Effective Date: December 27,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS

Building, Washington, DC, 20405, (202)

501–4755, for information pertaining to

status or publication schedules. For

clarification of content, contact Mr.

Ralph De Stefano, Procurement Analyst,

at (202) 501–1758. Please cite FAC

2001–03, FAR case 2001–014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

1. The Final Rule

The final rule published in the

Federal Register at 65 FR 80255

(December final rule) included the

following revisions:

FAR Part 9

At FAR 9.104–1(d), added language

stating that a satisfactory record of

integrity and business ethics includes

satisfactory compliance with the law

including tax, labor and employment,

environmental, antitrust, and consumer

protection laws.

At FAR 9.104–3(c), required

contracting officers to consider all

relevant credible information but stated

that the greatest weight must be given to

offenses adjudicated within the past

three years.

FAR Parts 14 and 15

At 14.404–2(i) and 15.503(a)(1),

directed contracting officers to notify

offerors if the offerors were excluded

based on a nonresponsibility

determination.

FAR Part 31

At FAR 31.205–21, made unallowable

those costs incurred for activities that

assist, promote, or deter unionization.

At FAR 31.305–47, made unallowable

those costs incurred in civil or

administrative proceedings brought by a

government where the contractor

violated, or failed to comply with, a law

or regulation.

FAR Part 52

At FAR 52.209–5, amended the

previous certification to require offerors

to certify to additional violations

(violations of tax, labor and

employment, environmental, antitrust,

or consumer protection laws)

adjudicated within the last three years.

It was a check-the-box certification. An

offeror would have to provide

additional detailed information only

upon the request of the contracting

officer.

At 52.212–3(h), made an equivalent

change for the certification for

commercial items.

2. The Stay

The interim rule published at 66 FR

17754, April 3, 2001, immediately

stayed the December final rule and also

requested public comment. During the

stay, the FAR text was restored to the

text, as it existed before January 19,

2001. The FAR Council intended the

stay to last for 270 days from April 3,

2001 (December 29, 2001), or until

finalization of the April proposed rule,

whichever is sooner. In a separate

document being published today

elsewhere in this issue, the FAR Council

is terminating the stay.

The FAR Council determined that the

December final rule 30-day effective

date did not give contractors, and the

Government, sufficient time to meet the

new obligations and responsibilities

imposed by the final rule. Government

contracting officers had not had

sufficient training.

Offerors had not had sufficient time to

establish a system to track compliance

with applicable laws and keep it

current, in order to be able to properly

fill out the certification. Although there

is language in the noncommercial items

certification, which assures contractors

that no system of records needs to be

established to render the certification in

good faith, this language was not found

in the commercial items certification.

There are criminal penalties for a false

certification (18 U.S.C. 1001). The FAR

Council recognized that it would take

more time than it anticipated for

businesses to put the systems in place.

Ninety-eight comments were received

on the stay.

3. Extension of Public Comment Period

and Public Meeting

The FAR Council published in the

Federal Register at 66 FR 23134, May 7,

2001, an extension of the April

proposed rule public comment period

from June 4, 2001, to July 6, 2001, to

ensure potential commentors had

adequate time to prepare their

comments, and a notice of a public

meeting on June 18, 2001, to ensure an

open dialogue between the Government

and interested parties on the April

proposed rule. Twenty-seven

individuals and organizations presented

at the public meeting.

4. Reconsideration

Under the April proposed rule, the

FAR Council reassessed the advantages

and disadvantages of the changes made

by the December 20, 2000, final rule, to

determine if the benefits of the rule are

outweighed by the burdens imposed by

the rule. In this regard, it was not clear

to the FAR Council that there is a

justification for including the added

categories of covered laws in the rule

and its implementing certification, that

the rule provided contracting officers

with sufficient guidelines to prevent

arbitrary or otherwise abusive

implementation, or that the final rule

was justified from a cost-benefit

perspective.

The FAR Council realized that there

was a high degree of controversy about

the merits of the December final rule

(there were 1800 public comments). The

typical FAR rule generates about 1

percent of that amount. The two

proposed rules that resulted in the

December final rule were the most

controversial ever published by the FAR

Council. Adverse comments were made

by individuals within the Government

itself, as well as by the public.

