Source: http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/changes/afac/afac2010-0402.htm
Timestamp: 2019-03-21 08:27:41
Document Index: 520551322

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2533', '§2533', '§2533', '§2533', '§2533', '§2533', '§2533']

Air Force Acquisition Circular (AFAC) 2010-0402 (10-01)
5301.170 (New): Peer Review requirements
5301.603, MP5301.603 (New), and Contracting Officer (CO) Appointment/Warrant Eligibility Transfer/Termination Request Template (Dec 09) (New): Standardizing Contracting Officer Warranting (Incorporates SAF/AQC Policy Memo 09-C-04 dated January 4, 2010)
5301.9101 and 5301.9102(f): Ombudsman for Procurement Integrity (Incorporates SAF/AQC Policy Memo 09-C-03 dated December 15, 2009)
5301.102-90, 5301.304, 5301.404, 5301.601, 5301.9102, 5302.101, 5306.501, 5307.104-92, 5315.403-1, 5319.201, 5337.503-90, 5352.201-9101, CC-102, MP5301.4, MP5301.601-91, MP5306.304, MP5315.403-1, MP5315.606, MP5330.201-5, MP5333.104: HCA and GCA for AFISRA (Incorporates SAF/AQC Memo dated September 10, 2009) and adds Air Force Global Strike Command as a “procuring activity”
5302, 4307.104, 5307.104-91, 5307.104-92, 5307.104-93, IG5307.104-93 (replaces IG5307.104-93 dated June 2006): Strategic Sourcing and Guidance
5306.302-2(d)(1)(ii) added: Limiting Length of Noncompetitive Contracts in “Unusual and Compelling Urgency” Circumstances (Incorporates SAF/AQC Policy Memo 09-C-02 dated November 4, 2009)
5317.7404-3, 5317.7405 (added), and MP5317.74 (formerly MP5317.7404-3): Revises reporting requirements for Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs)
5325, MP5325.7002-2, and MP5325.7003-3 (New): Domestic Non-Availability Determinations (DNADs) (Incorporates changes resulting from DFARS Case 2008-0003 and SAF/AQC Policy Memo 08-C-03 dated April 3, 2008)
5337.90 and 5352.237-9001: Deletes “Contractor Personnel Performing Mission Services” (per OUSD(AT&L)/DPAP Memo dated August 27, 2009, Subj: Class Deviation to DFARS for Continuation of Essential Contractor Services)
Replace Appendix CC: Contingency Operational Contracting Support Program (COCSP), dtd March 18, 2009, with Appendix CC: Contingency Operational Contracting Support, IG CC-301(b)(1), IG CC-301(B)(2)A, IG CC-502(a)(1), IG CC-502(a)(2), IG CC-502(A)(3), IG CC-502(a)(4), MP CC-301(c), MP CC-301(C)(1), MP CC-302(a), and MP CC-401(a)(i) (Appendix CC rewrite includes new DoD doctrine contained in Joint Publication 4-10 and new format)
MP5315.3 Source Selection: Changes resulting from option to use cost/price risk in source selections and new requirement for Source Selection Participants worksheet
(a)(1)(iii) The Contracting Officer shall provide a copy of the memorandum provided to Deputy Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (Contract Policy and International Contracting) in accordance with DFARS PGI 201.170-4(f) to SAF/AQCK, safaqck.workflow@pentagon.af.mil.
(b)(1) Pre-award Peer Reviews of solicitations valued at less than $1 billion. This requirement shall be accomplished by complying with the Clearance requirements in AFFARS 5301.9001(b).
(2) Post-award Peer Reviews of contracts for services valued at less than $1 billion. This requirement shall be accomplished by complying with the applicable reviews in AFI 63-101, Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management, Chapter 4.
5301.603 Selection, appointment, and termination of appointment (No Text)
MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA SCOs and SMC and AFMC SCCOs are authorized to select and appoint contracting officers and terminate their appointments in accordance with this section and the Mandatory Procedures at MP5301.603.
(b) MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA SCOs may delegate authority to issue limited contracting officer warrants of less than $5M, and authority to terminate appointments of less than $5M, but in no event will the designee be lower than the Contracting Squadron Commander, Deputy, or equivalent.
(b) Military personnel in AFSCs 64PX or 6C0X1 and civilians in the GS-1102 or equivalent local national occupational series who occupy a manning authorization listed under these specialty codes and who possess a Level I APDP certification in contracting may only be selected for limited warrants for amounts less than $5M. Those contracting personnel who do not possess a Level I APDP certification in contracting (including Purchasing Agents in the GS-1105 series) may only be selected for limited warrants for amounts less than or equal to the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT).
(b) Issuing authorities identified in 5301.603-1 may delegate the purchase authority in DFARS 213.301 for amounts that do not exceed the SAT, to non-contracting DoD civilian employees and members of the U.S. Armed Forces, such as transportation personnel, medical supply personnel, librarians, and chiefs of construction management, provided:
(1) The written delegation specifies a dollar limit per transaction (e.g., per order, per call); the method(s) of award; and the supplies, equipment and/or non-personal services, to include construction, related to the individual’s specialty that may be procured. For example, librarians may buy books, but not construction materials or services; and,
Requests for termination of warrants shall be submitted 30 days in advance (or as soon as practicable) of the requested termination date along with the reason for termination. All terminations of warrants shall be in writing and signed by the issuing authority.
