[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 217 (Thursday, November 7, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57622-57623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-28635]



[[Page 57622]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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