[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4431-4447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01781]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 202, 212, 215, 234, 239, and 252

[Docket DARS-2016-0028]
RIN 0750-AJ01


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Procurement of 
Commercial Items (DFARS Case 2016-D006)

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement sections of the 
National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2013, 2016, and 
2018 relating to commercial item acquisitions.

DATES: Effective January 31, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Gomersall, telephone 571-372-
6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 81 FR 
53101 on August 11, 2016, to amend the DFARS to implement the 
requirements of sections 851 through 853 and 855 through 857 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 
(Pub. L. 114-92, enacted November 25, 2015), as well as the 
requirements of section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239, 
enacted January 2, 2013). This rule provides guidance to contracting 
officers for making price reasonableness determinations, promotes 
consistency in making commercial item determinations, and expands 
opportunities for nontraditional defense contractors to do business 
with DoD.
    On August 3, 2015, DoD published proposed DFARS rule 2013-D034 to 
implement the requirements of section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (80 
FR 45918). Based on the comments received in response to that proposed 
rule, and in order to implement the requirements in sections 851 
through 853 and 855 through 857 of the NDAA for FY 2016, DFARS rule 
2013-D034 was closed into this DFARS rule.
    In addition, this final rule implements section 848 of the NDAA of 
FY 2018

[[Page 4432]]

(Pub. L. 115-91, enacted December 12, 1017), which amended 10 U.S.C. 
2380 regarding the content of the written determination required when 
determining that the prior use of commercial procedures was 
inappropriate or is no longer appropriate.

II. Discussion and Analysis

    Twelve respondents submitted public comments in response to the 
proposed rule. DoD reviewed the public comments in the development of 
this final rule. A discussion of the comments and the changes made to 
the rule as a result of those comments are provided as follows:

A. Summary of Significant Changes

    1. For consistency in terminology, the word ``data'' has been 
changed to ``information'' where appropriate throughout the rule.
    2. The language at DFARS 212.102(a)(ii) has been revised to state 
that a contracting officer may presume that a prior commercial item 
determination, or a determination that overturned a prior commercial 
item determination, made by a military department, a defense agency, or 
another component of DoD shall serve as a determination for subsequent 
procurements of such item.
    3. The language at DFARS 212.102(a)(iii) on nontraditional defense 
contractors was reworded for clarity.
    4. The language at DFARS 212.209(b) and 215.404-1(b)(ii) was 
amended to add the word ``and'' to allow contracting officers to 
consider recent purchase prices paid by both the Government ``and'' 
commercial customers for the same or similar commercial items.
    5. DFARS 215.404-1(b)(iv) and 234.7002(d)(3), have been revised 
such that if the contracting officer determines that the pricing 
information submitted is not sufficient to determine the reasonableness 
of price, the contracting officer shall request other relevant 
information to include cost data. The proposed rule directed that the 
contracting officer may request other relevant information to include 
cost data.
    6. To expedite commercial item determinations, the provision at 
DFARS 252.215-7010, paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) has been revised to require 
offerors to provide contract numbers and if available, a Government 
point of contact for items that have been previously determined to be 
commercial.
    7. The provision at DFARS 252.215-7010, paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) has 
been reworded to remove the unintended offeror certification language 
from the proposed rule.
    8. The provision at DFARS 252.215-7010, paragraph (d) has been 
reworded to require ``the minimum information necessary'' instead of 
``all data'' to permit a determination that the proposed price is fair 
and reasonable.
    9. The proposed rule language at DFARS 252.215-7010, paragraph 
(d)(3) has been removed as unnecessary, and paragraphs (d)(4) and 
(d)(5) have been renumbered accordingly.
    10. The language at DFARS 252.215-7010, paragraph (d)(3), formerly 
paragraph (d)(4), has been reworded for clarity.
    11. The DFARS provision 252.215-7013, Supplies and Services 
Provided by Nontraditional Defense Contractors, has been added to 
advise offerors that in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2380a, supplies and 
services provided by a nontraditional defense contractor, as defined in 
DFARS 212.001, may be treated as commercial items.

B. Analysis of Public Comments

    1. Agree with the rule.
    Comment: Two respondents expressed support for the rule, stating 
that the rule will reduce the risk of fraud, increase accountability, 
and make the buying process more seamless for the military.
    Response: DoD appreciates the support for this rule.
    2. Audit clause.
    Comment: One respondent recommended that DFARS 252.215-7010(b)(2) 
mirror the entire language of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
52.215-20(a)(2) because the respondent did not believe that Congress 
intended for either section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 or sections 851 
and 853 of the NDAA for FY 2016 to expand the Government's access to 
cost or profit information when commercial items are priced based on 
catalog or market prices, or set by law or regulation.
    Response: Section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 requires the 
establishment of 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. 
To that extent, the rule sets forth a hierarchy of information that the 
contracting officer shall require to determine the reasonableness of 
the price, including other relevant information that can serve as the 
basis for a price assessment. Further, section 853 requires that 
contracting officers shall consider evidence provided by offerors of 
recent purchase prices paid by the Government for the same or similar 
commercial items in establishing price reasonableness on a subsequent 
purchase if the contracting officer is satisfied that the prices 
previously paid remain a valid reference for comparison after 
considering the totality of other relevant factors such as the time 
elapsed since the prior purchase and any differences in the quantities 
purchased or applicable terms and conditions.
    3. Catalog pricing provision.
    Comment: Two respondents recommended removing or revising the 
catalog pricing provision. The respondents recommended deleting DFARS 
252.215-7010(b)(1)(ii)(B)(2) because it is not based on any provision 
in the NDAA for FY 2013 or the NDAA for FY 2016, and is unclear about 
what it means for ``catalog pricing'' to be ``consistent'' or ``not 
consistent'' with ``all relevant sales data.'' According to the 
respondent, the provision raises these unanswered questions:
    (a) Does ``catalog pricing'' refer to prices shown in the catalog 
in question or in the offeror's proposed pricing for the proposal?
    (b) Does ``catalog pricing'' refer to prices shown in the catalog 
that must be used in the pricing of all sales in order for that pricing 
to be ``consistent'' with ``all relevant sales data?''
    (c) Does the determination of consistency take into account whether 
``catalog pricing'' is higher or lower than the pricing reflected in 
``all relevant sales data''?
    (d) How does the use of the term ``all relevant sales data'' in the 
provision relate to the definition of the term ``relevant sales data'' 
in the proposed DFARS provision 252.215-7010(a)?
    The respondent is concerned that contracting officers will not know 
what offerors mean by these statements, which could lead to confusion 
and misunderstandings.
    Another respondent recommends removing the requirement in DFARS 
252.215-7010 that an offeror provide an explanation as to whether their 
proposed prices that are based on catalog pricing are consistent with 
relevant sales data. The offeror believes this requirement constitutes 
a new and unauthorized certification.
    Response: The language at DFARS 252.215-7010(b)(1)(ii)(B)(2) has 
been revised to remove the certification requirements. However, for a 
commercial item exception, the offeror shall submit, at a minimum, 
information that is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the 
price for the acquisition, including prices at which the same item or 
similar items have been sold in the commercial market. Without the 
DFARS 252.215-