See new Mandatory Procedure MP5301.603, Standardizing Contracting Officer Warranting, dated December 2009.
See new Contracting Officer (CO) Appointment/Warrant Eligibility Transfer/Termination Request Template dated December 2009.
(f) The Air Force ombudsman is the Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary (ADAS) (Contracting), who may take action to assist in resolving issues, concerns, disagreements, and recommendations that cannot be resolved at the MAJCOM/DRU level, at AFISRA, or for those having Air Force wide implications. The ADAS(C) is the AF ombudsman for procurement integrity issues (see OUSD(AT&L)/DPAP Memo dated October 1, 2009, Subj: Ombudsman for Procurement Integrity).
5301.102-90 Statement of guiding principles for the Air Force acquisition system
(h) MAJCOM/DRU commanders, the AFISRA commander, PEOs, and acquisition managers and supervisors shall establish procedures to encourage and reward acquisition teams and/or individuals who effectively implement these principles.
FAR Supplements comply with the control and compliance procedures established in FAR 1.3, as supplemented, and do not restrain the flexibilities found in the FAR, DFARS and/or AFFARS. MAJCOMs, DRUs, and AFISRA shall submit procurement policies, regulations, procedures, clauses, and forms that require approval by USD(AT&L)DP to SAF/AQCP. The request shall include a detailed justification using the format in DFARS 201.201-1. SAF/AQCP will arrange for publication in the Federal Register, if necessary. The requesting activity is responsible for evaluating public comments and preparing the final package for SAF/AQCP to submit to USD(AT&L)DP.
(1) The MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA SCOs and to the SCCOs at Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Electronic Systems Center (ESC), Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC), and Air Armament Center (AAC) without further authority to redelegate any HCA responsibilities unless specifically stated otherwise in the AFFARS. The SCO at HQ AFMC may redelegate HCA responsibilities to SCCOs without further authority to redelegate unless specifically authorized otherwise in the AFFARS.
(B) The authority to enter into, approve, modify, and terminate contracts is hereby redelegated to MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA SCOs and to the SCCOs at SMC, ESC, ASC, and AAC. This authority may be redelegated with or without the authority to make successive redelegations and under such terms, conditions, and limitations as may be deemed appropriate. This delegation is a general one, and all other existing or future authority, to the extent that it would, expressly or by reasonable implication, limit the scope of this delegation or impose conditions or restrictions upon the exercise of the authority delegated, will be controlling over it.
(a) MAJCOM and DRU commanders shall appoint an experienced senior official who is independent of the contracting officer and program manager as the ombudsman at their MAJCOM/DRU. The AFISRA commander shall appoint an experienced senior official who is independent of the contracting officer and program manager as the ombudsman at AFISRA. For AFMC and AFSPC Centers, an ombudsman is required at each Center, instead of at the MAJCOM.
“AFISRA” is the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency.
“Field Operating Agency (FOA)” means a subdivision of the Air Force that reports directly to an HQ USAF functional manager. A FOA performs field activities beyond the scope of any of the major commands. Its activities are specialized or associated with an Air Force wide mission.
“Senior Contracting Official (SCO)” means the MAJCOM/DRU or AFISRA headquarters staff official with overall functional responsibility for contracting. The deputy to an SCO may exercise any SCO authority unless specifically limited by the SCO. The SCO may include the A7K, MSK, or MAJCOM Chief/Director of Contracting.
The Air Force competition advocacy program is based on the authority provided by HAF MD 1-10, 8 Apr 09. The Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting) is designated as the Air Force Competition Advocate General. The following organizations are designated as “procuring activities”: Air Combat Command (ACC), Air Education and Training Command (AETC), Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), Air Mobility Command (AMC), Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE), Air Force District of Washington (AFDW), Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), USAF Academy (USAFA), Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC), Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency (AFISRA). These organizations are authorized to further designate subordinate organizations as “procuring activities” subject to the requirements of FAR 6.501 and AFI 63-301, Air Force Competition and Commercial Advocacy.
(b) For MAJCOM, DRU, AFISRA, and Other Contracting acquisitions.
5315.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data (10 U.S.C. 2306a and 41 U.S.C. 254b)
(B) Using the mandatory procedures detailed in MP5315.403-1(c)(3), MAJCOM, DRU, and AFISRA SCOs shall submit an annual report for contracts, subcontracts, or modifications expected to have a total value of $15,000,000 or more identifying cost or pricing data exceptions for commercial item procurements (FAR 15.403-1(b)(3)).
(d)(10)(B) Small business specialists are required to review all acquisitions expected to exceed $10,000 (to include awards against GSA instruments but excluding awards under the Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Programs) prior to accomplishing or advertising the acquisition. Document review on the DD Form 2579, Small Business Coordination Record. Except for AFMC and AFSPC, forward a copy of all completed DD Forms 2579 in excess of $1,000,000 to the MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA Director of Small Business prior to convening an Acquisition Strategy Panel or prior to finalizing the Acquisition Strategy if an ASP is not convened.
5337.503-90 Management and Oversight of the Acquisition of Services
(d) For “Other Contracting”, MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA Commanders or designees are the SDOs responsible for acquisitions with a total value of $100,000,000 or less, and A-76 studies involving less than 300 FTEs.
