[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21346-21351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08160]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090-0235; Docket No. 2015-0001; Sequence 13]


General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation; 
Submission for OMB Review; Federal Supply Schedule Pricing Disclosures

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration 
(GSA).

ACTION: Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an 
existing OMB clearance.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the 
Regulatory Secretariat Division is submitting a request to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) to review and approve an extension of a 
previously approved information collection requirement regarding 
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation clause 552.238-
75, Price Reductions, otherwise known as the Price Reductions clause.
    The requested extension has been renamed ``Federal Supply Schedule 
Pricing Disclosures'' because it now includes a burden estimate for 
Commercial Sales Practices disclosures. The information collected is 
used to establish and maintain Federal Supply Schedule pricing and 
price related terms and conditions. A notice was published in the 
Federal Register at 80 FR 72060 on November 18, 2015. One comment was 
received.

DATES: Submit comments on or before: May 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other 
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for 
reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, 
DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following 
methods:
     Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB 
control number. Select the link ``Submit a Comment'' that corresponds 
with ``Information Collection 3090-0235, Federal Supply Schedule 
Pricing Disclosures.'' Follow the instructions provided at the ``Submit 
a Comment'' screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), 
and ``Information Collection 3090-0235, Federal Supply Schedule Pricing 
Disclosures'' on your attached document.
     Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory 
Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. 
ATTN: Ms. Hada Flowers/IC 3090-0235, Federal Supply Schedule Pricing 
Disclosures.
    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information 
Collection 3090-0235, Federal Supply Schedule Pricing Disclosures, in 
all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received 
generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal and/or business confidential information 
provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check 
www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission 
to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments 
submitted by mail).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Matthew McFarland, General 
Services Acquisition Policy Division, 202-690-9232 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 21347]]

A. Purpose

    GSA's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program, commonly known as the 
GSA Schedules program or Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program, 
provides federal agencies with a simplified process for acquiring 
commercial supplies and services. The FSS program is the Government's 
preeminent contracting vehicle, accounting for approximately 10 percent 
of all federal contract dollars, with approximately $33 billion in 
purchases made through the program in fiscal year 2015.
    GSA is requesting an extension of a previously approved information 
collection requirement related to one of the major components of the 
FSS program, General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation 
(GSAR) clause 552.238-75, Price Reductions, otherwise known as the 
Price Reductions clause. However, this requested extension has been 
renamed ``Federal Supply Schedule Pricing Disclosures'' because it now 
includes a burden estimate for Commercial Sales Practices disclosures.

FSS Pricing Practices

    GSA establishes price reasonableness on its FSS contracts by 
comparing a contractor's prices and price-related terms and conditions 
with those offered to their other customers. Through analysis and 
negotiations, GSA establishes a favorable pricing relationship in 
comparison to one of the contractor's customers (or category of 
customers) and then maintains that pricing relationship for the life of 
the contract. In order to carry out this practice, GSA collects pricing 
information through Commercial Sales Practices (CSP) disclosures and 
enforces the pricing relationship through General Services 
Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) clause 552.238-75, Price 
Reductions, commonly known as the Price Reductions clause (PRC).
    Commercial Sales Practices (CSP): In accordance with GSAR 
515.408(a)(2), offerors submit information in the Commercial Sales 
Practices Format provided in the solicitation, following the 
instructions at GSAR Figure 515.4-2, or submit information in their own 
format. In addition to when an offer is submitted, CSP disclosures are 
also collected prior to executing bilateral modifications for 
exercising a contract option period, adding items to the contract, or 
increasing pricing under the Economic Price Adjustment clause (GSAR 
552.216-70).
    Price Reductions Clause (PRC): GSAR 538.273(b)(2) prescribes the 
PRC for use in all FSS solicitations and contracts. The clause is 
intended to ensure the Government maintains its price/discount (and/or 
term and condition) advantage in relation to the contractor's customer 
(or category of customer) upon which the FSS contract is based. The 
basis of award customer (or category of customer) is identified at the 
conclusion of negotiations and noted in the contract. Thereafter, the 
PRC requires FSS contractors to inform the contracting officer of price 
reductions within 15 calendar days. Per GSAR 552.238-75(c)(1),

    A price reduction shall apply to purchases under this contract 
if, after the date negotiations conclude, the Contractor--
    (i) Revises the commercial catalog, pricelist, schedule or other 
document upon which contract award was predicated to reduce prices;
    (ii) Grants more favorable discounts or terms and conditions 
than those contained in the commercial catalog, pricelist, schedule 
or other documents upon which contract award was predicated; or
    (iii) Grants special discounts to the customer (or category of 
customers) that formed the basis of award, and the change disturbs 
the price/discount relationship of the Government to the customer 
(or category of customers) that was the basis of award.