[[Page 4433]]

7010(b)(1)(ii)(B)(2) requirements, the contracting officer will not 
have sufficient information to determine whether the price is fair and 
reasonable, and will need to request additional data. The catalog must 
state prices at which sales are currently, or were last made to a 
significant number of buyers constituting the general public. If the 
catalog pricing provided is not consistent with all relevant sales 
data, the offeror must describe the differences. It does not matter 
whether the catalog price is higher or lower than the proposed price. 
``Relevant sales data'' means evidence provided by an offeror of sales 
of the same or similar items that can be used to establish price 
reasonableness taking into consideration the age, volume, and nature of 
the transactions (including any related discounts, refunds, rebates, 
offsets or other adjustments).
    4. Collaboration on commercial item and price reasonableness 
determinations.
    Comment: One respondent recommended that the rule codify and 
provide the opportunity for offerors to collaborate with DoD's cadre of 
experts prior to a final decision by the contracting officer on 
commercial item and price reasonableness determinations.
    Response: DoD concurs with the statement that an open exchange of 
information by both parties leads to more timely commercial item 
determinations and price analysis. DoD has already issued guidance to 
contracting officers to collaborate with the Defense Contract 
Management Agency (DCMA) cadre of experts to assist in the timeliness 
and consistency of commercial procurements. The cadre regularly engages 
with offerors to obtain an understanding of proposed commercial items 
and associated pricing. DCMA is also facilitating collaboration with 
offerors through commercial item memorandums of agreement with 
interested companies.
    5. Commercial item determination.
    Comment: One respondent questioned if there is no commercial market 
place to establish price reasonableness and the contractor only offers 
an item that is ``of a type'' customarily used by the general public 
for sale, is that sufficient for the contractor to escape the Truthful 
Cost or Pricing Data requirement? The respondent further questioned 
what constitutes an offer, and whether an advertisement on a website is 
sufficient? The respondent suggested that the rule define an ``offer'' 
to incorporate a bona fide offer in a known market where competitive 
forces exist.
    Response: DoD considers commercial item determinations separately 
from price reasonableness determinations. Commercial item 
determinations are not dependent upon the offered price of an item. The 
FAR 2.101 definition of ``commercial item'' does not require that the 
identical proposed item must be sold or offered for sale to the general 
public. When deciding whether to grant a commercial item exception to 
the requirement for certified cost or pricing data, FAR 2.101 permits 
contracting officers to consider items that are ``of a type''--i.e., 
items that are similar to those customarily used by and sold or offered 
for sale to the general public. While pricing based on market prices is 
the preferred method to establish a fair and reasonable price, a 
commercial marketplace is not required for the item to meet the 
definition of a commercial item. This embraces DoD's broader view of 
the types of items that may qualify as commercial items and gives 
consideration to products and services offered by both traditional and 
nontraditional defense contractors. Contracting officers must use 
business judgement and consider all relevant factors when evaluating 
evidence of offers for sale, which may include advertisements on 
websites, sales orders, quotes, or other information that demonstrate 
that the similar item has been offered for sale in the commercial 
marketplace.
    Comment: One respondent stated that the final rule should permit 
commercial item determinations in a timely and efficient manner with 
minimal deliberations. The respondent further suggested that any 
further guidance that might be issued in support of commercial item 
determinations after the final rule is published would greatly improve 
its chances of succeeding and facilitate the desired results of the 
final rule.
    Response: Timely and consistent commercial item determinations are 
the standard for DoD. The proposed rule promotes timeliness and 
efficiency by providing that contracting officers may presume that a 
prior commercial item determination made by a military department, 
defense agency, or another component of DoD shall serve as a 
determination for subsequent procurements. As such, DoD has instructed 
contracting officers to adopt the practice of recognizing prior known 
determinations as valid. To further assist in the timeliness and 
consistency of commercial procurements, DoD has established a cadre of 
experts within DCMA to provide advice to contracting officers. DCMA is 
also streamlining the exchange of information for the evaluation and 
pricing of commercial items through ``memorandums of agreement'' with 
interested companies. DoD will finalize the Commercial Item Handbook to 
provide further guidance to contracting officers.
    6. Conflating pricing with commercial item exception.
    Comment: Two respondents recommended that commercial item 
determinations for exceptions from certified cost or pricing data be 
separated from price reasonableness determinations. One respondent 
recommended that DFARS 252.215-70XX(b)(1)(ii) be amended by striking 
the phrase ``For a commercial item exception'' and replacing it with 
the phrase ``For items determined to be commercial'' to ensure that the 
commercial item determination and the price reasonableness 
determination are kept separate.
    Another respondent recommended changing DFARS 252.215-
7010(b)(1)(ii) by separating the initial commercial item determination 
procedure from concurrent submission of any cost or pricing data that 
may be needed for a subsequent and independent evaluation of price 
reasonableness. This new clause creates several negative impacts when 
requiring subcontractors and/or prime contractors initial upfront 
submission of all past sales because:
    (a) It excludes any use of FAR 2.101 commercial item definition of 
``offered for sale'' because there is no sales data yet for ``offered 
for sale'' commercial items.
    (b) It forces them to concurrently meet both the commercial item 
determination and price reasonableness data submission criteria, which 
will invite contracting officers to use the submitted cost or pricing 
data to actually determine initial commerciality, rather than using one 
or more of the current FAR 2.101 definitions of commercial items.
    (c) It is a direct conflict with current FAR 15.402(a)(2) and 
(a)(3) for obtaining cost or pricing data from subcontractors and/or 
prime contractors to determine price reasonableness. The proposed rule 
directly conflicts with both newly proposed DFARS 212.209 and FAR 
15.402 provisions.
    Another respondent recommended modifying proposed DFARS 252.215-
7010(b)(1)(ii) to separate a commercial item determination from a price 
reasonableness determination of a commercial item. Although this 
language mirrors FAR 52.215-20(a)(1)(ii), both elements are equally 
important to the Government's procurement of commercial items, but only 
the commercial item determination

[[Page 4434]]