As prescribed in 5301.9103, insert the following clause
(c) If resolution cannot be made by the contracting officer, concerned parties may contact the Center/MAJCOM or AFISRA ombudsmen, [Insert names, addresses, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, and e-mail addresses]. Concerns, issues, disagreements, and recommendations that cannot be resolved at the MAJCOM/DRU or ARISRA level, may be brought by the concerned party for further consideration to the Air Force ombudsman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary (ADAS) (Contracting), SAF/AQC, 1060 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC 20330-1060, phone number (703) 588-7004, facsimile number (703) 588-1067.
CC-102 Definitions
Senior Contracting Official (SCO) means the MAJCOM/DRU or AFISRA headquarters staff official with overall functional responsibility for contracting. The deputy to an SCO may exercise any SCO authority unless specifically limited by the SCO. The SCO may include the A7K, MSK, or MAJCOM Chief/Director of Contracting.
[Revised April 2, 2010]
2. Compliance Inspection Program. Senior Contracting Officials (SCO) will manage a MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA compliance inspection program to include self-inspection and oversight of the MAJCOM contracting inspection program under AFI 90-201, paragraph A3.3.13.2. SCOs must direct all contracting offices to perform a compliance self-inspection in accordance with AFI 90-201, Paragraph 2.4 at least annually for contracting offices. When contracting offices are required by their installation leadership to perform at least annual self-inspection, the SCO will use the results of this inspection. Contracting offices must have a documented program for self-inspection to include a process for closing resolved findings in a timely manner, ensuring an effective level of review necessary to close a finding, and integrating findings and resolutions into the unit training program.
(B) Annual Reporting Requirements. In order to fulfill the requirement for DoD to submit an annual report to Congress, MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA Senior Contracting Officials (SCO) shall annually identify commercial item exceptions to the requirements of the Truth In Negotiations Act (TINA) for any contract, subcontract, or modification from the previous fiscal year expected to have a value of $15,000,000 or more. For all commercial item exceptions meeting that threshold, MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA SCOs shall submit the information as required in paragraph (i) below no later than 15 October each year. If no commercial item exceptions meeting the threshold were granted during the previous fiscal year, submit a negative report no later than 15 October each year. Submit the report to HQ AFMC/PKQI, the designated Air Force focal point for consolidation of the reports. HQ AFMC/PKQI shall consolidate all of the MAJCOM, DRU, and AFISRA reports and submit a final report to SAF/AQCP no later than 8 November each year. SAF/AQCP shall submit the report to the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP), ATTN: DPAP/CPF.
(1) Commercial Item Exceptions to TINA Requirement. For contracts, subcontracts, and modifications of $15,000,000 or more, MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA SCOs shall submit the following information:
(A) Request for waiver of the cost or pricing data requirement shall be submitted through the MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA SCO to SAF/AQCK, safaqck.workflow@pentagon.af.mil, for HCA approval. SAF/AQCK will ensure waiver requests in excess of $100 million are coordinated with the senior procurement executive prior to the HCA granting the waiver.
(B) Annual Reporting Requirements. In order to fulfill the requirement for DoD to submit an annual report to Congress, MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA Senior Contracting Officials (SCO) shall annually identify and report TINA waivers for any contract, subcontract, or modification from the previous fiscal year expected to have a value of $15,000,000 or more. For all TINA waivers meeting that threshold, MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA SCOs shall submit the information as required in paragraph (i) below no later than 15 October each year. If no waivers meeting the threshold were granted during the previous fiscal year, submit a negative report no later than 15 October each year. Submit the report to HQ AFMC/PKQI, the designated Air Force focal point for consolidation of the reports. HQ AFMC/PKQI shall consolidate all of the MAJCOM, DRU, and AFISRA reports and submit a final report to SAF/AQCP no later than 8 November each year. SAF/AQCP shall submit the report to the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP), ATTN: DPAP/CPF.
(1) Waiver of TINA Requirements. For contracts, subcontracts, and modifications of $15,000,000 or more, MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA SCOs shall submit the following information:
(b) MAJCOMs/DRUs, AFISRA, and their contracting units are considered contact points for UPs received at their respective base/activity. Contact points will:
(2) Notify the MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA contracting office about any UP that requires command-wide consideration.
(e) Annual Reporting Requirements. In order to fulfill the requirement for DoD to submit an annual report to Congress and the CAS Board, MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA Senior Contracting Officials (SCO) shall annually identify and report CAS waivers for any contract, subcontract, or modification from the previous fiscal year expected to have a value of $15,000,000 or more. For all CAS waivers meeting this threshold, submit the information as required by DFARS PGI 230.201-5(e) no later than 15 October each year. If no waivers meeting the threshold were granted during the previous fiscal year, submit a negative report no later than 15 October each year. Submit the report to HQ AFMC/PKPB, the designated Air Force focal point for consolidation of the reports. HQ AFMC/PKPB shall consolidate all of the MAJCOM, DRU, and AFISRA reports and submit a final report to SAF/AQCP no later than 8 November each year. SAF/AQCP shall submit the report to the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP), ATTN: DPAP/CPF no later than 30 November each year.
(5) The focal point is the designated individual at each MAJCOM, DRU, AFMC Center, or AFISRA who receives communication from SAF/AQCK concerning protests against Air Force solicitations or awards.
5302, 5307.104, 5307.104-91, 5307.104-92, 5307.104-93, IG5307.104-93 (replaces IG5307.104-93 dated June 2006): Strategic Sourcing and Guidance
“Commodity Management Plan (CMP)” is a high level strategy for an overarching commodity good and/or service, (e.g., information technology), which recommends the commodity objectives, spiral strategy, implementation schedule and resources. Commodity Strategy Officials (CSOs) approve the CMP.