    41 U.S.C. 152(3)(B) requires FSS ordering procedures to ``result in 
the lowest overall cost alternative to meet the needs of the Federal 
Government.'' CSP disclosures and the PRC ensure GSA meets this 
objective by giving it insight into a contractor's pricing practices, 
which is proprietary information that can only be obtained directly 
from the contractor.

Information Collection Changes and Updates

    GSA has revised this information collection by adding CSP 
disclosure burden estimates, renaming the information collection, and 
updating figures.
    Including the CSP Disclosure Burden: GSA is adding CSP disclosure 
burden estimates to this information collection because of comments 
received for its Transactional Data Reporting proposed rule (GSAR case 
2013-G504), published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 11619, on March 
4, 2015. GSA proposed to amend the GSAR to include a clause that would 
require FSS vendors to report transactional data from orders and prices 
paid by ordering activities. The new clause would be paired with 
changes to the basis of award monitoring, or ``tracking customer,'' 
requirement of the existing Price Reductions clause, resulting in a 
burden reduction for participating FSS contractors. The proposed rule 
also noted, ``. . . GSA would maintain the right throughout the life of 
the FSS contract to ask a vendor for updates to the disclosures made on 
its [CSP] format . . . if and as necessary to ensure that prices remain 
fair and reasonable in light of changing market conditions.''
    In comments received regarding the proposed rule, industry 
respondents indicated retaining CSP disclosures would cancel out any 
burden reduction achieved by eliminating the PRC tracking customer 
requirement. Specifically, respondents were concerned that CSP 
disclosures still force them to monitor their commercial prices, which 
ultimately causes the associated burden for both disclosure 
requirements. In response, GSA agrees the burden of the PRC and CSP is 
related and is therefore including CSP disclosure burden estimates in 
this information collection extension request.
    Renaming the Information Collection: GSA is changing the 
information collection name from ``Price Reductions Clause'' to 
``Federal Supply Schedule Pricing Disclosures'' to more accurately 
reflect the scope of the information collected.
    Updated Figures: The following figures were updated for the current 
information collection:
     Increased the number of FSS contracts and vendors from 
19,000 FSS contracts held by 16,000 vendors to 20,094 FSS contracts 
were held by 17,302 vendors.
     Increased the number of price reduction modifications from 
1,560 to 2,148.
     Decreased the number of GSA OIG pre-award audits from an 
average of 70 to 59.
     Increased the estimated annual time burden from 868,920 
hours to 1,324,343 hours.
     Increased the estimated annual cost burden; the new 
estimated annual cost burden is $90,055,353. The 2012 information 
collection did not provide a cost burden estimate, but if the same 
hourly rate ($68) was applied to the 2012 time burden, the 2012 cost 
burden would have been $59,086,560.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

    This information collection applies to all companies that held, or 
submitted offers for, FSS contracts. In fiscal year 2014:
     20,094 contracts were active, including 1,411 contracts 
that were awarded and 2,213 contracts that ended over that time period.
     17,302 companies held FSS contracts (some companies held 
more than one contract).

[[Page 21348]]

     3,464 offers were submitted for FSS contracts.
    However, the number of responses consists of the number of CSP 
disclosures and price reduction notifications made in FY2014, as well 
as the average number of GSA Office of Inspector General audits 
performed between fiscal years 2012 and 2014.