is necessary for an exception to submitting certified cost or pricing 
data. Pricing information is not solely determinative of whether a 
product or service is a ``commercial item,'' yet that is the only 
information the proposed language requires. DoD should make 
improvements to FAR 52.215-20 with supplemental guidance, which not 
only implements the requirements of section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 
and sections 851, 852, and 855 of the NDAA for FY 2016, but also 
clarifies important distinctions that are critical to DoD's commercial 
item acquisition. This distinction was maintained by Congress, for a 
commercial item determination to be made and only then for price 
reasonableness to be assessed. The respondent asserted that commercial 
items determinations should be focused on the Government's market 
research and the commercial item definition in FAR 2.101, and cost or 
pricing data required for price reasonableness determinations should be 
uncertified when required by the clause to support the Government's 
price reasonableness determination.
    Response: DoD considers commercial item determinations separately 
from price reasonableness determinations, however, offerors are still 
expected to provide adequate supporting data with their proposal 
submissions in order to avoid unnecessary delays in contract award. It 
would not be in the best interest of DoD or industry to delay 
acquisitions by establishing a formal two-step sequential proposal 
process of first requiring supporting information only for the purpose 
of making a commercial item determination, and then following up with a 
second request for information in order to make a determination of 
price reasonableness. In accordance with DFARS 252.215-7010, and 
consistent with the existing requirements of FAR 52.215-20, where 
commercial items are proposed in response to a solicitation, the 
offeror is required to concurrently submit information that is adequate 
for evaluating the reasonableness of the proposed price.
    7. Congressional comments on previous rule.
    Comment: One respondent indicated Congressman Derek Kilmer (R-WA), 
wrote a letter to the Director of Defense Pricing (March 7, 2014) and 
voiced his concerned with the application of the term ``of a type'' 
that was used to determine what is or is not a commercial item or 
service in certain cases. The Congressman addressed his concern with 
DoD's attempts to restrict ``offered for sale'' and ``of a type'' 
commercial item procurements, and its negative impact on the innovative 
defense community and the Government's defense mission. A contracting 
officer's commerciality determination may have long-ranging effects 
that impact the company's interest in investing private capital into 
innovation or participating in the Government marketplace. These are 
most likely to be dual-use and second-tier suppliers that tend to be 
among our most innovative and that are willing to invest their own 
money in development.
    Another respondent indicated that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) wrote 
a letter to the Secretary of Defense (September 8, 2015) indicating he 
was deeply concerned by a new proposed DFARS CASE 2013-D034 and its 
ability to effectively preclude any significant participation by 
commercial firms in defense programs. The Senate and the House have 
included provisions in the NDAA for FY 2016 to entice new firms into 
the defense market and retain them once there. The Senator stated that 
the rule would deter privately-held start-up companies from offering 
their products and services to DoD, because it would impose cumbersome 
and excessive bureaucratic requirements on these firms and require 
firms to build entirely new accounting systems. The respondent 
indicated the current rule in question does not succeed in removing the 
accumulated detritus of law, process, and regulation sought by Senator 
McCain.
    Response: DoD received comments on proposed DFARS rule 2013-D034 
from many respondents, including members of Congress. Based on the 
comments received in response to that proposed rule, and in order to 
implement the requirements in sections 851 through 853 and 855 through 
857 of the NDAA for FY 2016, DFARS rule 2013-D034 was closed into this 
DFARS rule, 2016-D006.
    8. Contractual limitations on information necessary to support a 
determination of fair and reasonable Pricing.
    Comment: One respondent recommended deleting DFARS 
215.402(a)(i)(B), because the language does not appear to be based on 
statutory authority cited under section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013. 
The use of terms ``any data'' and ``necessary supporting information'' 
are unclear and creates confusion regarding the scope of the 
information the Government would require.
    Another respondent recommended adding language to DFARS 
215.402(a)(i)(B) to state that any provision that limits the 
Government's ability to obtain any information that may be necessary to 
support a determination of fair and reasonable pricing is void.
    Response: The language at 215.402(a)(i)(B) is intended to prohibit 
DoD contracting officers from agreeing to contract terms that preclude 
obtaining supporting information that may be necessary to support a 
determination of fair and reasonable pricing. For clarification, the 
language has been revised to state that the contracting officer shall 
not limit the Government's ability to obtain ``information . . . '' in 
lieu of ``any data,'' and is sufficient to instruct contracting 
officers not to agree to any such limitations.
    9. Converting commercial to noncommercial.
    Comment: One respondent recommended changing DFARS 212.7001(a) 
allowing contracting officers to either consider finding errors ``or'' 
cost savings when converting from a commercial acquisition to a 
noncommercial acquisition. The current language reads ``and.'' Making 
this change will allow Government officials to convert the procurement 
when it is deemed appropriate.
    Response: The language at DFARS 212.7001(a)(1)(i) and (ii) is in 
accordance with section 856 of the NDAA for FY 2016 and as such is 
unchanged.
    10. Definition of ``commercial item''.
    Comment: One respondent supported narrowing the definition of a 
``commercial item'' to mean goods or services that are actually sold to 
the general public in like quantities. This change would be a huge 
improvement over the current definition, which includes goods or 
services ``of a type'' that are merely ``offered'' for sale or lease.
    Response: The definition of ``commercial item'' is not revised 
under this rule since the definition is set forth in 41 U.S.C. 103, 
which defines ``commercial item'', in part, as an item, other than real 
property, that--
    (a) Is of a type customarily used by the general public or by 
nongovernmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes; 
and
    (b) Has been sold, leased, or licensed, or offered for sale, lease, 
or license, to the general public.
    11. Definition of ``market research''.
    Comment: One respondent recommended amending the definition of 
``market research'' to provide additional guidance to contracting 
officers to focus more directly on pricing and adequate evaluation of 
the fairness and reasonableness of an offeror's proposed price. A 
critical

[[Page 4435]]