“Commodity Council Director” means the individual serving as the program director for the commodity council. The commodity council director is responsible for managing the core commodity council team, overseeing development of the commodity management plan (CMP), ensuring execution of the commodity strategy and reporting compliance as required by the commodity strategy official (CSO).
“Commodity Strategy Official (CSO)” means an individual responsible for approval and execution of a commodity council’s charter and sourcing strategy which includes the CMP and CSS. CSO additional responsibilities include directing the use of strategic agreements and ensuring adequate representation on the commodity council.
“Commodity Sourcing Strategy (CSS)” is a detailed sourcing strategy for a specific spiral (e.g., Desktops/Laptops) which recommends a policy, demand management, and/or an acquisition for the spiral. This document includes anticipated results, resources and an implementation schedule. Commodity Strategy Officials (CSOs) approve the CSS.
(b) The program manager shall mark the Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP)/Integrated Program Summary (IPS)/Acquisition Plan (AP) “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” if it contains information which should not be released outside the Government and handle it accordingly.
(S-90) (a) Solicitation Release.
(3) For all other acquisitions, the contracting officer shall not release the formal solicitation until the approval official has approved the AP unless the acquisition is being conducted pursuant to the authority of FAR 6.302-2, unusual and compelling urgency.
(b) Changes. If a change occurs to the program/acquisition that significantly affects the acquisition (e.g., scope, dollar value, contract type), the program manager with the assistance of the contracting officer shall prepare a revised LCMP/ IPS/AP and a statement that summarizes the changes and obtain the approval of the revised LCMP/IPS/AP.
(2) The program manager, or the contracting officer if a program manager is not assigned, shall conduct an ASP for all ACAT programs and AFPEO/CM acquisitions.
(3) For Other Contracting acquisitions, ASPs shall be convened for all acquisitions requiring a formal/written AP. The ASP chairperson may establish streamlined ASP procedures for acquisitions <$5.5M.
(4) For Commodity Council acquisitions, the Commodity Council Director shall conduct an ASP.
(6) For Commodity Council acquisitions not within the PEO/CM Portfolio, the SCO or designee is the ASP chairperson.
5307.104-91 Air Force procedures for Life Cycle Management Plans (LCMP) / Integrated Program Summaries (IPS)
(1) For programs under the purview of DoDI 5000.02, the AS/LCMP shall include all required elements of a written acquisition plan in accordance with FAR 7.105, as supplemented. The AS/LCMP approval authority may determine additional content and coordination required of the AS/LCMP, subject to law and higher regulation(s) (see FAR 7.1 as supplemented). For additional guidance see Defense Acquisition Guidebook Chapter 2 and AFI 63-101.
(c) For commodity council acquisitions not within the PEO/CM Portfolio, the SCO or designee is the acquisition plan approval authority.
5307.104-93 Air Force Procedures for Commodity Councils
(1) Identify the Commodity Strategy Officials (CSO),
(b) PEO/CM shall coordinate on and CSOs shall approve all charters.
(c) SAF/AQC or designee shall coordinate on all commodity council charters.
See IG5307.104-93 Air Force Strategic Sourcing and Commodity Council Guide, dated XXXX 2010 (New)
5317.7404-3, 5317.7405 (added), and MP5317.74: Revises reporting requirements for Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs)
See the Mandatory Procedures at MP5317.74 for UCA approval authorities, reporting requirements and contracting officer file documentation.
See the Mandatory Procedures at MP5317.74 for reporting requirements.
MP5317.7404-3(S-90) Definitization schedule.
(a) (i) Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCA) approval authorities shall establish procedures for field offices to track all UCAs as defined in DFARS 217.7401(d) and DFARS 217.7402, to the maximum extent practicable.
(ii) The UCA approval authority must report to SAF/AQCK, safaqck.workflow@pentagon.af.mil, within 3 business days any UCA not definitized within 180 days. The report shall be submitted in the UCA Report format described in DFARS PGI 217.7405(2)(ii). The report shall also include detailed rationale as to why the UCA was not defnitized within the allotted timeframe (i.e., program requirements, receipt of qualifying proposal, audits, etc.), impacts to the program, and a revised estimated date of UCA definitization with a milestone schedule. Monthly updates to the report are required until the action is definitized.(b) Contracting officers shall document the contract file with the justification for the delay and the revised definitization milestone schedule.
MP5317.7405(b)(S-91) Plans and reports.
To comply with the semi-annual UCA reporting requirements described in DFARS 217.7405, SAF/AQCK will request all MAJCOM/DRU and AFISRA SCOs to submit their semi-annual UCA Management Reports for UCAs with an estimated value of more than $5M in the format described in DFARS PGI 217.7405(2)(ii) to SAF/AQCK, safaqck.workflow@pentagon.af.mil. SAF/AQCK will consolidate the UCA Reports and submit the consolidated report to OUSD(AT&L), Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy no later than April 30 and October 31 of each year.
5325, MP5325.7000-2, and MP5325.7000-3 (New): Incorporates changes resulting from DFARS Case 2008-0003 and SAF/AQC Policy Memo 08-C-03 dated April 3, 2008
5325.7002 Restrictions on Food, Clothing, Fabrics, and Hand or Measuring Tools. (No Text)
Follow the Mandatory Procedures at MP5325.7002-2 when purchasing restricted food, clothing, fabrics, and hand or measuring tools.
