Source: http://www.fedgovcontracts.com/newsltr/fcp16-9.htm
Timestamp: 2018-03-23 04:47:03
Document Index: 472020412

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 204', 'art 239', 'art 204', 'art 239', 'art 204', 'art 239', 'art 12', 'art 217', 'art 217', 'art 17', 'art 700']

September 2015 Federal Contracts Perspective
DOD Issues Regulations on Network Penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud Services
Updates for 2017 Version of NAICS Proposed
NASA Increases Capitalization Threshold
DOD Enters into Supply Security Arrangement with Spain
DOD Issues Regulations on Network Penetration
Reporting and Contracting for Cloud Services
The Department of Defense (DOD) has amended the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to require contractors and subcontractors to report cyber incidents that affect a contractor information system or defense information in its possession, and to provide guidance on the acquisition of cloud services. In addition, DOD has finalized several interim and proposed rules, and has proposed regulations required by Congress on the evaluating the price reasonableness of commercial items.
Network Penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud Services: This interim rule amends DFARS subpart 204.73, Safeguarding Unclassified Controlled Technical Information, to (1) implement Section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Public Law 112-239) and Section 1632 of the NDAA for FY 2015 (Public Law 113-291), both of which require contractors to report network penetrations. In addition, this interim rule adds DFARS subpart 239.76, Cloud Computing, to implement DOD policy on the acquisition of cloud computing services. The combination of the two statutes and the cloud computing policy will increase the cyber security requirements placed on DOD information in contractor systems and will help DOD to mitigate the risks related to compromised information as well as gather information for future improvements in cyber security policy.
Section 941 requires cleared defense contractors to report penetrations of networks and information systems and allows DOD personnel access to equipment and information to assess the impact of reported penetrations. Section 1632 requires that a contractor designated as operationally critical must report each time a cyber incident occurs on that contractor's network or information systems. To implement these two sections, the following DFARS amendments are made:
DFARS subpart 204.73, is retitled “Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting,” and is modified to expand safeguarding and reporting policy to require protection of covered defense information, which includes controlled technical information, export controlled information, critical information, and other information requiring protection by law, regulation, or government-wide policy.
DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding of Unclassified Controlled Technical Information, is retitled “Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting,” and is amended to expand the scope of the clause to cover the safeguarding of covered defense information and to require contractors to report cyber incidents involving this new class of information as well as any cyber incident that may affect the ability to provide operationally critical support. The security controls in Table 1 of the clause, which is based on National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-53, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, are replaced by NIST SP 800-171, Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations. NIST SP 800-171 is specifically tailored for use in protecting sensitive information residing in contractor information systems, is in a format that is easier to use, and greatly increases the protections of government information in contractor information systems while reducing the burden placed on the contractor by eliminating federal-centric processes and requirements in NIST SP 800-53.
DFARS 252.204-7008, Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls, is added to ensure that offerors are aware of the requirements of DFARS 252.204-7012. It allows offerors to propose to deviate from any of the security requirements in NIST SP 800-171 by providing the contracting officer, for consideration by the DOD Chief Information Officer, a written explanation of (1) why a particular requirement is not applicable, or (2) how alternative, but equally effective, security measures can compensate for the inability to satisfy a particular requirement.
DFARS 252.204-7009, Limitations on the Use and Disclosure of Third-Party Contractor Reported Cyber Incident Information, is added to protect information submitted to DOD in response to a cyber incident.
In addition, this interim rule implements DOD policies and procedures for contracting for cloud computing services. The DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) issued a memo on December 15, 2014, “Updated Guidance on the Acquisition and Use of Commercial Cloud Computing Services,” to clarify DOD guidance when acquiring commercial cloud services (at http://iase.disa.mil/Documents/commercial_cloud_computing_services.pdf) Also, the DOD CIO released a Cloud Computing Security Requirements Guide (SRG) Version 1, Release 1 on January 13, 2015, for cloud service providers to comply with when providing the DOD with cloud services (at http://iase.disa.mil/cloud_security/Pages/index.aspx). To implement these new policies, the following DFARS amendments are made:
DFARS subpart 239.76 is added to implement policy for the acquisition of cloud computing services. It references the SRG and requires all cloud computing service providers “to maintain within the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or outlying areas of the United States, all government data that is not physically located on DOD premises, unless otherwise authorized by the authorizing official...” (the definition of “authorizing official is in DFARS 239.7601, Definitions).
DFARS 252.239-7009, Representation of Use of Cloud Computing, is added to allow the offeror to represent whether it anticipates using cloud computing services in performance of the contract or not.
