Source: http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/changes/dac/DCN20060908.htm
Timestamp: 2019-02-20 08:08:47
Document Index: 316415579

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 237', 'arts 204', 'arts 204', 'arts 204', 'arts 202', 'art 10', 'art 210', 'art 215', 'art 10', 'art 210', 'art 219']

DCN20060908
[Page 53045-53046]
[DOCID:fr08se06-22]
RIN 0750-AF34
SUMMARY: DoD has issued an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Section 1211 prohibits DoD from acquiring United States Munitions List items from Communist Chinese military companies.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2006-D007, using any of the following methods:
E-mail: dfars@osd.mil <mailto:dfars@osd.mil>. Include DFARS Case 2006-D007 in the subject line of the message.
DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule affects only those entities that are a part of the industrial base of the People's Republic of China or that are owned or controlled by, or affiliated with, an element of the Government or armed forces of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, DoD has not performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. DoD invites comments from small businesses and other interested parties. DoD also will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2006-D007.
The prohibition in 225.770-2 does not apply to supplies or services acquired--
As prescribed in 225.1103(4), use the following clause:Prohibition On Acquisition of United States Munitions List Items From Communist Chinese Military Companies (SEP 2006)
Communist Chinese military company means any entity that is--
[Page 53044-53045]
[DOCID:fr08se06-21]
[DFARS Case 2003-D044]
SUMMARY: DoD has issued a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update text on acquisition planning. This rule is a result of a transformation initiative undertaken by DoD to dramatically change the purpose and content of the DFARS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Gomersall, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0302; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2003-D044.
Delete text addressing the contents of written acquisition plans. Text on this subject has been relocated to the DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI), available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi>.
207.102 [Removed]
(ii) Written plans are not required in acquisitions for a final buy out or one-time buy. The terms ``final buy out'' and ``one-time buy'' refer to a single contract that covers all known present and future requirements. This exception does not apply to a multiyear contract or a contract with options or phases.
(h) For procurement of conventional ammunition, as defined in DoDD 5160.65, Single Manager for Conventional Ammunition (SMCA), the SCMA will review the acquisition plan to determine if it is consistent with retaining national technology and industrial base capabilities in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(3) and Section 806 of Public Law 105-261. The department or agency--
207.104 [Removed]
[Page 53047-53049]
[DOCID:fr08se06-23]
SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, with changes, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 1092 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Section 1092 requires that DoD contractor personnel who interact with detainees receive training regarding the applicable international obligations and laws of the United States.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0328; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2005-D007.
The respondent recommended addition of a definition of the term ``personnel interacting with detainees'' in section 237.171-2, consistent with the definition in the contract clause.
DoD Response. Section 237.171-2 of the final rule includes a definition of ``personnel interacting with detainees'' as well as a definition of ``combatant commander,'' since that term is also used within 237.171.
Paragraph (a) introductory text--DoD has replaced the phrase ``individuals detained by DoD on behalf of the U.S. Government'' with the word ``detainees'' for consistency with the terminology used throughout the rule. DoD has not adopted the respondent's recommendation to further amend 237.171-3 to more specifically describe the contracts that are subject to the rule's requirements, since the clause prescription at 237.171-4 adequately describes the criteria for application of the policy.
Paragraph (a)(1)--DoD has clarified that the training will be provided by the Government. DoD has not adopted the respondent's recommendation to state that the training will be conducted by U.S. Government personnel, since the training might be conducted by a Government contractor.
Paragraph (a)(2)--DoD has revised the requirement for contractor personnel to ``Acknowledge receipt of the training'' to a requirement for contractor personnel to ``Provide a copy of the training receipt document to the contractor.'' Although the law requires that the Commander of detention facilities provide training and documented receipt of receiving training, it also requires that each contract in which contractor personnel will interact with detainees include a requirement that such contractor personnel have received training, and documented acknowledgement of receiving training. Taken alone, this second requirement might be interpreted to mean that the contractor personnel must document acknowledgement of receiving training. It is more reasonable, in view of the first requirement, to interpret the law to mean that the contractor personnel must receive the documented acknowledgement of receiving training from the training provider. The receipt generated may not require any acknowledgement as a condition for issuance. The receipt itself represents an acknowledgement that the training was received. Further, it may not be U.S. Government personnel that issue the receipt. For example, the receipt might be automatically issued upon completion of a computer-hosted training module.