component of market research--particularly for determining fair and 
reasonable pricing--is reviewing and understanding pricing conditions 
and related considerations in the relevant industry and marketplace. 
The respondent proposed adding the following into the definition of 
``market research'':
    (a) Include review of previous prices of the items.
    (b) Considering offeror's net profit margins.
    (c) Review and identify previous contract types.
    (d) Other contract terms that may have affected differences in 
pricing (i.e., warranties, financing, discounts).
    Response: The recommended revisions are not necessary. Language 
within the proposed rule and sections of FAR part 10 addresses these 
factors and does not require change. Specific to listed factor (a), the 
proposed language at DFARS 215.404-1 provides a hierarchy to follow 
when determining what information is necessary to determine the 
reasonableness of price. Included in this hierarchy is a review of 
information on prices paid. Specific to listed factor (b), the net 
profit margins would require access to cost data and including this as 
a factor would encourage contracting officers to seek cost data before 
considering DFARS 212.209(c) and the order of techniques listed in 
DFARS 215.404-1. Specific to listed factors (c) and (d), FAR 
10.002(b)(1)(iii) includes reference to customary practices, including 
warranty, financing, discounts, and contract types.
    12. Definition of relevant sales data.
    Comment: One respondent supported the concept that contracting 
officers should review the age, volume, and nature of transactions when 
considering price reasonableness information (DFARS 252.215-7010).
    Response: Section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 requires standards to 
be established for determining whether information on prices at which 
the same or similar items have previously been sold is adequate for 
evaluating the reasonableness of price. DFARS 215.404-1, Proposal 
Analysis Techniques, implements the requirements of section 831 by 
providing guidance to contracting officers to consider the totality of 
relevant factors when evaluating the reasonableness of price, including 
the time elapsed since the prior purchase, any differences in the 
quantities purchased, and applicable terms and conditions.
    13. Federal Supply Schedule contracts.
    Comment: Two respondents recommended revising the DFARS to 
recognize Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts as commercial. One 
respondent recommended deleting the requirement at DFARS 252.215-
7010(b)(1)(ii)(D) that an offeror must provide proof of a commercial 
item exception when an item is sold via an active FSS contract, because 
it is redundant and unsupported by statue. By the mere fact that items 
are included on FSS contracts, means that they have been determined to 
qualify as commercial items (see CGI Fed. Inc. v. United States, 779 
F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In addition, the proposed rule 
disregards the prior work of the General Services Administration FSS 
contracting officers, and provisions of the NDAA do not require proof 
that a commercial item exemption has been granted for a schedule item.
    Response: Section 851 of the NDAA for FY 2016 provided the 
authority for DoD contracting officers to presume that a prior 
commercial item determination made by a military department, a defense 
agency, or another component of the Department of Defense shall serve 
as a determination for subsequent procurements of such item. This does 
not preclude contracting officers from applying a commercial item 
exception when an item is sold via an active FSS contract. However, 
this statutory language does not mandate that DoD contracting officers 
apply the same presumptions to prior commercial item determinations 
made by non-DoD agencies. Therefore, the language at DFARS 252.215-
7010(b)(1)(ii)(D) remains unchanged.
    14. Format for submission of data.
    Comment: One respondent recommended revising the language that 
requires the offeror to provide data to the contracting officer in a 
format regularly maintained in the offeror's business operations by 
replacing the word ``operations'' with the word ``systems''.
    Response: Section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 requires that 
guidance be established to 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. The language included in the rule is 
consistent with the language in section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013.
    15. ``Of a type'' items.
    Comment: One respondent indicated that language in the proposed 
rule Federal Register notice (Section II.B., Analysis of Public 
Comments, on DFARS Rule 2013-D034), at Comment 3, asserts that 
``Regulations for CIDs [commercial item determinations] for `of a type' 
. . . are unchanged by this rule'' is not entirely correct. Since it's 
a fact that the ``of a type'' commercial item category is the most 
widely used designation by innovative subcontractors, then it is also a 
fact that the new DFARS requirement for ``concurrent'' productions of 
cost or pricing data with a commercial item determination application 
will impact that class of subcontracted items the most. The proposed 
rule seems to be a thinly disguised major reversal of congressionally 
mandated direction in 2012 for DoD to procure more commercial items, 
especially ``of a type'' items.
    Another respondent suggested that the rule clarify that for an ``of 
a type'' item to meet the definition of a commercial item (excluding 
modifications and services) there should be a two prong test: (1) The 
item has to be of a type that customarily used by the general public 
and (2) the item itself has to have been sold (leased or licensed) or 
offered to the general public.
    Response: The language of this rule does not revise the definition 
of ``commercial item'' in FAR part 2, nor alter the requirements for 
commercial item determinations for ``of a type'' items. As stated in 
the response to comment 6 herein, DoD considers commercial item 
determinations separately from price reasonableness determinations. 
However, offerors are still expected to provide adequate supporting 
data with their proposal submissions in order to avoid unnecessary 
delays in contract award.
    16. Major systems acquisition.
    Comment: One respondent suggested the proposed rule language for 
major system acquisitions at DFARS 234.7002 incorporates proposal 
analysis techniques under DFARS 215.404-1, and provides that only a 
contracting officer may determine that a ``subsystem, component or 
spare part'' is a commercial item for a major weapon system. This same 
DFARS requirement first imposed in 2015, squarely conflicts with the 
older pragmatic DFARS policy requirement in DFARS 244.402 that mandates 
that only prime contractors ``shall determine whether a particular 
subcontract item meets the definition a commercial item.'' This will 
not alleviate the inevitable log jam of subcontract commercial item 
applications on major weapons.
    Response: This is a statutory requirement under 10 U.S.C. 
2379(b)(2). DFARS 244.402 does require contractors to determinde 
whether a particular subcontract item meets the definition of

[[Page 4436]]

commercial item. However, it explicitly states that the requirement 
does not affect the contracting officer's responsibilities for 
determinations made under FAR 15.403-1(c)(3) whereby if the contracting 
officer determines than an item is not commercial and no other 
exception or waiver applies, then the contracting officer shall require 
the submission of certified cost or pricing data. This authority 
applies to prime contracts and subcontracts.
    17. Market prices.
    Comment: One respondent expressed concern that the definition of 
``market prices'' focuses on ``current prices.'' The proposed 
definition could be interpreted by contracting officers to limit market 
prices to only those prices that have just been agreed to by a 
customer, and in extreme cases, only prices that are less than a few 
days old. Whether a price is ``current enough'' to be relevant varies 
based on many factors that are best addressed through guidance on age 
of data rather than within the definition of market prices. The 
respondent pointed out that section 853 of the NDAA for FY 2016 uses 
the term ``recent'' in lieu of the term ``current.'' The difference 
between ``recent'' and ``current'' is significant. ``Recent'' is having 
happened not long ago whereas ``current'' means in the present, 
contemporaneous, or being used or done now.
    Response: Recent prices paid can be used in the determination of 
price reasonableness. ``Market prices'' means current prices that are 
established in the course of ordinary trade between buyers and sellers 
free to bargain, and that can be substantiated through competition or 
from sources independent of the offerors. At any point in time, the 
market price would be the current price.
    Comment: One respondent stated that for an item to be exempt from 
submitting certified cost or pricing data, a commercial market place 
should exist that allows for establishing price reasonableness. 
Excluding this requirement from the definition of a commercial item has 
created a policy for which proposed regulations have tried and failed 
to work around.
    Response: This rule does not revise the established FAR definition 
of a commercial item which, in part, specifically identifies an item 
that ``Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general 
public''. Section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 requires that standards 
be established 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. While 
pricing based on market prices is the preferred method to establish a 
fair and reasonable price, a commercial marketplace is not required for 
the item to meet the definition of a commercial item. Furthermore, the 
rule sets forth a hierarchy of information that the contracting officer 
shall require to determine the reasonableness of the price, including 
other relevant information that can serve as the basis for a price 
assessment.
    18. Market research.
    Comment: One respondent recommends removing ``where appropriate'' 
from DFARS 212.209(a) because it injects the uncertainty that market 
research is conditional. Understanding the market place, even if there 
is limited research, is critical for commercial item determinations.
    A second respondent recommended including language in the DFARS to 
require contracting officers to conduct market research prior to 
soliciting information from offerors for purposes of price 
reasonableness determinations of commercial items, however, another 
respondent opposes the use of market research to determine price 
reasonableness, when obtaining offeror cost or pricing data would be 
more time efficient and germane.
    One respondent recommends that the rule specify that market 
research be conducted before the solicitation in order to inform the 
contracting officer whether a solicitation can be accommodated under 
FAR part 12.
    Response: DoD agrees that understanding the market place, even if 
there is limited research, is critical for commercial item 
determinations. DoD disagrees that ``where appropriate'' indicates that 
it is conditional, but simply if it is appropriate at that point in the 
acquisition process. Market research also informs decisions at several 
other points in the requirements development and acquisition process, 
and is one of several techniques contracting officers may use to reach 
a conclusion regarding price reasonableness.
    Market research is conducted at several points in the acquisition 
process, and that is adequately covered in FAR 10.001(a)(2) as well as 
in this rule. Market research is first conducted by the Requirements 
Community in developing requirements. The Acquisition Community builds 
upon initial market research in development of the acquisition strategy 
and drafting of the solicitation. However, additional focused market 
research is again conducted during the pricing and proposal analysis 
phase.
    19. Modified and similar items.
    Comment: One respondent stated that under FAR 15.403-1, if a minor 
modification of a commercial item exceeds the greater of the threshold 
for obtaining certified cost or pricing data or 5 percent of the total 
price of the contract, certified cost or pricing data are required. The 
respondent questioned whether equivalent requirements apply to price 
reasonableness assessments based on a ``similar'' item. The respondent 
believes that conceptually it seems it should. The respondent further 
questioned if there is a difference between a ``similar'' item and an 
item that has been modified, and whether a ``similar'' item can be an 
unmodified item of the item being purchased.
    Another respondent suggested that the rule define a ``similar'' 
item as an item that is so sufficiently comparable in technical and 
physical characteristics that the differences in price due to those 
differences is not material to the assessment of price reasonableness. 
The respondent further stated that if significant price differences are 
allowed for similar items, there seems no meaningful way to distinguish 
similar items from modified items.
    One respondent stated that in practice one of the biggest obstacles 
to determine price reasonableness on commercial items is the physical 
differences between the item being acquired and the item for which 
sales data is provided. It is difficult for the Government or 
contractor personnel to assess the price impact, with any level of 
fidelity, of the physical differences without associated price or cost 
data. Parametric models typically generate values with a gross level of 
precision, especially when using data from sources external to the 
manufacturer. The respondent suggested that the rule address data 
required for modifications of an item to include the technical or 
physical differences and the associated price or cost impact of each. 
The respondent further suggested that the rule address data required 
for ``similar'' items to include the technical or physical differences 
and the associated price or cost impact of each; including the data 
requirements for subcontractors in 252.215-7010, Requirements for 
Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or 
Pricing Data. This would be required to validate that the physical 
differences do not have a price impact.
    Response: The rule provides the ability for contracting officers to 
obtain necessary data to determine price reasonableness. Consistent 
with FAR 15.403-1(b)(3), contracting officers shall not request 
certified cost and pricing data when a commercial item is being