DFARS 252.239-7010, Cloud Computing Services, is added to provide standard contract language for the acquisition of cloud computing services; including access, security and reporting requirements.
Finally, the term “cyber incident” is removed from DFARS 204.7301, Definitions, and moved to DFARS 202.101, Definitions, and “compromise” and “media” are added to DFARS 202.101 because the terms are used in both DFARS part 204, Administrative Matters, and DFARS part 239, Acquisition of Information Technology.
Comments on this interim rule must be submitted no later than October 26, 2015, identified as “DFARS Case 2013-D018,” by any of the following methods: (1) the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov; (2) email: osd.dfars@mail.mil; (3) fax: 571-372-6094; or (4) mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Dustin Pitsch, OUSD(AT&L) DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.
Item Unique Identification Prescription Correction: This final rule amends paragraph (a)(1) of DFARS 211.274-6, Contract Clauses [for item identification and valuation requirements], to correct the prescription for DFARS 252.211-7003, Item Unique Identification and Valuation, which requires unique identification for all delivered items for which the government’s unit acquisition cost is $5,000 or more and for other items designated by the government.
The final rule corrects the prescription to clarify that DFARS 252.211-7003 is used in solicitations and contracts that include the furnishing of “supplies, and for services involving the furnishing of supplies, unless the exceptions at 211.274-2(b) [Policy for Item Unique Identification] apply.” The previous prescription did not address the exceptions for use of the clause and instead stated that the clause applies to items “that require item identification or valuation, or both, in accordance with 211.274-2 and 211.274-3 [Policy for Valuation].”
Acquisition of the American Flag: This finalizes, without changes, the proposed rule that would amend DFARS 225.7002, Restrictions on Food, Clothing, Fabrics, Hand or Measuring Tools, and Flags, and add DFARS 252.225-7006, Acquisition of the American Flag, to implement Section 8123 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-76) and Section 8119 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-235), which require that United States flags (including its materials and components) be manufactured in the United States.
The rule proposed to amend DFARS 225.7002-1, Restrictions, to implement this requirement, and to amend DFARS 225.7002-3, Contract Clauses, to require the use of DFARS 252.225-7006 “in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that are for the acquisition of the American flag, with an estimated value that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold.” However, DFARS 225.7002-1 would have included the following: “This restriction does not apply to the acquisition of any end-items or components related to flying or displaying the flag (e.g., flag poles and accessories).”
Two comments were received on the proposed rule, but no changes were made in response to the comments, so it is finalized without changes. For more on the proposed rule, see the March 2015 Federal Contracts Perspective article “DOD Issues Multitude of Guidance (and Some Regulations).”
Contracts or Delivery Orders Issued by a Non-DOD Agency: This final rule moves the regulations in DFARS subpart 217.78, Contracts or Delivery Orders Issued by a Non-DOD Agency, to DFARS subpart 217.7, Interagency Acquisitions: Acquisitions by Nondefense Agencies on Behalf of the Department of Defense, to bring the DFARS into alignment with the same coverage in the FAR (see the July 2013 Federal Contracts Perspective article “FAC 2005-67 Removes Limits on WOSB Set-Asides, Addresses Concerns with Acquisition of Social Media”). In addition, definitions for “non-DOD agency” and “non-DOD agency that is an element of the intelligence community” are removed from the DFARS because the subject matter is now addressed in FAR subpart 17.7, and other duplicative text is removed.
Use of Military Construction Funds: This finalizes, without changes, the interim rule that implemented Sections 108, 111, and 112 of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-235), which require offerors and bidders on DOD military construction contracts to provide an opportunity for competition to American steel producers, fabricators, and manufacturers; and restrict the use of military construction funds in certain foreign countries, including countries that border the Arabian Gulf.
The provisions on competition for military construction subcontracts in Section 108 have been in effect since 2009 with the enactment of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-329). The interim rule revised DFARS 236.274, Restriction on Acquisition of Steel for Use in Military Construction Projects, by removing “(Pub. L. 110-329, Division E)” and replacing it with “(Pub. L. 110-329, Division E) and the same provision in subsequent military construction appropriations acts.” In addition, the rule amended paragraph (d)(1) of DFARS 236.570, Additional Provisions and Clauses [for architect-engineer services contracts], by removing “by Title I of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 110-329, Division E)” and replacing it with “for military construction.”