After the publication of the December

final rule, the FAR Council continued to

receive information that the December

final rule was not in the best interests

of industry or the Government. The FAR

Council wanted to be responsive to the

needs of the contracting community,

and therefore continued a dialog about

the rule. Some 4698 public comments

were received in response to the April

3, 2001, proposed rule. All comments

were considered in the formulation of

the final rule (see Section 5 of this

preamble). The FAR Council has

determined that the December final rule

should be revoked in its entirety.

With the revocation of the December

final rule, contracting officers will

continue to have the authority and duty

to make responsibility decisions.

Agency debarring officials will continue

to have the authority and duty to make

determinations whether to suspend and

debar a contractor. The requirement that

contractors must be responsible is

statutory. Offerors must have a

satisfactory record of integrity and

business ethics.

The FAR Council fully supports the

proposition that Government contracts

should be awarded to law-abiding

entities. Entities whose behavior reflects

negatively on their responsibility have

always been subject to scrutiny and the

possibility of being disqualified for

award of Government contracts. In fact,

the very last thing a contracting officer

must do before awarding a Government

contract is determine whether the

company is responsible. This

requirement has been a long-standing

policy and process of Government

66988 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

contracting dating prior to the Civil

War. Ferreting out companies who are

not responsible has been a

responsibility shared by a number of

individuals in the Government’s

contracting process. The FAR Council

supports the principle that the

Government should do business only

with those entities willing and able to

comply with the laws enumerated in the

December final rule.

After reviewing the public comments

submitted in response to the proposed

revocation of the December final rule

(66 FR 17758, April 3, 2001), it is clear

that there is a conviction held by people

at many levels and many walks of life

that the Government should conduct its

business with corporations that adhere

to the law. The problem lies in the

means to ensure that the entities with

which the Government conducts its

business are good citizens and adhere to

the myriad of regulations and laws. In

other words, we support the objective

but find the vehicle unworkable and

defective.

The FAR Council finds that the

current regulations governing

suspension and debarment provide

adequate protection to address serious

threats of waste, fraud, abuse, poor

performance, and noncompliance. Any

one of these concerns may authorize

suspension or debarment under

appropriate conditions and

circumstances, subject to judicial

review.

The FAR Council reminds members of

the general public that anyone may

submit to an agency debarment official

relevant information about the

responsibility of a company seeking to

do business with the Government.

Debarment and suspension provides a

means of getting adverse information to

appropriate Government officials with

appropriate procedures, knowledge, and

skills to review and take appropriate

action in such matters. This process also

provides subjects of those actions with

due process procedures that will

withstand judicial scrutiny. The

outcome of these reviews have

Governmentwide applicability within

the executive branch.

The existing debarment process

provides the authority for at least one

official in an executive agency which

procures goods or services with

appropriated funds under the FAR, to be

responsible for reviewing the behavior

of contractors to determine whether that

company is sufficiently responsible to

continue doing business with the

Government. That official is the agency

debarring official. The agency debarring

official is typically located at the

agency’s headquarters. This individual

is typically a senior official of the

agency familiar with a variety of issues

that affect contractor responsibility and

supported by a staff including the

agency’s general counsel. The debarring

official is authorized to consider a

company’s responsibility at any time,

whether the company is a current

competitor for a Government contract or

not. Should the debarring official

determine that the company is not

responsible, the debarring official may

impose a debarment of the company.

This debarment is effective with regard

to all Federal agencies and many state

and local governments as well who

choose to use the debarment list as their

own. The suspension and debarment

rules contain well established and

defined decision-making criteria and

due process safeguards, which have

evolved through case law precedent and

agency practices.

When a question of a company’s

honesty and integrity is raised, reliance

on the debarment and suspension

remedies provides effective

intervention. This remedy provides

consistent application of a

determination across the enterprise of

Government and will assure that

officials with both the training and

expertise will consider and resolve

these matters. There are some 50 causes

upon which entities may be found

ineligible to conduct business including

business done under nonprocurement

transactions under the Governmentwide

Debarment and Suspension

(Nonprocurement) and

Governmentwide Requirements for

Drug-Free Workplace (Grants) rules;

otherwise known as the Common Rule

for Suspension and Debarment.