[[Page 4437]]

acquired, but may require data other than certified cost and pricing 
data as defined in FAR 2.101 to support a determination of a fair and 
reasonable price. The rule does not define ``similar items'' for the 
purposes of determining price reasonableness, but authorizes 
contracting officers, when appropriate, to require the contractor to 
supply information that is sufficient to determine the reasonableness 
of price, including information showing the similar item is comparable 
to the item being purchased to be used as a comparison in price 
reasonableness. Since no two contract actions are exactly the same, the 
rule provides a broad framework for data requirements. Contracting 
officers must use business judgement and consider all relevant factors 
including the similarity of items when making comparisons for the 
purposes of determining price reasonableness. Further information on 
the comparison of same or similar items may be found at FAR 15.404-
1(b)(2)(ii).
    20. Non-governmental entities.
    Comment: One respondent recommended adding the term ``non-
governmental entities'' into the rule where data is considered based on 
sales to the Government and commercial customers.
    Response: The language of this rule is consistent with the 
preexisting terminology in the DFARS.
    21. Nontraditional defense contractors.
    Comment: One respondent recommended elimination of the permissive 
nature of this authority. The respondent further recommended deletion 
of the language stating that the use of commercial item procedures 
under this authority does not mean the item is commercial, stating that 
this additional direction adds uncertainty for nontraditional 
contractors for renewal contracts and could adversely impact their 
initial decision to sell to DoD.
    Additionally, two respondents recommended clarifying that 
``subcontractors'' be added to the definition of nontraditional defense 
contractors so that items provided by a subcontractor that meet the 
definition of a ``nontraditional defense contractor'' may be treated as 
commercial items.
    Response: Section 857 amended 10 U.S.C 2380a to provide DoD with 
the permissive authority to treat items and services provided by 
nontraditional defense contractors as commercial items. This authority 
was neither mandatory nor was it extended to prime contractor 
commercial item determinations for subcontracted items and services.
    Comment: One respondent recommended broadening the statement of 
intent in DFARS 212.102(a)(iv) to state: ``This permissive authority is 
intended to enhance defense innovation and investment, enable DoD to 
acquire items that otherwise might not have been available, and create 
incentives for qualified firms to do business with DoD.''
    The respondent further recommended an editorial revision to state 
``. . . does not require a commercial item determination . . .'' in 
lieu of ``. . . does not constitute a requirement for a commercial item 
determination. . . .''
    Response: DoD concurs with the recommended revisions and has 
revised DFARS 212.102(a)(iii) accordingly. In addition, the DFARS 
provision 252.215-7013, Supplies and Services Provided by 
Nontraditional Defense Contractors, has been added to advise offerors 
that in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2380a, supplies and services provided 
by a nontraditional defense contractor, as defined in DFARS 212.001, 
may be treated as commercial items.
    22. Order of preference for determining price reasonableness.
    Comment: One respondent recommended changing DFARS 215.404-1 to 
clearly conform to the order of preference in FAR 15.402(a) in 
determining the sources, order and type of data needed to adequately 
determine price reasonableness. The respondent asserts that listing 
``market research'' as first in the order of preference gives the 
contracting officer unintended discretion to determine whether any 
market research is even appropriate. The respondent stated that the 
proposed rule side-steps the FAR 15.402 cost or pricing threshold and 
data exceptions as well as the requirement to rely on data available 
within the Government before going through market research, and 
demands, at a minimum up-front, information on prices at which the same 
or similar items have been sold in the commercial market (via DFARS 
Clause 252.215-7010).
    Response: This rule establishes DFARS language to supplement the 
requirements of the FAR, including the requirements at FAR 15.402. It 
does not establish a different order of preference in determining the 
sources, order, and type of data needed to adequately determine price 
reasonableness. Per FAR 10.001, agencies must conduct market research 
(appropriate to the circumstances) before soliciting offers for 
acquisitions with an estimated value in excess of the simplified 
acquisition threshold.
    23. Price analysis.
    Comment: One respondent indicated the proposed rule would require 
prime contractors to obtain whatever information necessary from 
subcontractors to support concurrent commercial item determinations and 
price realism analyses. This requirement will more likely create 
disputes between prime contractors and subcontractors regarding the 
types of information necessary to support a subcontractor's commercial 
item assertion. Further, the respondent expressed concern that the rule 
gives DoD the subjective ability to effectively challenge the prime 
contractor's costs incurred for commercial item subcontracts under 
cost-type contracts, and provides fodder for DoD to challenge the 
adequacy of a prime contractor's purchasing system.
    Response: The standards for what information is necessary to make 
commercial item determinations and determinations of price 
reasonableness should not be relaxed for subcontractors. Prime 
contractors are responsible for exercising the same due diligence as 
DoD contracting officers in making subcontractor commercial item 
determinations and evaluating their subcontractors' price 
reasonableness.
    Comment: One respondent recommended changing DFARS 215.404-1(b)(ii) 
to allow contracting officers to consider recent purchase prices paid 
by both the Government ``and'' commercial customers for the same or 
similar commercial items. The current language reads ``or''. Making 
this change can give Government officials access to both, which can 
ensure the Government is obtaining the best prices.
    Response: DoD concurs with the respondent's recommendation and has 
incorporated this revision in the final rule in DFARS 212.209(b) and 
215.404-1(b)(ii).
    24. Price analysis techniques.
    Comment: One respondent suggested expanding DFARS 212.209 and 
215.404-1(b)(ii) to reference FAR 15.404 that lists the various price 
analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable 
price.
    Response: It is not necessary to reiterate the various price 
analysis techniques and procedures in FAR 15.404 in this rule.
    25. Price reasonableness determinations.
    Comment: One respondent recommended that DFARS 252.215-7010(d) be 
revised to require only the minimum data necessary to support a 
determination that the proposed price is fair and reasonable instead of 
requiring all data necessary to support such a determination.

