Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/08/23/01-21352/federal-acquisition-regulation-task-order-and-delivery-order-contracts
Timestamp: 2017-08-17 22:22:27
Document Index: 650563183

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 2', 'arts 2', 'arts 2', 'arts 2', 'art 39', 'art 7', 'art 39', 'art 8']

A Proposed Rule by the Defense Department, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on 08/23/2001
66 FR 44517
44517-44520 (4 pages)
01-21352
List of Subjects in 48 CFR parts 2, 7, 8, 16, and 17:
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/01-21352 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/01-21352
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 44518
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to further implement Subsections 804(a) and (b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. These subsections focus primarily on appropriate use of task-order and delivery-order contracts and specific steps agencies should take when placing orders under task-order and delivery-order contracts established by another agency. The proposed amendment also clarifies that written acquisition plans may be required for orders as determined by the agency head.
Submit electronic comments via the Internet to: farcase.1999-303@gsa.gov
Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 1999-303 in all correspondence related to this case.
The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405, at (202) 501-4755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Ms. Julia Wise, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 208-1168. Please cite FAR case 1999-303.
On April 25, 2000, the Councils published a final rule, FAR case 1999-014, Competition Under Multiple Award Contracts, in the Federal Register at 65 FR 24317, to clarify what contracting officers should consider when planning for multiple awards of indefinite-delivery contracts, and clarify how orders should be placed against the resultant contracts. That rule implemented portions of Subsections 804(a) and (b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. This rule proposes to further strengthen that policy and the implementation of Subsections 804(a) and (b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 in several ways.
With respect to acquisition planning, the rule draws greater attention to the capital planning requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act (40 U.S.C. 1422) and ensures more deliberation by agency acquisition planners before orders are placed under a Governmentwide acquisition contract, a task-order or delivery-order contract issued by another agency, or the multiple award schedules program. The Councils are continuing to review the agency acquisition planning practices of customers of inter-agency contracts to determine if additional guidance is needed to ensure strategic use of these vehicles.
With respect to the structuring of orders and the consideration given to contract holders prior to order placement, the rule (1) increases attention to modular contracting principles to help agencies avoid unnecessarily large and inadequately defined orders, (2) facilitates information exchange during the fair opportunity process so that contractors may develop and propose solutions that enable the Government to award performance-based orders, and (3) revises existing documentation requirements to address the issuance of sole-source orders as logical follow-ons to orders already issued under the contract.
The Councils do not expect this proposed 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 rule merely clarifies existing language. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR Parts 2, 7, 8, 16, and 17 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 1999-303), in correspondence.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose that 48 CFR parts 2, 7, 8, 16, and 17 be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 2, 7, 8, 16, and 17 continues to read as follows:
2. Amend section 2.101 by adding, in alphabetical order, the definitions “Governmentwide acquisition contract” and “Multi-agency contract (MAC)” to read as follows:
Governmentwide acquisition contract means a task-order or delivery-order contract for information technology established by one agency for Governmentwide use that is operated—
(2) Under a delegation of procurement authority issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) prior to August 7, 1996, under authority granted GSA by the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. 759 (repealed by Pub. L. 104-106). The Economy Act does not apply to orders under a Governmentwide acquisition contract.
Multi-agency contract (MAC) means a task or delivery order contract established by one agency for use by Government agencies to obtain supplies and services, consistent with the Economy Act. Multi-agency contracts Start Printed Page 44519include contracts for information technology established pursuant to section 5124(a)(2) of the Clinger-Cohen Act, 40 U.S.C. 1424(a)(2).
Order means an order placed under a task-order contract or delivery-order contract awarded by another agency (i.e., a Federal Supply Schedule contract, Governmentwide acquisition contract, or multi-agency contract).
4. In section 7.103—
a. Revise the introductory text and paragraphs (e) and (q);
b. Amend the second sentence of paragraph (r) by removing the word “contracts” and adding “contract types” in its place; and
c. Add paragraph (t) to read as follows:
The agency head must prescribe procedures for—
6. Amend section 7.105 in the first sentence of the introductory paragraph by removing “subparagraph” and adding “paragraph” in its place, and in the fifth sentence by adding “or orders” after the word “contracts”; and by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
(A) For information technology acquisitions, how the capital planning and investment control requirements of 40 U.S.C. 1422 and OMB Circular A-130 will be met (see 7.103(s) and part 39); and
(2) Ordering through one of these vehicles facilitates access to small business concerns, including small disadvantaged business concerns, 8(a) contractors, women-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, or service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns.
a. In the newly designated section 8.002 remove “8.002” and “shall” and add “8.003” and “must” in their places, respectively;
b. In the newly designated section 8.003, remove “shall” and add “must” in its place; and
b. Revise the newly designated section 8.004.
Regardless of the source of supplies or services to be acquired, information technology acquisitions must comply with capital planning and investment control requirements in 40 U.S.C. 1422 and OMB Circular A-130.
Insert the clause at FAR 52.208-9, Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply, in solicitations and contracts that require a contractor to purchase supply items for Government use that are available from the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. The contracting officer must identify in the contract schedule the items that must be purchased from a mandatory source and the specific source.
8. Amend section 8.404 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(ii) GSA has already determined the prices of items under schedule contracts to be fair and reasonable.
By placing an order against a schedule using the procedures in this section, the ordering office has concluded that the order represents the best value and results in the lowest overall cost alternative (considering price, special features, administrative costs, etc.), to meet the Government's needs.
End Part Start Part Start Printed Page 44520
9. Amend section 16.505 as follows:
b. Amend paragraph (a)(3) by adding “or order” after the word “contract”;
d. Add paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A)(4) and(b)(1)(iii)(A)(5);
e. Remove the word “as” from paragraph (b)(2)(iii) and add “because it is” in its place;
f. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (b)(2);
g. Revise paragraph (b)(4); and
h. Revise the heading and the first sentence of paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
(2) Individual orders must clearly describe all services to be performed or supplies to be delivered so the full cost or price for the performance of the work can be established when the order is placed. Orders must be within the scope, issued within the period of performance, and be within the maximum value of the contract.
(i) Are not exempt from the development of acquisition plans (see subpart 7.1), and development of an information technology acquisition strategy (see part 39); and
(ii) Using a multiphased approach when effort required to respond to a potential order may be resource intensive (e.g., requirements are complex or need continued development), where all contractors are initially considered on price considerations (e.g., rough estimates) and other considerations as appropriate (e.g., proposed conceptual approach, past performance). The contractors most likely to submit the highest value solutions are then selected for one-on-one sessions with the Government to increase their understanding of the requirements, provide suggestions for refining requirements, and discuss risk reduction measures.
(2) Exceptions to the fair opportunity process. The contracting officer must give every awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for a delivery order or task order exceeding $2,500 unless one of the following statutory exceptions applies:
(4) Decision documentation for orders. The contracting officer must document in the contract file the rationale for placement and price of each order, including the basis for award and the rationale for any tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost considerations in making the award decision. This documentation need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the decision. The contract file must also identify the basis for using an exception to the fair opportunity process. If the agency uses the logical follow-on exception, the rationale must describe why the relationship between the initial order and the follow-on is logical (e.g., in terms of scope, period of performance, or value).
(5) Task- and delivery-order ombudsman. The head of the agency must designate a task- and delivery-order ombudsman. * * *
10. In section 17.500, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(1) Acquisitions from required sources of supplies prescribed in part 8, which have separate statutory authority; and
[FR Doc. 01-21352 Filed 8-22-01; 8:45 am]