Exceptions for Food, Clothing, Fabrics, and Hand or Measuring Tools. When the Contracting Officer determines through market research, that an article or suitable substitute is not available from a domestic source, the Contracting Officer shall submit a Domestic Non-availability Determination (DNAD) following the format in the Mandatory Procedures at MP5325.7002-2. The DNAD shall be coordinated through SAF/AQCK, for approval by the Secretary of the Air Force. The authority of the Secretary of the Air Force to make determinations in accordance with DFARS 225.7002-2 is not delegable.
5325.7003 Restrictions on Speciality Metals. (No Text)
5325.7003-3 Exceptions.
(a) Exceptions for Specialty Metals. When the Contracting Officer determines, through market research, that a specialty metal melted or produced in the United States or its possessions cannot be procured in satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity, and in the required form, as and when needed, follow the format in the Mandatory Procedures MP5325.7003-3, Addendum 1, when submitting a request for Domestic Nonavailability Determination (DNAD). The DNAD shall be coordinated through SAF/AQCK for approval by the Secretary of the Air Force. The authority of the Secretary of the Air Force to make determinations in accordance with DFARS 225.7003-3 is not delegable. For contracts awarded after October 16, 2006, Contracting Officers are not authorizedto allow for the delivery of end-items or components containing specialty metals that were not domestically melted or produced in the absence of an approved DNAD.
(b) Exceptions for Commercial Derivative Military Articles (CDMA). When a contractor or offeror submits a certification for streamlined compliance for Commercial Derivative Military Articles, the Secretary of the Air Force must determine that the item is a CDMA before using the rules for streamlined compliance for CDMA. The contracting officer shall follow the procedures in DFARS 225.7003-3 and submit Determination and Finding following the format in the Mandatory Procedures at MP5325.7003-3, Addendum 2.
2. Domestic Non-Availability Determination (DNAD) Exception
Sample DNAD Format -- Food, Clothing, Fabrics, and Hand or Measuring Tools
Follow these Mandatory Procedures when requesting approval to purchase restricted food, clothing, fabrics, and hand or measuring tools under DFARS 225.7002. The requirement to comply with these statutory and regulatory restrictions applies to procurements in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. This MP provides assistance in determining the applicability of specialty restrictions when drafting a Domestic Non-Availability Determination (DNAD). A DNAD must be tailored to your acquisition scenario. In some cases it may not be possible to obtain all of the data contained in the attached sample; however, Contracting Officers should make every effort to do so.
a. Individual DNADs.
Food, Clothing, Fabrics, and Hand or Measuring Tools. When a contractor asserts that a domestic food, clothing, fabric, and hand or measuring tool Domestic Non-Availability Determination (DNAD) is required; the DNAD (See Addendum) must be coordinated through SAF/AQCK and submitted to the Secretary of the Air Force for approval. The Secretary of the Air Force can grant a DNAD if compliant food, clothing, fabrics, and hand or measuring tools of satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity, and in the required form, cannot be procured as and when needed. This approval authority is not delegable. This exception should not be read to require that the compliant material/item must be totally unavailable, i.e., cannot be obtained at any cost. There is some cost limit that should be recognizable by a Contracting Officer, and that a reasonable person would agree, makes the material/item effectively “unavailable.”
b. Class DNADs.
Food, Clothing, Fabric, and Hand or Measuring Tools. Contracting Officers may continue to use OUSD (AT&L) approved class DNADs that cover food, clothing, fabrics, and hand or measuring tools for new contracts if the DNAD was signed by the Undersecretary of Defense (OUSD (AT&L)) or by a Service Secretary. The OUSD (AT&L) DNADs that are currently available for reciprocal use are posted on the DCMA Website. If a class DNAD is used, the Contracting Officer must prepare a Determination and Finding (D&F) approved by the Senior Contracting Official (SCO) or for AFMC and AFSPC the Senior Center Contracting Official (SCCO). This approval may not be further delegated. The Contracting Officer shall obtain legal review to support the determination.
ADDENDUM—Sample D&F – Food, Clothing, Fabrics, and Hand or Measuring Tools
DNAD FOR {SPECIFY} FOOD, CLOTHING, FABRICS, AND HAND OR MEASURING TOOLS
Based on the findings above, I herby determine that a satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of the above [specify item(s)] that complies with the Berry Amendment cannot be acquired nor produced as and when needed at U. S. market prices. This determination is made in accordance with DFARS 225.7002-2 and 10 U.S.C. 2533a. Based on this determination, an exception applies to the requirements of the Berry Amendment to procurement of these items.
MP5325.7003-3 (NEW)
Domestic Non-Availability Determinations (DNAD) Under DFARS 225.7003
2. Applicability of Commercial Derivative Military Articles (CDMA) to Specialty Metals Restrictions
3. Domestic Non-Availability Determination (DNAD) Exception
1. Sample DNAD Format -- Specialty Metals
2. Sample Determination and Finding – Commercial Derivative Military Article
Follow these Mandatory Procedures when requesting approval to purchase restricted specialty metals under DFARS 225.7003. The requirement to comply with these statutory and regulatory restrictions applies to procurements in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. This MP provides guidance for drafting Domestic Non-Availability Determination (DNAD) and Commercial Derivative Military Article (CDMA) Determination and Finding (D&F) documents. The Contracting Officer should tailor the DNAD or CDMA D&Fs to fit the particular acquisition scenario. In some cases, the Contracting Officer may not be able to obtain all of the data specified in the attached samples; however, the Contracting Officer should make every effort to do so.