Heavier Lifts and Lighter Lifts

    FSS contracts are held by a diverse set of companies, which vary in 
terms of business size, offerings, and FSS sales volume. For example, 
in fiscal year 2014:
     32.8 percent, or 5,673 companies, reported $0 in FSS 
contracts.
     5.6 percent, or 975 companies, accounted for 80 percent of 
all FSS sales.
     The top 20 percent of FSS contractors (in terms of FY2014 
sales) accounted for 95.7 percent of FSS sales.
     Only 2.6 percent of FSS contractors reported more than $1 
million in FSS sales.
    In general, a contractor's FSS sales volume will have the greatest 
effect on the associated burden of these requirements, although the 
number and type of offerings, and business structure, can also be 
significant factors. As shown by the above figures, a relatively small 
number of FSS contractors account for the vast majority of FSS sales 
and accordingly, likely bear a heavier burden for these requirements. 
Conversely, the majority of FSS vendors, which are typically small 
businesses with lower sales volume, absorb a lighter burden for these 
requirements.
    To account for the differences among FSS contractors, GSA is 
utilizing the Pareto principle, or ``80/20 rule,'' which states 80 
percent of effects comes from 20 percent of the population. 
Accordingly, GSA is separating FSS contractors among those that have a 
``heavier lift'' (20 percent) from those that have a ``lighter lift'' 
(80 percent). Contractors with heavier lifts are those with the 
characteristics that lead to increased burden--more sales volume, 
higher number of contract items, more complex offerings, more 
transactions, more complex transactions, and/or intricate business 
structures. This methodology is used for several components of the 
burden analysis.

Cost Burden Calculation

    The estimated cost burden for respondents was calculated by 
multiplying the burden hours by an estimated cost of $68/hour ($50/hour 
with a 36 percent overhead rate).

Price Reductions Clause

    For this information collection clearance, GSA attributes the PRC-
related burden to training, compliance systems, and audits, as well as 
a burden associated with notifying GSA of price reductions within 15 
calendar days after their occurrence.
    Training: FSS contractors provide training to their employees to 
ensure compliance with FSS pricing disclosure requirements. In FY2014, 
there were 17,302 contractors, 3,460 (20 percent) with a heavier lift 
and 13,842 (80 percent) with a lighter lift. Contractors within the 
heavier lift category may need to develop formal training programs and 
conduct training for numerous divisions and offices, while contractors 
in the lighter lift category may have no need for training design and 
administration due to having as few as one person responsible for PRC 
compliance.

Training--Heavier Lift

Total Annual Responses: 3,460
Average Hours per Response: 40
Total Time Burden (Hours): 138,400
Total Cost Burden: $9,411,200

Training--Lighter Lift

Total Annual Responses: 13,842
Average Hours per Response: 20
Total Time Burden (Hours): 276,840
Total Cost Burden: $18,825,120

    Compliance Systems: FSS contractors must develop systems to control 
discount relationships with other customers/categories of customer to 
ensure the basis of award pricing relationship is not disturbed. In 
response to the 2012 information collection request, the Coalition for 
Government Procurement provided the results from a survey it conducted 
among its members regarding the PRC burden. The Coalition survey 
results attributed 1,100 burden hours to developing compliance systems. 
However, GSA believes this figure is only attributable to heavier lift 
contractors and should be allocated over the 20-year life of an FSS 
contract because a significant part of a burden is the effort to 
establish a compliance system that will be used over the life of the 
contract. GSA is attributing a total of 600 burden hours to compliance 
systems for contractors with a lighter lift and is also allocating that 
burden over a 20-year period. The results are an annual 55-hour burden 
for heavier lift contractors (1,100 hours divided by 20 years) and an 
annual 30-hour burden for lighter lift contractors (600 hours divided 
by 20 years).
    In FY2014, there were 17,302 contractors, 3,460 (20 percent) with a 
heavier lift and 13,842 (80 percent) with a lighter lift:

Compliance Systems--Heavier Lift

Total Annual Responses: 3,460
Average Hours per Response: 55
Total Time Burden (Hours): 190,322
Total Cost Burden: $12,940,400

Compliance Systems--Lighter Lift

Total Annual Responses: 13,842
Average Hours per Response: 30
Total Time Burden (Hours): 415,248
Total Cost Burden: $28,237,680

    Audits: The GSA Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an 
average of 59 pre-award audits of FSS contracts between FY2012 and 
FY2014, according to the OIG's Semiannual Congressional Reports over 
that time period. Respondents to a 2012 Coalition for Government 
Procurement survey estimated that approximately 440-470 hours were 
spent preparing for audits involving the PRC; the 455 hour figure is 
the median point in the range:

GSA OIG Audits

Total Annual Responses: 59
Average Hours per Response: 455
Total Time Burden (Hours): 26,845
Total Cost Burden: $1,825,460

    Price Reduction Notifications: 2,148 price reduction modifications 
were completed in FY14, with each modification requiring a notification 
from the contractor. In a survey conducted among GSA FSS contracting 
officers, respondents estimated it took an average of 4.25 hours to 
complete a price reduction modification. GSA believes FSS contractors 
bear a similar burden for this task and is therefore using the same 
burden estimate.

Price Reduction Notifications

Total Annual Responses: 2,148
Average Hours per Response: 4.25
Total Time Burden (Hours): 9,129
Total Cost Burden: $620,772

Commercial Sales Practices Disclosures

    The CSP burden results from disclosures required of any contractor 
submitting an offer for an FSS contract or modifying an FSS contract to 
increase prices, add items and Special Item Numbers, or exercise 
options. GSA attributed a negotiations burden to the PRC in the 
previous information collection, but is now including that burden 
within the CSP disclosure estimates.
    The burden estimates for CSP disclosures are based upon the 
estimates provided by respondents to the GSA FSS contracting officer 
survey. While the 77 survey respondents provided estimates regarding 
the amount of time it takes FSS contracting officers to complete CSP-
related tasks, GSA believes FSS contractors bear a similar

[[Page 21349]]

burden for these tasks and is therefore using the same burden 
estimates.
    Pre-award Disclosures: In FY2014, contractors submitted 3,464 
offers for FSS contracts, with 693 (20 percent) offerors having a 
heavier lift (20 percent) and 2,771 (80 percent) with a lighter lift:

Pre-award Disclosures--Heavier Lift

Total Annual Responses: 693
Average Hours per Response: 41.48
Total Time Burden (Hours): 28,746
Total Cost Burden: $1,954,704

Pre-award Disclosures--Lighter Lift

Total Annual Responses: 2,771
Average Hours per Response: 32.41
Total Time Burden (Hours): 89,808
Total Cost Burden: $6,106,951

    Price Increase Modifications: In FY2014, 2,509 price increase 
modifications were processed, including 502 (20 percent) with a heavier 
lift and 2,007 (80 percent) with a lighter lift:

Price Increases--Heavier Lift

Total Annual Responses: 502
Average Hours per Response: 10.45
Total Time Burden (Hours): 5,246
Total Cost Burden: $356,721

Price Increases--Lighter Lift

Total Annual Responses: 2,007
Average Hours per Response: 9.71
Total Time Burden (Hours): 18,404
Total Cost Burden: $1,251,485

    Adding Items and Special Item Numbers (SINs): In FY2014, 6,861 
modifications to add contract items or SINs were processed, including 
1,372 (20 percent) with a heavier lift and 5,489 (80 percent) with a 
lighter lift:

Addition Modifications--Heavier Lift

Total Annual Responses: 1,372
Average Hours per Response: 11.13
Total Time Burden (Hours): 15,270
Total Cost Burden: $1,038,384

Addition Modifications--Lighter Lift

Total Annual Responses: 5,489
Average Hours per Response: 10.65
Total Time Burden (Hours): 58,458
Total Cost Burden: $3,975,134

    Exercising Options: In FY2014, 2,237 modifications to exercise 
options were processed, including 447 (20 percent) with a heavier lift 
and 1,790 (80 percent) with a lighter lift:

Option Modifications--Heavier Lift

Total Annual Responses: 447
Average Hours per Response: 26.14
Total Time Burden (Hours): 11,685
Total Cost Burden: $794,551

Option Modifications--Lighter Lift

Total Annual Responses: 1,790
Average Hours per Response: 22.32
Total Time Burden (Hours): 39,953
Total Cost Burden: $2,716,790

Total Annual Burden

    The total estimated burden imposed by Federal Supply Schedule 
pricing disclosures is as follows:

Estimated Annual Time Burden (Hours)

Price Reductions Clause: 1,056,774
CSP Disclosures: 267,569
Total Annual Time Burden: 1,324,343