The provisions on the use of funds on military architect-engineer contracts in Section 111, and the provisions of the use of funds on military construction in Section 112, have been in place since 1997 and have applied to “countries bordering the Arabian Gulf.” However, Sections 111 and 112 of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-76) changed the restriction to “countries bordering the Arabian Sea (i.e., India, Iran, Oman, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen)” (see the January 2015 Federal Contracts Perspective article “DOD Conducts Regulation-Dump”). Public Law 113-235 changed it back to “countries bordering the Arabia Gulf.”
The interim rule implemented the DFARS class deviation that made the change back to “countries bordering the Arabian Gulf.” Because there is not uniform agreement as to the correct name for the body of water located between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula (often referred to as the “Persian Gulf”), the interim rule listed the countries bordering the Gulf in clockwise order (Iran, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Iraq). For more on the class deviation, see the January 2015 Federal Contracts Perspective article “DOD Conducts Regulation-Dump”).
No comments were submitted on the interim rule, so it is finalized without changes. For more on the interim rule, see the April 2015 Federal Contracts Perspective article “DOD Conducts Mop-Up Operations.”
Contractor Personnel Supporting U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States: This finalizes, with editorial changes, the rule that proposed to update references in DFARS 252.225-7040, Contractor Personnel Supporting U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States, and to clarify various aspects of the clause.
No comments were submitted on the proposed rule, so it is finalized without changes. For more on the proposed rule, see the February 2015 Federal Contracts Perspective article “Defense FAR Supplement Changes Abound.”
Evaluating Price Reasonableness for Commercial Items: This proposed rule would implement Section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Public Law 112-239), which requires the issuance of guidance on the use of the authority to require the submission of other than cost or pricing data. This guidance must accomplish the following:
Include standards for determining whether information on the prices at which the same or similar items have previously been sold is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of price;
Include standards for determining the extent of uncertified cost information that should be required in cases in which price information is not adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of price;
Ensure that in cases in which such uncertified cost information is required, the information shall be provided in the form in which it is regularly maintained by the offeror in its business operations; and
Provide that no additional cost information may be required by DOD in any case in which there are sufficient nongovernment sales to establish reasonableness of price.
To implement Section 831, this rule proposes to amend the DFARS as follows:
Add definitions for “market-based pricing” and “uncertified cost data” to DFARS 202.101, Definitions.
Add DFARS 212.209, Determination of Price Reasonableness [for the acquisition of commercial items], which would require contracting officers to obtain adequate commercial marketplace sales data to ensure the price offered to the government is reasonably consistent with market-based pricing, and references DFARS 215.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.
Add DFARS 215.401, Definitions, which would include definitions for “nongovernment sales,” “relevant sales data,” and “sufficient nongovernment sales to establish reasonableness of price.”
Amend DFARS 215.402, Pricing Policy, to add guidelines for obtaining data other than certified cost or pricing data.
Amend DFARS 215.403-5, Instructions for Submission of Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, to provide instructions for the submission of certified cost or pricing data and data other than certified cost or pricing data.
Revise DFARS 215.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, to add guidelines concerning proposal analysis techniques.
Add DFARS 252.215-70XX, Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, which is to be used in lieu of FAR 52.215-20, Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, in solicitations and contracts when it is reasonably certain that the submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data will be required.
Add DFARS 252.215-70YY, Requirements for Submission of Proposals to the Administrative Contracting Officer and Contract Auditor, for use when the basic or alternate of DFARS 252.215-70XX is included in the solicitation if copies of the proposal are to be sent to the administrative contracting officer (ACO) and contract auditor.
Add DFARS 252.215-70ZZ, Requirements for Submission of Proposals via Electronic Media, for use when the basic or alternate of DFARS 252.215-70XX is included in the solicitation if submission via electronic media is required.
Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted no later than October 2, 2015, identified as “DFARS Case 2013-D034,” by any of the following methods: (1) the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov; (2) email: osd.dfars@mail.mil; (3) fax: 571-372-6094; or (4) mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mark Gomersall, OUSD(AT&L) DPAP/DARS, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is seeking comments on the advisability of adopting the recommendations of its Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC) on updating the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) for 2017. The ECPC, which is comprised of representatives of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Census Bureau, recommends an update of the industry classification system to clarify existing industry definitions and content, recognize new and emerging industries, and correct errors and omissions in the 2012 version of the NAICS.
The NAICS is a system for classifying individual business locations (establishments) by type of economic activity. Its purposes are to: (1) facilitate the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis of data relating to establishments, and (2) promote uniformity and comparability in the presentation and analysis of statistical data describing the North American economy. Mexico and Canada have collaborated on NAICS with the ECPC to make the industry statistics produced by the three countries comparable.