When a program office concludes that an item to be delivered under a prime contract is a commercial derivative military article (as defined at 10 U.S.C. §2533b(m)(7)) and the prime contractor provides the certification required at 10 U.S.C. §2533b(j)(1)(B), the Contracting Officer shall prepare a CDMA D&F using the sample format at addendum 2 and coordinate the effort through SAF/AQCK for submission to the Secretary of the Air Force for approval. This approval authority is not delegable.
When a program office concludes that domestically melted or produced specialty metal cannot be procured (as described in DFARS 225.7003-3(b)(5)) to support the production of a particular end item or component, the Contracting Officer shall prepare a DNAD D&F using the sample format at addendum 1. The contracting officer shall coordinate the effort through SAF/AQCK for submission to the Secretary of the Air Force for approval. The Secretary of the Air Force may grant a DNAD for an individual contract if compliant specialty metal of satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity, and in the required form, cannot be procured as and when needed. This approval authority is not delegable. A DNAD that applies to more than one contract (i.e., a class DNAD) requires the approval of the USD(AT&L).
ADDENDUM 1 – Sample D&F Format – Specialty Metals
DOMESTIC NON-AVAILABILITY DETERMINATION (DNAD) FOR [SPECIFY] SPECIALTY METALS
Pursuant to the authority contained in 10 U.S.C. §2533b and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 225.7003-3, I hereby make the following determination and findings concerning the domestic non-availability of specialty metals to support the proposed acquisition of [identify the specific end item(s) or component(s)] under [insert contract number].
1. The [insert name of contracting activity] has proposed to purchase [insert specific description of item(s) at prime and subcontract level]. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §2533b(a), the Department of Defense may not acquire this item unless the specialty metal contained therein is melted or produced in the United States, absent the application of one of the statutory exceptions cited at DFARS 225.7003-3(c). [insert program office] has concluded that domestically melted or produced specialty metal cannot be procured in a satisfactory quality, sufficient quantity, and the required form appropriate for the production of [identify the end item(s) or component(s)].
3. Describe the circumstances that preclude the procurement of the specialty metal required for the production of the end item(s) or component(s).
4. Describe market research performed, to include firms contacted. [Summarize the market research and analysis supporting the assertion of non-availability and include the contractor provided data as an attachment.] [Specify the activity (e.g., AFRL)] conducted an in-depth study of these items and determined that they are [provide brief summary of the analysis -- this should address the aspects of satisfactory quality, sufficient quantity in required form, and time requirements.]
5. Describe the impact if the DNAD is not approved. [Include the impact on the program’s delivery schedule, program costs, and mission.]
6. Describe any alternatives acquisition approaches that would not require a DNAD the program considered and why these alternatives/substitutes are not satisfactory.
Based on the findings above, I hereby determine that domestically melted or produced specialty metal cannot be procured as and when needed in a satisfactory quality, a sufficient quantity, and the required form appropriate for the production of [specify end item(s) or component(s)]. This determination is made in accordance with DFARS 225.7003-3(b)(5) and 10 U.S.C. §2533b(b). Based on this determination, an exception to the requirements of 10 U.S.C. §2533b(a) applies to permit the delivery of [specify end item(s) or component(s)] while containing specialty metal that was not domestically melted or produced. This determination will be effective until [specify time period, duration, scope (e.g. month/year, lot numbers).]
Sample D&F – Commercial Derivative Military Article
FOR {SPECIFY} COMMERCIAL DERIVATIVE MILITARY ARTICLE (CDMA)
Pursuant to the authority contained in 10 U.S.C. §2533b and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 225.7003-3, I hereby make the following determination and findings concerning [insert agency], [insert contracting activity].
The responsible program office has determined that the aircraft offered by [insert Contractor] in response to Solicitation Number [insert solicitation number], including airframe, engines, as well as related spares and associated parts, is a commercial derivative military article as defined by 10 U.S.C. 2533b(m)(7). See Attachment A. Further, [insert Contractor] has certified (see Attachment B), in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2533b(j)(1)(B), that it and its subcontractors have or will enter into a contractual agreement or agreements to purchase an amount of domestically melted or produced specialty metal in the required form for use during the period of contract performance in the production of the commercial derivative military article and the related commercial article that (pursuant to its good faith estimate) is not less than the greater of --
(i) An amount equivalent to 120% of the amount of specialty metal that is required to carry out the production of the commercial derivative military article (including the work performed under each subcontract); or
(ii) An amount equivalent to 50% of the amount of specialty metal that is purchased by the contractor and its subcontractors for use during such period in the production of the commercial derivative military article and the related commercial article.
Based on the findings above, I hereby determine that the aircraft offered by [insert Contractor] in response to Solicitation Number [insert Solicitation Number], including airframe, engines, as well as related assemblies, spares and associated parts, is a commercial derivative article as defined by 10 U.S.C. 2533b(m)(7), and that [insert Contractor] has satisfied the certification requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2533b(j)(1)(B). Accordingly, the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2533b(a) shall not apply to any contract with [insert Contractor] awarded pursuant to Solicitation Number [insert Solicitation Number].