Estimated Annual Cost Burden

Price Reductions Clause: $71,860,632
CSP Disclosures: $18,194,721
Total Annual Cost Burden: $90,055,353

C. Discussion and Analysis

    A notice of request for comments regarding the extension of 
Information Collection 3090-0235, Federal Supply Schedule Pricing 
Disclosures, was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 72060 on 
November 18, 2015. One respondent provided comments on (1) whether FSS 
pricing disclosures are necessary and have practical utility, and (2) 
if GSA's estimates of the collection burden are accurate, and based on 
valid assumptions and methodology. The following are summaries of those 
comments and GSA's responses:
    Comment: The respondent stated these pricing disclosures no longer 
have practical utility because pricing under the FSS program is 
primarily driven by order-level competition. In regards to the Price 
Reductions clause (PRC), the respondent stated the following:
     GSA's notice of proposed rulemaking for GSAR case 2013-
G504, Transactional Data Reporting, which stated ``only about 3 percent 
of the total price reductions received under the price reductions 
clause were tied to the `tracking customer' feature. The vast majority 
(approximately 78 percent) came as a result of commercial pricelist 
adjustments and market rate changes, with the balance for other 
reasons.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See GSAR Case 2013-G504; Docket 2014-0020; Sequence 1 [80 FR 
11619 (Mar. 4, 2015)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The respondent's member organizations ``overwhelmingly 
reported that competition in response to known requirements is the most 
significant driver of reduced pricing for customer agencies.''
     The PRC limits contractors in their ability to offer 
discounts to certain commercial clients, which undermines competition 
in the commercial marketplace.
    In regards to Commercial Sales Practices (CSP) disclosures, the 
respondent stated:
     ``The current CSP format for disclosures does not provide 
for consideration of the existing GSA Schedule ordering procedures, 
creates ambiguity in disclosure requirements, and requires the release 
of data that exceeds the needs of the government to negotiate fair and 
reasonable prices.''
     The CSP was developed at a time when the commercial 
marketplace was less volatile and contractors generally had standard 
prices and pricelists. However, this is no longer the case, 
particularly for the service and high-tech industry sectors. As a 
result, the respondent's members report ``it is difficult to determine 
how to respond to and appropriately disclose information requested in 
the CSP format.''
    Response: The PRC and CSP disclosures are a means for GSA to meet 
its obligation under 41 U.S.C. 152(3)(B), which requires FSS ordering 
procedures to ``result in the lowest overall cost alternative to meet 
the needs of the Federal Government.'' However, GSA is exploring 
alternatives to these practices. For example, GSA's Transactional Data 
Reporting proposed rule would require FSS contractors to report to GSA 
transactional data--including descriptions of the items purchased, 
quantities, and prices paid--on orders placed under their FSS 
contracts. GSA's experience with transactional data has shown it can 
lead to better contract-level and order-level prices. As part of GSA's 
Transactional Data Reporting proposed rule, GSA proposed removing the 
basis of award requirement of the PRC when FSS contractors agreed to 
report transactional data to GSA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The respondent stated the ``higher lift'' versus ``lighter 
lift'' assumptions are not appropriate because its member organizations 
consisting of both small businesses and large businesses, and both 
types use consultants and attorneys to assist in completing pre-award 
CSP disclosures, which aligns both types closer to the higher lift 
burden estimates.
    Response: GSA used this approach to account for the vast disparity 
in burden among FSS contractors. The amount of ``lift'' required by a 
contractor can be affected by factors such as business size, sales 
volume, and contract-type. The following illustrations show how the 
burden can vary by each factor:
     A larger business will encounter more obstacles in meeting 
these requirements, such as coordinating between multiple offices and 
business lines, than a smaller business with fewer customers.
     Schedule contractors with higher sales volume will likely 
encounter more situations that require pricing disclosures than those 
with no sales.
     A higher number of FSS contract line-items require more 
expansive CSP