5. Summary of Public Comments

Below is a summary of the issues

raised in the public comments:

‘‘The Government ought not do

business with lawbreakers’’ was a

common thread in the sentiment

expressing support for the December

final rule. The FAR Council agrees with

this statement. Only doing business

with law abiding contractors provides a

positive incentive for voluntary

compliance with tax, environmental,

labor, civil rights, and consumer laws,

as well as criminal laws involving

contracting and certain other kinds of

business activities. The debarment

regulations provide a highly effective

remedy for appropriately excluding

those who cannot or will not comply

with the law, especially where there is

a demonstrated lack of business

integrity or honesty.

The December final rule flies in the

face of long-standing policy of neutrality

in labor-management disputes.

Technically, the language in the

December final rule does not require a

change in the policy of impartiality in

labor-management disputes. In practice,

the December final rule could

undermine the longstanding policy of

neutrality in labor-management

disputes.

The December final rule requires

contracting officers to perform a

function, which they lack the

experience, procedures, and resources

to perform. Contracting officers are not

experts in tax laws, labor and

employment laws, environmental laws,

antitrust laws, and consumer protection

laws. This lack of expertise would

create a problem rather than solving a

problem. Contracting officers are not the

appropriate individuals to make

decisions regarding satisfactory

compliance with the law.

The requirement in the December

final rule to consult with legal counsel

before finding a prospective contractor

nonresponsible does not resolve this

issue. Legal counsel may not be an

expert in the covered laws under review

in the instant fact situation. An agency

suspension and debarment authority has

the requisite knowledges and skills

combined with the required procedures

and resources to use the information to

support suspension and debarment

decisions.

De facto debarment could occur

under the December final rule. In some

cases, repeated nonresponsibility

findings based on the same facts, within

the same agency, could be considered a

de facto debarment. The suspension and

debarment rules contain well

established and defined decisionmaking criteria and due process

safeguards, which have evolved through

case law precedent and agency

practices.

The December final rule’s wording is

unclear and provides insufficient

guidance for contracting officers. There

is no guidance to contracting officers to

ensure consistent application.

Contracting officers could make

disparate nonresponsibility

determinations. The hierarchy

establishing the priority and weight to

be given to various types of evidence

does not resolve this issue.

Sufficient enforcement regulations

already existed before the December

final rule. The Government has

sufficient regulations to address

contractor responsibility. Among other

things, debarment rules provide for

existing and appropriate remedies with

sufficient due process safeguard for

addressing conduct adversely reflecting

on business honesty and integrity. Also,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66989

for example, under statutory schemes,

determinations in the area of worker

health and safety, failure to pay

minimum wages, or violations of other

worker protection laws lie within the

purview of the Department of Labor.

This approach ensures consistency

Governmentwide.

The certification under the December

final rule is burdensome. The

certification is contrary to the intent of

the Federal Acquisition Streamlining

Act of 1994 and the Clinger-Cohen Act

of 1996 because it imposes an

unnecessary requirement with little or

no offsetting commensurate benefit.

Moreover, agencies lack the resources

and expertise to effectively use the

information received under the

certification.

The December final rule undermines

competition. Contactors may be

unwilling to spend money to submit

offers unless they can ascertain the basis

by which responsibility determinations

will be made with some degree of

exactness and objectivity. As stated

above, the December final rule’s

wording is unclear and provides

insufficient guidance for contracting

officers.

After reviewing the public comments

in response to the proposed revocation

of the December rule, it is clear that

there is a conviction held by people at

many levels and many walks of life that

the Government should conduct its

business with entities that adhere to the

law. The FAR Council agrees that the

Government should not do business

with lawbreakers. The problem lies in

the means to ensure that the entities

with which the Government conducts

business are good corporate citizens and

adhere to the myriad of regulations and

laws. The FAR Council has determined

that the suspension and debarment

process is the proper vehicle to

accomplish this goal. The suspension

and debarment rules contain wellestablished and defined decisionmaking criteria and due process

safeguards, which have evolved through

case law precedent and agency

practices.