A. Program Office Determination to support the commercial aspect of the item.
B. Contractor’s CDMA Certification
5337.90 – RESERVED
5352.237-9001 -- RESERVED
Replace Appendix CC: Contingency Operational Contracting Support Program (COCSP), dated March 18, 2009, with Appendix CC: Contingency Operational Contracting Support dated XXXX 2010, IG CC-301(b)(1), IG CC-301(B)(2)A, IG CC-502(a)(1), IG CC-502(a)(2), IG CC-502(A)(3), IG CC-502(a)(4), MP CC-301(c), MP CC-301(C)(1), MP CC-302(a), and MP CC-401(a)(i). (Appendix CC rewrite includes new DoD doctrine contained in Joint Publication 4-10 and new format)
See Appendix CC: Contingency Operational Contracting Support, dated XXXX 2010
See IG CC-301(b)(1): OPLAN Review, dated XXXX 2010
See IG CC-301(b)(2)A: Contracting Site Surveys, dated XXXX 2010
See IG CC-502(a)(1): Initial Deployment Phase Actions, dated XXXX 2010
See IG CC-502(a)(2): Build-up/Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and
Integration (RSOI) Phase Actions, dated XXXX 2010
See IG CC-502(a)(3): Sustainment Phase Actions, dated XXXX 2010
See IG CC-502(a)(4): Termination/Redeployment Phase Actions, dated XXXX 2010
See MP CC-301(c): Contracting Support of an Installation, Comprehensive
Emergency Management Plan (CEMP), dated XXXX 2010
See MP CC-301(c)(1): Contracting Incident Response Kits (CIRKS), dated XXXX 2010
See MP CC-302(a): Deployment/Mobility Kits, dated XXXX 2010
See MP CC-401(a)(i): Contingency Contracting Officer Training, dated XXXX 2010
MP5315.304 -- Evaluation Factors and Significant Subfactors
4.4.1.3.1 Most Probable Cost (MPC). The MPC estimate is the government estimate of the costs to acquire specified goods and/or services. This estimate includes not only those costs that will be included as part of the contract, but may include any other costs that will be incurred by the government in the performance of the acquisition program. The MPC is based upon an analysis of each offeror’s unique proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, and may consider such information as contained in the Program Office Estimate (POE) or Independent Government Estimate. Define all the components that make up the aggregate government most probable cost and specify them in the Section M evaluation criteria. IG 4.4.1.3.1 and IG5.5.4
4.4.1.3.2. (Most Probable Life Cycle Cost (MPLCC). For ACAT programs, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting)(DAS(C)) will approve the use of MPLCC as an evaluation criterion. The program manager with the assistance of the Contracting Officer will prepare the request for approval by including a justification statement addressing the rationale and methodology for using MPLCC as an evaluation criterion. Such request will be submitted to SAF/AQCK, safaqck.workflow@pentagon.af.mil 10 working days prior to convening the acquisition strategy panel (ASP) or the staffing of the acquisition plan, whichever occurs first.
4.4.1.4 Cost/Price Risk (Optional). This evaluation factor may be used, with SSA approval, for programs that use a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract structure involving a most probable cost/price evaluation. The Cost/Price Risk rating assesses the degree to which an offeror’s cost proposal compares with the government’s best estimate of the offeror’s Most Probable Cost (MPC). IG 4.4.1.4R1 If utilized, Cost/Price Risk shall be a significant evaluation factor. IG 4.4.1.4R2
MP5315.305 Proposal Evaluation
5.5.3. Cost or Price Evaluation. IG 5.5.3R1 Cost or price shall be an evaluation factor in each source selection. The proposed and, if applicable, evaluated total cost/price (such as most probable cost) must be presented with narrative descriptions of reasonableness, realism, affordability, etc. to the Source Selection Authority. The impact of any weakness identified that may disrupt schedule, increase cost, or degrade performance will be quantified (in dollars), where applicable, and utilized to adjust the cost/price (probable cost) for the Cost/Price evaluation Factor. The Source Selection Evaluation Team must use the appropriate analysis technique(s) identified in FAR 15.404 as supplemented to evaluate the proposed cost or price and shall inform offerors of the technique(s) to be used in the evaluation criteria (Section M or equivalent provisions of the solicitation). Note that a cost/price realism analysis cannot result in an adjustment of an offeror’s proposed fixed prices. See FAR 15.404-1(d)(3). To ensure the best possible evaluation, the entire government evaluation team shall have access to cost or pricing information. Under appropriate circumstances, non-government advisors (if approved to participate on the source selection IAW FAR 37.204) may be permitted access as required. IG 5.5.3R2
5.5.4 Cost/Price Risk Evaluation. For programs in which the SSA has approved the use of a cost/price risk factor, the SSET must perform a cost/price risk evaluation. The cost/price risk evaluation assesses the degree to which an offeror’s cost proposal for the contract line items to be included in the intended contract and associated options, if evaluated, compares with the government MPC for the same items. Cost/Price Risk shall be rated using the risk ratings listed in Table 4 below. In order to ensure that the Air Force and industry adequately understand the degree of cost/price risk associated with an offeror’s proposal, the SSET must develop the initial government MPC before competitive range determination and adequately communicate information about the rationale for the government’s risk assessment of Cost/Price Risk factor with each offeror during the discussions period (before request for Final Proposal Revision). IG 5.5.4
MP5315.308 -- Source Selection Decision (Documentation Requirements)
6.6.3 For ACAT I & II source selections, complete the Source Selection Participants worksheet by using the participants’ information from an approved Source Selection Plan. Source Selection Participants include all members of and advisors to the SSAC, the SSET, and the PCAG. Do not include contractor participants. The completed worksheet will be submitted no later than 30 days after contract award or termination/cancellation of source selection to SAF/AQCK, safaqck.workflow@pentagon.af.mil. Click on the link below to download worksheet (you may need to copy and paste link into your web browser):
https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-af/USAF/AFP40/d/s6925EC133CA00FB5E044080020E329A9/Files/5315/source-selection-participants-worksheet.xls
7.9. Decision Briefing. Whenever the Source Selection Authority is other than the contracting officer, a source selection decision briefing is mandatory and shall be included in the source selection file. IG 7.9
Note: The decision briefing depicts the final assessment only (i.e. pertinent information obtained from Final Proposal Revisions to final ratings). While the Source Selection Evaluation Team will brief the resolution of prior deficiencies and weaknesses, the charts contain no indications of ratings assessed at the time of the Competitive Range determination and pre-Final Proposal Revision briefing. However, the Source Selection Authority may discuss with the team, any issues or remaining questions regarding the offerors’ proposals.