[[Page 21350]]

disclosures and broader PRC basis of award customer monitoring. 
Typically, product-oriented contracts have more line-items than a 
service contract and therefore face a higher burden.
    Since a single factor alone does not determine a contractor's lift, 
as these factors are independent of each other (e.g. business size does 
not determine sales volume or contract-type), it would be inappropriate 
to categorize vendors along business or contract attributes. On the 
other hand, it is appropriate to separate the burden between heavier 
lift and lighter lift because there are marked differences in the 
compliance burden. While many contractors do absorb a higher compliance 
burden, they are not representative of the Schedules program. The 
following fiscal year 2014 figures illustrate why most vendors would 
not fall into the heavier lift category:
     Other-than-small businesses accounted for 63% of the total 
sales but only held 20% of the FSS contracts.
     The top 20 percent of FSS contractors, in terms of FY2014 
sales, accounted for 95.7 percent of the overall FSS sales volume.
     82% of sales were under Schedules that had a majority of 
sales under service-related SINs, while 18% of sales were made under 
Schedules that had a majority of sales under product-related SINs. 
Typically, majority-product contracts have more line items and require 
a higher burden for FSS pricing disclosure requirements. Some of the 
majority-service Schedules contain product-related SINs, meaning the 
service-related sales portion could be under 82%, but service-related 
sales still undoubtedly account for a majority of the overall FSS sales 
volume.
    Comment: The PRC burden does not account for monitoring activities 
beyond establishing electronic systems to track pricing. The 
respondent's members indicated this burden could potentially be 2,000 
hours a year for a heavy lift contractor.
    Response: GSA's compliance system burden estimate is the highest of 
the various PRC components because it included monitoring activities. A 
compliance system encompasses how a contractor maintains compliance 
with the PRC. Some contractors may invest in an electronic system that 
requires high upfront investments but automates ongoing monitoring, 
while others may opt to manually compare their GSA prices to other 
classes of customers. Accordingly, GSA considered monitoring activities 
when evaluating the compliance system burden. GSA's annual compliance 
system burden estimates consist of annual monitoring activities and an 
allocated portion of the burden for establishing a compliance system. 
However, GSA is interested in additional comments on whether monitoring 
activities would take place outside of a compliance system.
    Comment: The compliance systems burden of 1,100 hours was taken 
from the respondent's comments regarding the 2012 information 
collection extension but incorrectly spread the burden across a 20-year 
period. Accordingly, the burden should be 20 times larger than GSA's 
estimates.
    Response: GSA allocated the burden over the full 20-year FSS 
contract life-cycle because contractors will not establish a new 
compliance system each year. Typically, a contractor will establish a 
compliance ``system''--which may entail electronic tools or simply be a 
procedure to manually review pricing--and then commence monitoring 
activities. Since the compliance system will not be reestablished each 
year, it should be allocated over the life of the contract. However, 
GSA invites comments on whether the compliance system burden should be 
allocated over the full contract life-cycle or another amount of time, 
such as a single year or a 5-year option period.
    Comment: The CSP burden is underestimated because it does not 
account for the work that contractors do to prepare a CSP before it is 
presented to a contracting officer.
    Response: GSA considered the upfront work needed to prepare CSPs 
before they are presented to the contracting officer. However, the 
contracting officer also spends a considerable amount of time 
evaluating the CSPs. As such, GSA believes the contractor preparation 
and contracting officer review burdens are comparable. However, GSA 
encourages commenters to provide estimates regarding the amount of 
upfront work needed to prepare a pre-award CSP.
    Comment: Several of the respondent's members, most of who fall 
under the heavy lift category, stated the pre-award CSP burden could 
exceed 400 hours and the modification preparation burden could be as 
much as 185 hours.
    Response: GSA based its CSP burden estimates on the results of a 
survey it conducted among its FSS contracting officers. Those results 
showed a wide variance in the amount of time needed to complete CSP-
related activities. For example, FSS contracting officer CSP estimates 
were as high as 2,400 hours for pre-award CSPs and 206 hours for 
requests to add items or SINs to the contract. Consequently, 
statistical methods were used to account for outliers within the 
responses and provide a reliable average estimate for each component. 
Specifically, the final averages were calculated using an interquartile 
mean, derived from an interquartile range (IQR) multiplied by 1.5.
    Comment: Contractors that do not maintain standardized pricelists 
have a more difficult time preparing CSP disclosures and often obtain 
additional training and/or hire consultants to meet the CSP 
requirements.
    Response: As previously noted, GSA recognized there are several 
factors that affect the burden and therefore separated contractors into 
those with heavier lifts and lighter lifts. Contractors that have a 
difficult time preparing CSP disclosures and therefore choose to obtain 
additional training and/or hire consultants may fall into the heavier 
lift category.
    Comment: The heavier lift versus lighter lift methodology may not 
capture all of the heavier lift contractors because many small 
businesses that would fall in the lighter lift category due to their 
sales volume still endure a high compliance burden.
    Response: As noted above, the heavier lift and lighter lift 
categories are not determined by a single factor like FSS sales volume; 
they are reflective of the overall compliance burden. Small businesses 
with a high compliance burden would fall into the heavier lift 
category. Conversely, many larger service providers with a high sales 
volume concentrated in a small number of contracts and fewer contract 
line-items may fall in the lighter lift category.
    Comment: The respondent's small business members report compliance 
with these disclosure requirements is particularly challenging because 
unlike larger contractors, they do not have the resources to invest in 
compliance. This results in a barrier to entry to the FSS program for 
small innovative firms.
    Response: GSA requires these disclosures as one method of meeting 
its statutory obligations to provide the ``lowest cost alternative,'' 
but is exploring options to lower burden. As part of GSA's 
Transactional Data Reporting proposed rule, GSA proposed removing the 
basis of award requirement of the PRC when FSS contractors agreed to 
report transactional data to GSA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The hourly rate GSA used for its estimates ($68/hour) is 
understated. For example, some outside consultants hired by contractors 
to assist with the disclosures may be paid