[[Page 4438]]

    Response: To ensure contracting officers request only the data 
necessary to permit a determination that the proposed price is fair and 
reasonable, the language has been revised to state ``the minimum 
information'' instead of ``all data.'' However, this does not relieve 
the requirement that offerors submit minimum essential information 
necessary to determine that the proposed price is fair and reasonable.
    Comment: One respondent recommended changing DFARS 212.209(d), 
215.404-1(b)(iv), and 234.7002(d)(3) to state the contracting officer 
``shall request'' the offeror to submit other relevant information, 
including uncertified cost data instead of the current language ``may 
request.'' This change clears up confusion, especially when contractors 
refuse to turn over cost data to DoD. Since the proposed rule limits 
DoD's access to uncertified cost data to that which is regularly 
maintained by the offerors in its business operations, there should be 
no additional burden on contractors.
    Response: DoD concurs that DFARS 215.404-1(b)(iv) and 
234.7002(d)(3) should be changed to ``shall'' in accordance with the 
language in the NDAA for FY 2016.
    26. Prior commercial item determination.
    Comment: One respondent recommended adding the requirement under 
DFARS 212.102 that a prior commercial item determination will remain if 
the contracting activity fails to provide a written explanation of the 
basis for the revision within the 30 day review period.
    Response: This rule will not impose such a time constraint on 
commercial item determinations.
    Comment: Two respondents recommended that a prior commercial item 
determination made by a prime contractor shall serve as a determination 
for subsequent procurements of such item. One respondent recommended 
adding to DFARS 212.102(a)(iii)(A) that the contracting officer shall 
``also'' presume that a prior commercial item determination made by a 
prime contractor for a subcontracted item (pursuant to the mandate of 
DFARS 244.402(a) Policy Requirements), shall serve as a determination 
for subsequent procurements of such subcontracted item either by the 
prime contractor or directly by the Government as a spare part.
    Three respondents recommended further consistency and uniformity in 
the acquisition process by allowing the contracting officer to consider 
prior commercial items determinations made by ``any'' federal 
department or agency, including civilian agencies, departments and 
components not only DoD Agencies, or another component of DoD as stated 
under 212.102(a)(iii). The proposed provisions implement and are 
consistent with 10 U.S.C. 2306(a)(b)(4), however, this recommendation 
is not prohibited by section 851 of the NDAA for FY 2016.
    Response: 10 U.S.C. 2306a(b)(4)(A) states that for purposes of 
applying the commercial item exception under paragraph (1)(B) to the 
required submission of certified cost or pricing data, the contracting 
officer may presume that a prior commercial item determination made by 
a military department, a defense agency, or another component of DoD 
shall serve as a determination for subsequent procurements of such 
item. This statutory language does not extend this authority to prior 
determinations made by prime contractors or civilian agencies.
    Comment: One respondent recommended adding a DFARS provision that 
clearly separates commercial item determinations of ``end items/
weapons'' by the contracting officer from commercial item 
determinations by prime contractors of subcontractor subsystems and 
components. This addition will streamline commercial item procurements.
    Response: This rule does not alter prime contractors' 
responsibility for making subcontractor commercial item determinations 
and evaluating their subcontractors' price reasonableness, regardless 
of whether the end item has or has not been determined to be a 
commercial item.
    Comment: One respondent suggested DFARS 212.102(a)(iii)(A) can lock 
DoD into buying items that are no longer commercial, and that requiring 
commercial item determinations as listed under DFARS 212.102(a)(iii)(B) 
and (C) can slow down the process by taking up to 30 days.
    Response: DoD contracting officers remain responsible for adhering 
to the definition of commercial items set forth in 41 U.S.C. 103 and 
applying professional judgement in making commercial item 
determinations as expeditiously as possible. To that end, DoD has stood 
up a DCMA cadre of experts to assist contracting officers in making 
commercial item determinations.
    27. Prior commercial sales.
    Comment: One respondent recommended that the rule be revised to 
permit contracting officers to accept prior FAR part 12 contract 
numbers from the offeror to demonstrate prior commercial item 
determinations.
    Response: Contracting officers must validate a previous commercial 
item determination and document the file appropriately. DoD agrees with 
the respondent that the identification of contract numbers is 
beneficial. In accordance with DFARS 252.215-7010, for items previously 
determined to be commercial, offerors are required to identify the 
contract and military department, defense agency, or another DoD 
component that rendered such determination. To expedite the commercial 
item determination, this language has been revised to include the 
contract number and, if available, a Government point of contact. 
Additionally, offerors are also required to provide information that is 
adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the price for the 
acquisition.
    28. Proposal analysis techniques.
    Comment: One respondent suggested DFARS 215.404-1 doesn't 
incorporate the NDAA for FY 2016 section 855 ``preference'' for pricing 
based upon existing market prices. The respondent asserts that the 
proposed rule includes a cornucopia of market research and relevance 
``factors'' that are confusing and will be extremely burdensome and 
time consuming for contractors, innovative subcontractors, and the 
Government.
    Response: The language at DFARS 215.404-1 states that ``In the 
absence of adequate price competition in response to the solicitation, 
pricing based on market prices is the preferred method to establish a 
fair and reasonable price.'' This rule implements requirements from 
both the NDAA for FYs 2013 and 2016. Having the guidelines required by 
section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 should help contracting officers to 
know what information to request and also help contractors, as the data 
will be limited to the minimum necessary to make a determination of 
price reasonableness.
    29. Revised commercial item determination.
    Comment: One respondent recommended requiring that a revised 
commercial item determination be provided to the offeror.
    Response: Offerors will be notified of the results of any 
commercial item redetermination during the negotiation process.
    30. Right to examine offeror data.
    Comment: Two respondents believed that offerors should be exempt 
from the requirement in DFARS 252.215-7010(b)(2) to submit data to 
support proposed prices based on catalog or market prices, or those 
prices set by law