In May 2014, OMB solicited proposals on changes to the structure and content of the NAICS for inclusion in a potential 2017 revision (see the June 2014 Federal Contracts Perspective article “Proposals Sought for NAICS 2017”). OMB sought proposals/comments in four areas: new and emerging industries; electronic dissemination of NAICS 2017; updating the structure of the oil and gas industries; and updating the treatment of manufacturing units that outsource transformation (factoryless goods producers [FGPs]). More than 22,000 comments were submitted addressing FGPs, and OMB decided not to implement any changes involving FGPs in NAICS 2017. There were 113 other comments addressing other aspects of OMB’s solicitation, and OMB has published ECPC’s recommendations on proposed revisions to NAICS 2017. The recommendations have been kept to 28 industries – the minimum needed to significantly improve the relevance and efficiency of the NAICS and to avoid any unnecessary cost and disruption of statistical data collection resulting from changes in NAICS 2017. Most of the changes involve industries petroleum and natural gas extraction, mining, major household appliance manufacturing, electronic shopping and mail-order houses, and research and development in nanotechnology. The proposed changes are listed in two tables: one lists, in NAICS 2012 order, the disposition of all industries that the ECPC recommends for change and their resulting relationship to NAICS United States 2017 proposed industries; the other lists, in NAICS 2017 order, the ECPC recommended NAICS 2017 changes cross-walked to their NAICS 2012 content.
Comments on the proposed NAICS 2017 changes must be submitted no later than October 5, 2015, identified as “DFARS Case 2013-D034,” by any of the following methods: (1) the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov; (2) email: naics@omb.eop.gov (put “NAICS17” in the subject line); (3) fax: 202-395-7245; or (4) mail: Katherine K. Wallman, Chief Statistician, Office of Management and Budget, 10201 New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has issued an interim rule amending the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to increase its capitalization threshold from $100,000 to $500,000.
The Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard (SFFAS) No. 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, requires federal agencies to record as property and equipment all items that meet certain characteristics, such as a useful life of two years or more, and it permits agencies to establish individual capitalization thresholds and useful life policies because of their diverse sizes and uses of property, plant, and equipment. SFFAS No. 6 was issued in November 1995. The current NASA capitalization threshold of $100,000 was established when SFFAS No. 6 was initially implemented.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommends that capitalization thresholds be periodically reevaluated to ensure their continuing relevance. Recently, the NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) conducted a review of the current NASA capitalization threshold and determined that it should be increased from $100,000 to $500,000.
To implement this increase in the capitalization threshold, this interim rule makes the following changes:
Paragraph (b) is added to NFS 1845.301-71, Use of Government Property for Commercial Work. It provides procedures for contractors to request permission for the use government property for commercial work for more than 25% of the time available for use. Equipment having a unit acquisition cost of $500,000 or more shall be considered on an item-by-item basis by the Center Procurement Officer.
The capitalization threshold is changed from $100,000 to $500,000 in the following NFS sections: NFS 1845.7101-1, Property Classification; NFS 1845.7101-2, Transfers of Property; NFS 1845.7101-3, Unit Acquisition Cost; NFS 1852.245-70, Contractor Requests for Government-Provided Equipment; and NFS 1852.245-78, Physical Inventory of Capital Personal Property.
Comments on this interim rule must be submitted no later than October 26, 2015, identified as “NFS Case 2015-N004,” by any of the following methods: (1) the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov; (2) email: Andrew.ORourke@NASA.gov; (3) fax: 202-358-3082; or (4) mail: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Headquarters, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, Attn: Andrew O’Rourke, Room 5L32, 300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
In addition to the capitalization threshold rule, NASA is proposing to amend NFS 1852.223-70, Safety and Health, to: (1) narrow its application by decreasing the reporting burden on contractors, and (2) reinforce the measures contractors at NASA facilities must take to protect the safety of their workers, NASA employees, the public, and high value assets.
NFS 1852.223-70 is included in contracts when: (1) the contractor’s work will be conducted completely or partly on premises owned or controlled by the government; (2) the work includes construction, alteration, or repair of facilities in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold ($150,000); (3) the work involves hazards that could endanger the public, astronauts and pilots, the NASA workforce (including contractor employees working on NASA contracts), or high value equipment or property, and the hazards are not adequately addressed by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations; or (4) the assessed risk and consequences of a failure to properly manage and control the hazard warrants use of the clause.