This rule is a significant rule and was

subject to Office of Management and

Budget review under Section 6(b) of

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review, dated September

30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule

under 5 U.S.C. 804.

B. 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 will eliminate FAR revisions

implemented under FAR case 1999–010

published in the Federal Register on

December 20, 2000 (65 FR 80255), that

did not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub.

L. 104–13) applies because the FAR

changes to Parts 9 and 52 decrease the

information collection requirements that

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) approved under OMB Control

Number 9000–0094. un

The FAR Council estimates that the

annual reporting burden for OMB

Control Number 9000–0094 applies to

89,995 respondents, of which

approximately 50,000 would be affected

by the modified certification

requirement. The 39,995 subcontractors

that respond to inquiries from the prime

contractor regarding debarment,

suspension, or proposed debarment are

not affected by the modified

certification requirements. The total

estimated responses of 500,000 per year

are not affected by the modified

certification requirements.

The FAR Council estimates that the

modified certification requirement

would reduce the total burden by

505,000 hours, changing the total from

596,667 to 91,667. This is based on an

estimate of 50,000 respondents and

500,000 responses per year. The FAR

Council estimates that the modified

certification would take an average of 1

hour less for each of the 50,000 initial

responses and .3 hours less for each of

the 450,000 subsequent responses that

year, for a total of 185,000 hours less to

respond to the modified certification

requirements. The FAR Council further

estimates that in many acquisitions, the

contracting officer only would have

requested additional information if the

otherwise apparently successful offeror

had certified affirmatively. However, the

FAR Council estimates, in some source

selections, the contracting officer would

have requested such information from

all offerors in the competitive range that

certified affirmatively. Therefore, we

estimate a reduced burden of 140,000

hours for providing additional

information. This is based on a burden

estimate of 4 hours per initial response

and 1 hour per subsequent response, for

a total of 140,000 hours for providing

additional information. The FAR

Council further estimates an additional

reduction of 180,000 annual

recordkeeping hours based on an

estimated average of 6 hours per year for

recordkeeping for each of the 30,000

respondents to respond to the request

for additional information.

The revised annual reporting burden

is estimated as follows:

Respondents: 89,995.

Responses Per Respondent: 12.22.

Total Annual Responses: 1,100,000.

Average Hours Per Response: .083.*

Total Burden Hours: 91,667 hours.

*Average hours per response is

calculated by dividing total burden

hours by total annual responses.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply to FAR part 31 cost principles

changes because the changes do not

impose information collection

requirements that require Office of

Management and Budget approval

under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 9, 14,

15, 31, and 52

Government procurement.

Dated: December 14, 2001.

Gloria M. Sochon,

Acting Director, Acquisition Policy Division.

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA

amend 48 CFR parts 9, 14, 15, 31, and

52 as stayed effective April 3, 2001, as

set forth below:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

parts 9, 14, 15, 31, and 52 continues to

read as follows:

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C.

chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

PART 9—CONTRACTOR

QUALIFICATIONS

9.103 [Amended]

2. Amend section 9.103 in paragraph

(b) by removing the third sentence.

3. Amend section 9.104–1 by revising

paragraph (d) to read as follows:

9.104–1 General standards.

(d) Have a satisfactory record of

integrity and business ethics;

9.104–3 [Amended]

4. Amend section 9.104–3 by

removing paragraph (c); and by

redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as

(c) and (d), respectively.

PART 14—SEALED BIDDING

5. Amend section 14.404–2 by

revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

14.404–2 Rejection of individual bids.

(i) Low bids received from concerns

determined to be not responsible

pursuant to subpart 9.1 shall be rejected

(but if a bidder is a small business

66990 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 248 / Thursday, December 27, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

concern, see 19.6 with respect to

certificates of competency).

* * * * *

PART 15—CONTRACTING BY

NEGOTIATION

6. Amend section 15.503 by revising

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

15.503 Notification to unsuccessful

offerors.

(a) Preaward notices—(1) Preaward

notices of exclusion from competitive

range. The contracting officer shall

notify offerors promptly in writing

when their proposals are excluded from

the competitive range or otherwise

eliminated from the competition. The

notice shall state the basis for the

determination and that a proposal

revision will not be considered.

