Federal Acquisition Regulation; Part 15 RewritePhase I

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1, 2, 14, 15, 36, 52, and 53

[FAR Case 95-029]

RIN 9000-AH21

Federal Acquisition Regulation; Part 15 Rewrite--Phase I

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration

(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and extension of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAR Council and the FAR Part 15 (Contracting By

Negotiation) Rewrite Committee are providing a forum for the exchange

of ideas and information with Government and industry personnel by

holding public meetings and soliciting public comments. The goal is to

ensure an open dialogue between the Government and the general public

on this important initiative. In order to provide a greater outreach to

small businesses and other interested parties for whom a public meeting

located in the Washington DC area is not convenient, a second public

meeting on the proposed rule has been scheduled. Interested parties are

invited to present statements or comments on the Phase I proposed Part

15 rewrite at the public meeting, scheduled for the date and location

set forth below. In order to permit time for public comments to be

submitted by those attending the second public meeting, the public

comment period for the proposed rule, which was published in the

Federal Register on September 12, 1996 (61 FR 48380), is extended

through November 26, 1996.

DATES: Public Meeting: A public meeting will be conducted at the

address shown from 9 a.m.--12 p.m., local time, on November 18, 1996.

Representatives of the FAR Part 15 Rewrite Committee will remain

available at the meeting site as long as members of the general public

wish to dialogue on topics relating to the proposed rewrite, including

proposed changes regarding the competitive range.

Statements: Statements from interested parties for presentation at

the public meeting should be submitted, to the extent feasible, to the

address below on or before November 15, 1996.

Comments: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in

writing to the GSA (address below) on or before November 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Public Meeting: The location of the public meeting is Ramada

Inn Benjamin Ranch, 6101 East 87th Street (I-435 and 87th Street Exit),

Kansas City, MO, Sierra Rooms 1, 2, and 3, telephone (816) 765-4331.

Individuals wishing to attend the meeting, including individuals

wishing to make presentations on the topic scheduled for discussion,

should contact Jill Dickey, telephone (816) 926-7203, facsimile (816)

823-1167.

Comments/Statements: Interested parties should submit written

comments/statements to: General Services Administration, FAR

Secretariat (VRS), Attention: Beverly Fayson, 18th and F Streets, NW,

Room 4037, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite FAR case 95-029 in all

correspondence related to this issue.

Electronic Access: This proposed rule is posted on the Acquisition

Reform Network (ARNET) at www.arnet.gov. Comments may be submitted

electronically at that address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For logistics information regarding

the public meeting contact Jill Dickey, telephone (816) 926-7203,

facsimile (816) 823-1167. For general information, contact the Part 15

Rewrite Committee Chair, Melissa Rider, telephone (703) 602-0131,

facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite FAR case 95-029.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAR Council is conducting a second

public meeting to discuss FAR Case 95-029, FAR Part 15 Rewrite--Phase I

which was published on September 12, 1996 (61 FR 48380).

The Phase I proposed rule is a rewrite of FAR Subparts 15.0, 15.1,

15.2, 15.3. 15.4, 15.6, and 15.10. The rule proposes to: Enhance

efficiency by reinforcing the contracting officer's ability to minimize

the cost of doing business with the Government; eliminate unnecessary

effort by both the Government and industry to support prices set by

free-market forces; ensure that firms seeking to do business with the

Government have an accurate understanding of the importance of

evaluation criteria; allow the Government to make informed decisions

about which offerors are truly most likely to receive award; allow both

industry and Government to rely more on agreements reached during

discussions without putting offerors through the expense of developing

revised proposals; and reinforce the concept of eliminating an offeror

without requiring a proposal revision, if discussions with the offeror

indicate that a proposal revision would waste the time and resources of

both the offeror and the Government.

Major policy shifts in the Phase I proposed rule include:

A narrower definition of ``discussions'' limited to

communications after establishment of the competitive range. This is a

much more narrow definition than the current one (which pre-dates CICA)

and very strictly conforms with the statute. This supports a much more

open and dynamic interchange between the Government and offerors before

establishment of the competitive range, thus allowing the Government to

make an informed decision when limiting the competitive range and is

the cornerstone of all of the rest of the major policy shifts.