[[Page 4439]]

or regulation in accordance with the limitations set forth under FAR 
52.215-20(a)(2).
    Another respondent is concerned that the language at DFARS 252.215-
7010(b)(2), which grants DoD the right to examine, at any time before 
award, books, records, documents, or other directly pertinent records 
to verify any request for a commercial item exception, and to determine 
the reasonableness of price, will negatively impact the entry of large 
and small commercial firms into the defense sector, impeding innovation 
and reducing competition.
    Response: Section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 requires that 
standards be established 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. To that 
extent, the rule sets forth a hierarchy of information that the 
contracting officer shall require to determine the reasonableness of 
the price, including other relevant information that can serve as the 
basis for a price assessment.
    31. Rule origination.
    Comment: One respondent suggested an investigation be conducted of 
how or who originated this proposal and how high up in the DoD 
hierarchy there is an understanding of how this proposal subverts 
congressional mandates.
    Response: This rule implements sections of the NDAAs for FYs 2013 
and 2016 relating to commercial item acquisitions, and is consistent 
with Congressional intent as set forth in statute.
    32. Significant economic impact.
    Comment: One respondent strongly believed the proposed rule goes 
much further than implementing section 831(a) of the NDAA for FY 2013 
and sections 851-853, 855-857 of the NDAA for FY 2016. The respondent 
asserts that the requirement for submission of cost or price data 
concurrently with a contractor's commercial item determination request 
under DoD-funded prime contracts and commercial subcontracts would 
impose significant time and paperwork burdens on prime contractors for 
submission to the contracting officer. Although section IV. of this 
preamble indicates there will be no significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of entities, the converse is true. It is a major 
rule which will have a significant adverse effect on competition, 
investment and innovation, especially in the innovative subcontractor 
market place. In addition, the respondent states that commercial items 
merely ``offered for sale'' in the commercial market are implicitly 
excluded from ever getting a positive commercial item determination 
because they can't meet their DFARS clauses ``minimum'' prior sales 
data standard.
    Response: There is no minimum prior sales standard that impacts the 
determination of commerciality. If an offeror does not have sales data 
to submit, the rule provides a list of other data that may be 
submitted, such as prices paid for similar levels of work or effort on 
related products or services. As previously stated, offerors are 
expected to provide adequate supporting data with their proposal 
submissions. It would not be in the best interest of DoD or industry to 
delay acquisitions by establishing a formal two-step sequential 
proposal process of first requiring supporting information only for the 
purpose of making a commercial item determination, and then following 
up with a second request for information in order to make a 
determination of price reasonableness. The rule does not contain any 
new information collection requirements that require the approval of 
the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
    33. Sole source commercial acquisitions.
    Comment: One respondent suggested that this proposed rule be 
further amended to address the situation of sole source commercial item 
acquisitions where market prices do not accurately reflect fair and 
reasonable prices due the lack of competition and the Government's bulk 
buys.
    Response: If the contracting officer determines that the 
information obtained through market research is not sufficient, the 
contracting officer will follow the order of preference and request 
additional data until there is sufficient information to determine 
price reasonableness.
    34. Solicitation provision.
    Comment: One respondent recommended that the final rule incorporate 
the alternate version of DFARS solicitation provision 252.215-7010 in 
lieu of the proposed basic version of the provision to facilitate the 
ability of commercial companies that have an item not granted an 
exception to support the determination of price reasonableness with 
their commercial business systems.
    Response: Both the basic and alternate versions of the provisions 
are required. Contracting officers shall use the basic provision when 
submission of certified cost or pricing data is required to be in the 
FAR Table 15-2 format, or if it is anticipated, at the time of 
solicitation, that the submission of certified cost or pricing data may 
not be required. Contracting officers shall use the alternate I 
provision to specify a format for certified cost or pricing data other 
than the format required by FAR Table 15-2.
    35. Subcontract cost or pricing data flowdown requirements.
    Comment: One respondent believed that the requirement for 
subcontractors to provide certified cost or pricing data and for data 
other than certified cost or pricing data is outside the scope of 
section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 because:
    (a) Subcontract pricing has no bearing on the commercial price 
offered to the Government.
    (b) In a fixed-price type commercial transaction, the prime 
contractor bears all the risk of subcontract price increases.
    (c) There is little incentive for the offeror's commercial 
subcontractors to provide information necessary to support price 
reasonableness.
    (d) Due to the nature of commercial supply chains, the fluidity of 
subcontractors is a common occurrence. With the increased use of 
electronic auctions and reverse auctions on commodities and basic 
services, the flowdown requirement regarding proposal preparation and 
evaluation to first-tier subcontractors would be problematic from a 
compliance standpoint.
    (e) It is exponentially more difficult to flow down to 
subcontractors at all tiers, as many lower-tier subcontracts may not be 
negotiated at the same time as the prime contract.
    (f) There is no way to flow down a solicitation provision in a 
``subcontract'' because there isn't a subcontract yet.
    (g) The requirements for certified cost or pricing data are flowed 
down to all lower-tier subcontractors above the certified cost or 
pricing data threshold without exception, despite the fact that many 
subcontracts may qualify for an exemption from certified cost or 
pricing data due to competition or commercial item status.
    (h) The rule requires subcontractors to submit detailed data to 
support subcontract pricing for all subcontracts exceeding the 
simplified acquisition threshold, without any rationale or 
determination that such detailed data is necessary or relevant to the 
prices proposed by the prime.
    (i) The contractor purchasing processes will require substantial 
changes to deal with this issue and for those commercial companies not 
so conversant on Government regulations.

[[Page 4440]]