* * * * *

PART 31—CONTRACT COST

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

31.205–21 [Amended]

7. Amend section 31.205–21 by

removing the paragraph designation

‘‘(a)’’; and by removing paragraph (b) in

its entirety.

8. Amend section 31.205–47 in

paragraph (a) by adding, in alphabetical

order, the definition ‘‘Fraud’’ (which

was removed in the December 20, 2000,

final rule (65 FR 80255) and stayed

effective April 3, 2001); and by revising

paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

31.205–47 Costs related to legal and other

proceedings.

(a) * * *

Fraud, as used in this subsection,

means—

(1) Acts of fraud or corruption or

attempts to defraud the Government or

to corrupt its agents;

(2) Acts which constitute a cause for

debarment or suspension under 9.406–

2(a) and 9.407–2(a); and

(3) Acts which violate the False

Claims Act, 31 U.S.C., sections 3729–

3731, or the Anti-Kickback Act, 41

U.S.C., sections 51 and 54.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) In a civil or administrative

proceeding, either a finding of

contractor liability where the

proceeding involves an allegation of

fraud or similar misconduct or

imposition of a monetary penalty where

the proceeding does not involve an

allegation of fraud or similar

misconduct;

* * * * *

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

52.209–5 [Amended]

9. In section 52.209–5—

a. Revise the date of the provision to

read ‘‘(DEC 2001)’’;

b. In paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B), remove

‘‘the three-year’’ and add ‘‘a three-year’’

in its place; and add ‘‘and’’ at the end

of the paragraph;

c. In paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C), at the end

of the paragraph, remove ‘‘; and’’ and

add a period in its place; and

d. Remove paragraph (a)(1)(ii), and

redesignate paragraph (a)(1)(iii) as

(a)(1)(ii).

10. Amend section 52.212–3 by

revising the date of the provision and

paragraph (h) to read as follows:

52.212–3 Offeror Representations and

Certifications—Commercial Items.

OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND

CERTIFICATIONS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Dec

2001)

(h) Certification Regarding Debarment,

Suspension or Ineligibility for Award

(Executive Order 12549). The offeror certifies,

to the best of its knowledge and belief, that—

(1) The offeror and/or any of its principals

[ ] are, [ ] are not presently debarred,

suspended, proposed for debarment, or

declared ineligible for the award of contracts

by any Federal agency; and

(2) [ ] Have, [ ] have not, within a threeyear period preceding this offer, been

convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered

against them for: commission of fraud or a

criminal offense in connection with

obtaining, attempting to obtain, or

performing a Federal, state or local

government contract or subcontract; violation

of Federal or state antitrust statutes relating

to the submission of offerors; or commission

of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,

falsification or destruction of records, making

false statements, tax evasion, or receiving

stolen property; and [ ] are, [ ] are not

presently indicted for, or otherwise

criminally or civilly charged by a

Government entity with, commission of any

of these offenses.

(End of provision)

[FR Doc. 01–31302 Filed 12–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Chapter 1

Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small

Entity Compliance Guide

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Small Entity Compliance Guide.

SUMMARY: This document is issued

under the joint authority of the

Secretary of Defense, the Administrator

of General Services and the

Administrator for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration.

This Small Entity Compliance Guide has

been prepared in accordance with

section 212 of the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (Pub. L. 104–121). It consists of a

summary of rules appearing in Federal

Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2001–03

which amend the FAR. An asterisk (*)

next to a rule indicates that a regulatory

flexibility analysis has been prepared in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604. Interested

parties may obtain further information

regarding these rules by referring to FAC

2001–03 which precedes this document.

These documents are also available via

the Internet at http://www.arnet.gov/far.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurie Duarte, FAR Secretariat, (202)

501–4225. For clarification of content,

contact the analyst whose name appears

in the table below.

LIST OF RULES IN FAC 2001–03

Item Subject FAR case Analyst

I ......... Contractor Responsiblity, Labor Relations Costs, and Costs Relating to Legal and Other

Proceedings.

1999–010 (stay) De Stefano.

II ........ Contractor Responsibility, Labor Relations Costs, and Costs Relating to Legal and Other

Proceedings—Revocation.

2001–014 De Stefano.