The clause requires the contractor to report certain mishaps or close calls (“a situation or occurrence with no injury, no damage or only minor damage [less than $1,000] but possesses the potential to cause any type mishap, or any injury, damage, or negative mission impact”), investigate these incidents, and provide a report to the contracting officer on the incident and corrective action taken in response to the incident. The clause also contains reporting requirements related to the contract safety and health plan which is required under NASA contracts that contains NFS 1852.223-70.
While NFS 1852.223-70 requires the contractor to take all reasonable safety and occupational health measures in performing the contract, it does not specify what these measures should include. In addition, while the clause provides for remedies if the contractor’s failure or refusal to comply with safety and health measures and to institute prompt corrective action, it does not specify applicable remedies.
The proposed rule addresses both reducing the burden on contractors, is more specific on the safety and health measures the contractor must take when working on a federal facility, and specifies the remedies the government may take for failure to maintain an effective safety and health program. The proposed rule would make the following changes to NFS 1852.223-70:
The title of the clause would be changed “Safety and Health” to “Safety and Health Measures and Mishap Reporting.” The new title would emphasize the purpose of the clause, which is to ensure contractors working at federal facilities are taking appropriate measures to protect the safety of their workers, other individuals working at the facility, and the public.
To reduce the burden on contractors, the clause prescription in NFS 1823.7001, NASA Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses, would be revised to require its inclusion in solicitations and contracts that involve performance at a federal facility.
NFS 1852.223-70(b) would be expanded to list safety and occupational health measures a contractor must take in performing the contract: (1) comply with federal, state, and local safety and occupational health laws and with the safety and occupational health requirements of the contract; (2) describe and assign the responsibilities of managers, supervisors, and employees; (3) inspect regularly for and identify, evaluate, prevent, and control hazards; (4) orient and train employees to eliminate or avoid hazards; and (5) periodically review the program’s effectiveness.
NFS 1852.223-70(d) would be revised to remove text describing various accidents, incidents, or exposures which constitute a mishap or close call in favor of a reference to NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8621.1, Mishap and Close Call Reporting, Investigating, and Recordkeeping, which contains a listing and description of the types of mishaps or close calls the contractor must report to the contracting officer. (EDITOR’S NOTE: NPR 8621.1 can be accessed at http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8621&s=1B).
NFS 1852.223-70(e) would be revised to eliminate the requirement for the contractor to investigate all work-related incidents, accidents, and close calls, to determine their causes and furnish a report to the contracting officer. In its place would be substituted a requirement to cooperate with any government-authorized investigation by providing access to their employees and relevant information in the possession of the contractor regarding the mishap or close call.
NFS 1852.223-70(f) would be revised to eliminate the requirement for the contracting officer to notify the contractor “in writing” of any noncompliance, because emergency circumstances may necessitate that this communication be done orally. In addition, the term “this clause” would be replaced with “the health and safety requirements of this contract” to include any health or safety requirements contained elsewhere in the contract. Furthermore, to reduce the burden on contractors, the requirement to report corrective action to the contracting officer would be removed. Finally, the remedies available to the government when the contractor fails or refuses to take action to correct a serious or imminent danger to safety and health would be revised to include requiring the contractor to remove and replace any contractor or subcontractor personnel performing under this contract who fail to comply with or violate applicable requirements ofclause. The contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the clause may be included in appropriate databases of past performance and may be considered in any responsibility determination or evaluation of past performance.
The clause flow-down requirements in NFS 1852.223-70(g) and (h) would be simplified and reduced to apply only to subcontracts above the simplified acquisition threshold when the work will be conducted completely or partly on federally-controlled facilities.
NFS 1852.223-70(i) would be deleted because the requirement to provide government representatives access to the work site to determine the adequacy of the contractor’s safety and occupational health measures has been moved to paragraph (e).
NFS 1852.223-70(j) would be deleted because safety and health plan requirements are addressed in NFS 1852.223-73, Safety and Health Plan.
Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted no later than October 13, 2015, identified by RIN number 2700-AE16, by either of the following methods: (1) the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov; or (2) email: marilyn.chambers@nasa.gov.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has entered into a security of supplies arrangement with Spain. A security of supplies arrangement allows persons in the United States to request DOD assistance of the DOD in seeking priority delivery of supplies under the Defense Priorities and Allocation System (DPAS) from parties in those countries.
The Department of Commerce, which administers the DPAS, is adding Spain to the list of countries with which DOD has such arrangements. The list is in Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); Part 700, Defense Priorities and Allocations System; Section 700.57, Military Assistance Programs with Other Nations and International Organizations (15 CFR 700.57).
With the addition of Spain, the list now includes Australia, Finland, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.