This table is provided as Informational Guidance. It is a “Best Practice” example.
4. Pre-solicitation Activities
4.4.1.3.1. For ACAT I programs, the MPC may include an analysis of the uncertainties inherent in any acquisition, from those related to the cost estimating methods chosen, to those associated with the technical and programmatic assumptions of the program. One way of defining MPC is the most frequently occurring value (or mode) resulting from the analysis. The application of the various statistical techniques inherent in uncertainty analysis will result in a mathematically correct most probable cost, as well as a range (or distribution) of possible costs from which confidence levels may be determined. Additionally, cost uncertainty described in this paragraph means the uncertainty and risk inherent in the cost estimating process, not the uncertainty referenced in Table 1 and defined in paragraph 8.16. Techniques for cost uncertainty analysis are described in the Air Force Cost Risk and Uncertainty Handbook.
4.4.1.4. (ref 1) The purpose of this risk rating is to provide information to the SSA that allows selection of an offeror who proposed a rational and realistic cost for the work to be accomplished. Through the RFP, the Air Force team must communicate to all offerors our deep concern for risk to our programs that is associated with overly optimistic or unrealistic cost or price proposals. We must clearly convey to all offerors that submitting costs or prices based on unrealistic or overly optimistic development outcomes may result in that offeror not being selected for award. This optional evaluation criterion may be particularly suited for use in ACAT programs in the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase using a cost-reimbursement contract type, where the Air Force is concerned that offerors may understate contract costs to obtain contract award.
(2) For a service:
(c) If an offeror’s proposed approach to providing the required services has been successfully demonstrated and proven to be effective in satisfying a DoD requirement, then a Low risk rating may be appropriate. Indicators would be proposed staffing with proven processes and implementation plans that reflect the offeror’s technical expertise concerning the requirement. Any identified risks would have sound mitigation plans in place.
5.5.2.2. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. [FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) & (iv)].
5.5.3. (ref 2) When utilizing the MPC estimating process for ACAT I programs, cost uncertainty analysis should be conducted that allows a range (or distribution) of possible costs to be developed based on statistical techniques. This is necessary because the term “most probable” implies that other, less likely estimates exist. Cost uncertainty analysis quantifies uncertainty due to the variance in cost estimating methods, as well as uncertainty in the technical, schedule, performance and programmatic inputs. The application of the various statistical techniques inherent in uncertainty analysis will result in a mathematically correct most probable cost, a level of confidence, and the confidence levels for all other costs. Uncertainty analysis is highly recommended but not required for programs smaller than ACAT I. For additional information, reference the Air Force handbook of Cost Uncertainty and Risk Analysis. This handbook and related information is located on the FM Knowledge Now Website (https://afkm.wpafb.af.mil/ASPs/CoP/OpenCop.asp?Filter=OO-FM-CA-01).
5.5.4. MPC referred to in the mandatory procedures is the same thing as the probable costs referred to in the FAR. A draft program office estimate (POE) or Independent Government Estimate (IGE) with the cost estimating data and methodology should be established before the intense and extensive up-front communications with prospective offerors. The POE/IGE may be altered due to methodologies and data acquired during these discussions. The MPC developed for each offeror may use some of the estimating techniques from the POE/IGE depending on the proposed solution when compared to the assumptions for the POE/IGE. Many times the estimating techniques will be adjusted for the offeror’s unique characteristics. The Cost/Price risk evaluation is the result of comparing and contrasting each offeror’s MPC (and its associated uncertainty analysis) with each individual proposal (and its associated uncertainty analysis).
If a decision has been made to do a formal uncertainty analysis, the contractor shall provide both its proposed cost and its analysis of uncertainty as part of its proposal. In order to ensure that the Air Force and industry adequately understand the degree of cost/price risk associated with an offeror's proposal, the SSET must adequately communicate information about the rationale for the government's risk assessment of the Cost/Price Risk factor with each offeror during the discussions period after the competitive range determination but before request for Final Proposal Revision. The uncertainty analysis should be performed for ACAT I programs and the AF Cost and Risk Uncertainty Handbook can be used as a guide. This handbook and related information is located on the FM Knowledge Now Website (https://km.saffm.hq.af.mil/). Uncertainty analysis is highly recommended but not required for programs smaller than ACAT I.