[[Page 21351]]

as much as $200 an hour. The respondent recommends GSA measure the 
burden by the number of hours or determine a more accurate hourly rate.
    Response: The $68/hour rate consists of a $50/hour base rate and 
$18/hour (36% above the base rate) for fringe benefits. The 36% fringe 
benefit rate was taken from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
Circular No. A-76, which recommends cost factors to ensure that 
specific government costs are calculated in a standard and consistent 
manner to reasonably reflect the cost of performing commercial 
activities with government personnel. The standard A-76 cost factor for 
fringe benefits is 36.25%; GSA opted to round to the nearest whole 
number for the basis of its burden estimates.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Circular A-76 Figure C1, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a076_a76_incl_tech_correction/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the base rate, GSA believes these disclosure functions 
are typically performed by contract administrators with occasional 
assistance from higher-paid professionals, such as attorneys and 
consultants. The most comparable labor category to a contract 
administrator that was analyzed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 
is a buyer and purchasing agent, whose responsibilities include 
negotiating contracts. BLS's most recently published hourly rate for 
this type of professional was $28.14/hour;\5\ incorporating the 36% 
fringe benefit factor, the total rate is $38.27/hour. However, GSA 
chose to use the higher $68/hour rate to account for the occasional 
involvement of higher-paid professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook 
Handbook for Buyers and Purchasing Agents, available at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/buyers-and-purchasing-agents.htm#tab-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The respondent calculates the annual PRC burden to be $850 
million when applying GSA's hourly rate ($68/hour) to their estimate of 
12.5 million hours a year. As a result, the value of price reductions 
should exceed $850 million in order for the PRC's benefits to outweigh 
its costs.
    Response: GSA requires these disclosures as one method of meeting 
its statutory obligations to provide the ``lowest cost alternative,'' 
but GSA is exploring alternative methods. As part of GSA's 
Transactional Data Reporting proposed rule,\6\ GSA proposed removing 
the basis of award requirement of the PRC when FSS contractors agreed 
to report transactional data to GSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See GSAR Case 2013-G504; Docket 2014-0020; Sequence 1 [80 FR 
11619 (Mar. 4, 2015)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The respondent provided comments in opposition to GSAR 
case 2013-G504, Transactional Data Reporting.
    Response: GSA is not providing responses to comments on 
Transactional Data Reporting because they are not directly related to 
this information collection request.

D. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this 
collection of information is necessary and whether it will have 
practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this 
collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions 
and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of 
the information to be collected.
    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the 
information collection documents from the General Services 
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street 
NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB 
Control No. 3090-0235, FSS Pricing Disclosures, in all correspondence.

Jeffrey A. Koses,
Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-08160 Filed 4-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6820-61-P