A shift in competitive range policy to encourage retaining

only the offerors with the greatest likelihood of award and allowing

the contracting officer to further limit the competitive range in the

interest of efficiency. This is an evolutionary step from our authority

to award without discussions. We believe this will focus an offeror's

attention on providing their best deal in the initial proposal.

Encouragement of communication with industry throughout

the solicitation process to ensure competitive range determinations are

informed decisions. The rule allows disclosure of perceived

deficiencies before establishment of the competitive range to resolve

ambiguities and other concerns. These communications are not

``discussions.''

Elimination of ``minor clarifications'' except for use in

award without discussions, once again in strict compliance with

statute.

Revision of the ``late'' rules for negotiated acquisitions

to make the offeror responsible for timely delivery of its offer, and

to allow late offers to be considered if doing so is in the best

interests of the Government. This was done to clarify the

responsibility of the offeror to get the offer to the location

specified, yet allow the Government to take advantage of the ``best

deal'' in each situation.

The proposed rule also specifically authorizes practices currently

in use at some agencies including:

Comparison of one offer to another, after the proposals

have been evaluated against the criteria in the solicitation;

Release of the Government estimate to all offerors, when

it makes sense to do so; and

[[Page 57623]]

Amendment of the solicitation, at any time prior to award,

including amendment of the evaluation factors and subfactors.

Changes have been proposed to support streamlined source

selections including:

A new definition of ``best value'' at Part 2, to remove

confusion that may arise from several slightly different definitions.

This supports the concept of presenting a single face to industry.

A description of two common source selection processes-

award to the low cost technically acceptable offeror, and trade-offs

among cost and other factors. The intent is to emphasize that a variety

of processes can be used, that source selection need not be complex,

and to promote tailoring of processes to match the complexity of the

instant requirement. We hope this will allow field contracting

activities to put resources where they will get the biggest pay-off and

not make source selections more complicated than necessary.

Authorization to use techniques such as multi-phase

proposals or oral presentations, once again to allow tailoring of the

source selection process to match the requirement.

Guidance on communications between the Government and

industry prior to release of the solicitation. Within the limitations

of the prohibition on giving information necessary to prepare a

proposal to one interested party without sharing the information with

all other interested parties, agencies are encouraged to share

information freely with industry. The improved communications should

make it easier for potential offerors to make more aggressive bid/no

bid decisions, thereby allowing them to apply their limited bid and

proposal dollars where they will get the best potential pay-off.

A new Model Contract Format (MCF), based on an Army/Air

Force proposal, that will replace the uniform contract format. The MCF

format has only six sections, which focus on usefulness to the customer

at all levels by highlighting tailored information and locating all

financial and contract administration data together. We hope this will

improve the payment process and make the document more ``user-

friendly.''

A related proposed rule, FAR case 96-303, Competitive

Range Determinations, was published in the Federal Register on July 31,

1996 (61 FR 40116). Since it is important to consider the proposed rule

for FAR Case 96-303, Competitive Range Determinations, in the broader

context of FAR Part 15 as a whole, the FAR Council has determined that

comments about both cases may be entertained during the second public

meeting for the Part 15 Rewrite--Phase I. However, note that there are

differences between the Competitive Range case and the FAR Part 15

Rewrite--Phase I case that are due primarily to the different baselines

used. The Competitive Range case uses the baseline of the current FAR

Parts 15 and 52, while the FAR Part 15 Rewrite--Phase I case proposes

to reorganize and revise Parts 15 and 52. A final rule for the

Competitive Range case will be issued well in advance of the final rule

for the Part 15 Rewrite. Therefore, it may be viewed as an evolutionary

step in a process that will culminate in the pending broader revision.

Notwithstanding the minor differences between the cases, we encourage

interested parties to express their positions on this rule as part of

the second public meeting.

Dated: November 1, 1996.

Jeremy Olson,

Acting Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.

[FR Doc. 96-28635 Filed 11-6-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P