Paragraph (b)--DoD has revised paragraph (b) to clarify that the combatant commander will ``arrange for'' the training (rather than ``provide'' the training). The combatant commander most likely will not be the specific person performing the training. DoD considers it unnecessary for the DFARS to specify that the training is to be determined appropriate by the combatant commander or that the combatant commander determines the geographic location of the training. This is implied in the concept of Government-provided training that is arranged by the combatant commander. Furthermore, location may not be an issue, as in the case of computer-based training.
DoD Response. It is outside the scope of authority of the DFARS and PGI to require a common core of training. The Secretary of Defense has assigned the responsibility for development of training to the combatant commanders. Furthermore, it may be impracticable to require combatant commanders to have identical, standardized training. Each combatant commander should have the prerogative and flexibility to decide what training is appropriate for the command.
DoD Response. The language in paragraph (c) of the contract clause is the standard language used in FAR/DFARS clauses requiring flowdown to subcontractors. Paragraph (c) requires the contractor to include the ``substance'' of the clause in its subcontracts. This wording allows the contractor to adjust the terminology appropriately to reflect the relationship between the contractor and its subcontractor. The clause does not require that subcontractors flow the paperwork up to the prime contractor.
DoD Response. The law does not require advance training, but it should be strongly encouraged. Therefore, DoD has amended paragraph (b)(2)(i) of the contract clause to require training ``as soon as possible if, for compelling reasons, the Contracting Officer authorizes interaction with detainees prior to receipt of such training.''
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR Parts 237 and 252, which was published at 70 FR 52032 on September 1, 2005, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:
(a) Each DoD contract in which contractor personnel, in the course of their duties, interact with detainees shall include a requirement that such contractor personnel--
a. By revising the clause date to read ``(SEP 2006)''; and
b. In paragraphs (b)(18) and (c)(2) by removing ``(SEP 2005)'' and adding in its place ``(SEP 2006)''.
(2)(i) The Contractor shall arrange for its personnel interacting
with detainees to--
(A) Receive the training specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause--
[Page 53044]
[DOCID:fr08se06-20]
48 CFR Parts 204, 236, and 252
SUMMARY: DoD is making technical amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update an organization name and reference numbers.
Section 204.805. Reflects the change in name of the ``General Accounting Office'' to the ``Government Accountability Office''.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 204, 236, and 252 are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 204, 236, and 252 continues to read as follows:
2. Section 204.805 is amended in paragraph (2), in the second sentence, by removing ``General Accounting'' and adding in its place ``Government Accountability''.
236.602-1 [Amended]
3. Section 236.602-1 is amended in paragraph (a), in the first sentence, by removing ``5.205(c)'' and adding in its place ``5.205(d)''.
252.225-7023 [Amended]
b. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing ``225.7020-3'' and adding in its place ``225.7010-3''.
[Page 53042-53043]
[DOCID:fr08se06-19]
RIN 0750-AF36
SUMMARY: DoD has issued an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement Section 816 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Section 816 requires DoD to prescribe guidance on the use of tiered evaluation of offers for contracts and for task or delivery orders under contracts.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2006-D009, using any of the following methods:
[cir] Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov>.
[cir] E-mail: dfars@osd.mil <mailto:dfars@osd.mil>. Include DFARS Case 2006-D009 in the subject line of the message.
[cir] Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Deborah Tronic, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062.
[cir] Hand Delivery/Courier: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Crystal Square 4, Suite 200A, 241 18th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-3402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Tronic, (703) 602-0289.
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This interim rule implements Section 816 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Pub. L. 109-163). Section 816 requires DoD to prescribe guidance prohibiting the use of tiered evaluation of offers unless the contracting officer has complied with certain market research and documentation requirements. Comments received in response to this interim rule will be considered in the formation of the final rule.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 202, 210, 213, 215, and 219 are amended as
2. Section 202.101 is amended by adding a definition of ``Tiered evaluation of offers'' to read as follows:
Tiered evaluation of offers, also known as cascading evaluation of offers, means a procedure used in negotiated acquisitions, when market research is inconclusive for justifying limiting competition to small business concerns, whereby the contracting officer--
(i) Conduct market research appropriate to the circumstances before--
(ii) Use the results of market research to determine--
(A) Whether consolidation of contract requirements is necessary and justified in accordance with Sec. 207.170-3; or
(c) Before issuing a solicitation with a tiered evaluation of offers--(1) The contracting officer shall conduct market research, in accordance with FAR part 10 and part 210, to determine--
Subpart 215.2--Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Information.
(c) Before issuing a solicitation with a tiered evaluation of offers--
(1) The contracting officer shall conduct market research, in accordance with FAR part 10 and part 210, to determine--
Subpart 219.13--Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program
219.1307 Price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business