    (j) This is a significant cost driver and runs counter to Better 
Buying Power.
    (k) FAR 52.215-20, the regulation that the proposed rule would 
replace, does not contain special rules for subcontracts.
    (l) If the commercial item meets the Government's requirement and 
is determined to have a fair and reasonable price, there is little 
incentive for offeror's commercial subcontractors to provide 
``information necessary to support price reasonableness.'' In a 
commercial marketplace, the Government's buying power or position is 
not significant enough to garner unique pricing data not customarily 
provided to commercial buyers.
    (m) There is little justification to propose a DoD-unique 
subcontract price evaluation requirement as part of a rule to address 
Congressional direction on standards and limitations of cost data to 
support commercial pricing at the prime contract level.
    The respondent further suggested that if the requirement for the 
offeror to provide data from subcontractors is retained, the final rule 
should exempt firm-fixed price contracts from this requirement.
    Response: Section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 does not relieve 
prime contractors from their responsibility for exercising the same due 
diligence as DoD contracting officers in making subcontractor 
commercial item determinations and evaluating their subcontractors' 
price reasonableness.
    36. Supporting information.
    Comment: One respondent recommended deleting the ten-day 
requirement for offerors to provide additional information to support 
proposal analysis in the DFARS provision 252.215-7010(d)(4).
    Response: The ten-day requirement is reasonable for offerors to 
provide additional data consistent with similar time limitations cited 
in the FAR and DFARS. Since the source selection process is time 
constrained, it is appropriate to impose a time limit on the provision 
of information to be considered in the source selection process.
    37. Uncertified cost data.
    Comment: One respondent asserted that the term ``uncertified cost 
data'' is inconsistent with the statutory language and recommended that 
the term be deleted from the rule.
    Response: Section 831 of the NDAA for FY 2013 requires that 
standards be established 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. Section 852 
of the NDAA for FY 2016 further provides language on information 
submissions regarding the basis for price. The rule defines 
``uncertified cost data'' as the subset of data other than certified 
cost or pricing data that relates specifically to cost data. The term 
``uncertified cost data'' is included as a subset to reinforce that 
cost data may be requested as a last resort after pricing data has been 
determined to be insufficient to determine the price reasonableness. 
For consistency in terminology, this rule uses the term ``uncertified 
cost data'' in lieu of the term ``uncertified cost information'' as 
used in section 831.
    Comment: One respondent stated that the language at DFARS 215.404-1 
suggests a prohibition against obtaining other than certified cost or 
pricing data when there may only be a miniscule amount of nongovernment 
sales. The respondent suggested that the proposed rule should highlight 
instead that the Government should consider any cost data in its 
possession and seek additional cost data as permitted elsewhere in the 
regulations.
    Response: The rule does not preclude the contracting officer from 
considering any cost data. DFARS 215.404-1 provides that if the 
contracting officer determines that the pricing information submitted 
is not sufficient to determine the price reasonableness, the 
contracting officer may request other relevant information, to include 
cost data. The language does not create a prohibition, but does provide 
a hierarchy that includes incorporation as to when to request other 
relevant information. Additional references within the rule, to include 
DFARS 212.209(d), provide that nothing in the section shall be 
construed to preclude the contracting officer from requiring the 
contractor to supply information that is sufficient to determine the 
reasonableness of the price. This would further reinforce that there is 
not a prohibition in place to restrict obtaining other than certified 
cost or pricing data when necessary to determine price reasonableness.
    Comment: One respondent is concerned that the proposed rule leaves 
open a very favorite information shielding mechanism for contractors, 
insofar as it does not require contractors to disclose, in meaningful 
detail, the actual terms and conditions at which other buyers have 
acquired their commercial products. The respondent suggested that since 
information provided to the Government is protected from unwarranted 
disclosure under various federal procurement and data protection 
statutes, there is no valid reason why the regulations cannot require 
sharing of the actual commercial sales terms and conditions, as well as 
prices paid and identities of the purchasers.
    Response: DoD agrees that that terms and conditions are frequently 
included in public websites and in catalogues for the prospective 
purchaser. Similarly, it is reasonable to require the offeror to 
provide terms and conditions as well as the price to support an 
informed and efficient decision by the contracting officer, whether the 
commercial procurement is competed or a sole source commercial 
acquisition. However, this comment is covered in DFARS 215.404-1(b)(iv) 
which states, ``If the contracting officer determines that the pricing 
information submitted is not sufficient to determine the reasonableness 
of price, the contracting officer shall request other relevant 
information, to include cost data.''
    38. Volume and completeness of transaction data.
    Comment: One respondent recommended revising the definition of 
``Volume and completeness of transaction data'' to remove the 
requirement to identify the customer as part of the key information. 
Further, the respondent recommended adding the phrase ``to the extent 
it is reasonably available and can be released by the offeror.'' Many 
commercial customer sales agreements contain non-disclosure provisions 
that restrict the seller's ability to disclose contract information, 
including customer identity, outside of the organization. These 
confidentiality provisions are extremely common in business-to-business 
agreements due to the fact that the identity of a business's suppliers 
and the prices paid to those suppliers is competitively sensitive 
information. A supplier may determine that price information may be 
disclosed so long as the customer's identity is not included with the 
disclosure, however requiring that both the price and the customer be 
identified puts the supplier at risk of violating contractual 
agreements with other customers. Using the phrase ``released by the 
offeror'' will allow the current practice of allowing the contracting 
officer to view un-redacted invoices (but not physically collect them) 
to ensure the data provided to the Government supports price 
reasonableness.
    Response: The language states ``customer'' but does not state 
``customer name.'' It is relevant to the contracting officer whether 
the customer is a commercial customer versus a Government customer. The 
subsequent paragraph provides further clarification that the DoD 
contracting officer needs to understand the type of customer.

[[Page 4441]]

Nothing prohibits the current practice that the DoD contracting officer 
can travel onsite to review un-redacted invoices.
    39. Out of scope comments.
    Comment: One respondent commented on the affordability of 
technology. Another respondent stated that 100% of U.S. Government 
requirements should be purchased from U.S. small businesses.
    Response: Both of these comments are beyond the scope of this rule.

III. Applicability to Commercial Item Acquisitions

    The objective of this rule is to implement sections 851 through 853 
and 855 through 857 of the NDAA for FY 2016 and section 831 of the NDAA 
for FY 2013. Sections 831, 851, and 853 address requirements related to 
commercial items. The statutes are silent on applicability to contracts 
for the acquisition of commercial items or commercially-available-off-
the shelf (COTS) and do not provide for criminal or civil penalties. 
Therefore, sections 831, 851, and 853 do not apply to the acquisition 
of commercial items unless the Director, Defense Procurement and 
Acquisition Policy (DPAP) makes a written determination as provided in 
41 U.S.C. 1906 to apply the statutes for commercial items and 41 U.S.C. 
1907 for COTS items. Consistent with 41 U.S.C. 1906 and 1907, the 
Director, DPAP, has determined that it is in the best interest of DoD 
to apply sections 831, 851, and 853 to the acquisition of commercial 
items.

IV. Expected Cost Savings

    This final rule prescribes the use of a new DFARS provision 
252.215-7010, to be used in lieu of FAR provision 52.215-20, 
Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than 
Certified Cost or Pricing Data. The new DFARS provision includes the 
existing requirement under FAR provision 52.215-20 for offerors to 
submit certified cost and pricing data and data other than certified 
cost or pricing data, as appropriate; however, the new DFARS provision 
adds levels of granularity to assist offerors in their proposal 
preparation with regards to ``other than certified cost or pricing 
data'' and implements a statutory exemption to the requirement for 
``certified cost or pricing data'' for nontraditional defense 
contractors.
    This rule will impact large businesses and small entities who 
currently compete on DoD solicitations issued using FAR part 15, 
Negotiation Procedures, and are valued at $750,000 or more. Offerors 
competing on contracts and orders subject to the new DFARS provision, 
will have the benefit of additional details on (and a hierarchy of) the 
types of ``other than certified cost or pricing data'' that they should 
consider including in their proposal. This information has the 
potential to improve the quality of proposals from businesses and 
reduce resubmissions of data during negotiations. In addition, this 
rule adds a statutory exemption from the requirement to submit 
``certified cost or pricing data'' for nontraditional defense 
contractors, who may now ``other than certified cost or pricing data,'' 
which takes less time to prepare.
    Finally, this rule also advises contracting officers that they may 
presume that a prior commercial item determination made another DoD 
component shall serve as a determination for subsequent procurements of 
such items, unless the contracting officer obtains a determination from 
the head of the contracting activity that the item is not commercial 
and the basis for that decision.
    DoD has performed a regulatory cost analysis on this rule. The 
following is a summary of the estimated public cost savings in 
millions, which are calculated in 2016 dollars at a 3-percent and 7-
percent discount rate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value at 3%............................................     $4.4
Annualized at 3%...............................................      0.1
Present Value at 7%............................................      1.6
Annualized at 7%...............................................      0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To access the full Regulatory Cost Analysis for this rule, go to 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, search for 
``DFARS Case 2016-D006,'' click ``Open Docket,'' and view ``Supporting 
Documents.''

V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess 
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, 
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not 
subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning 
and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule 
under 5 U.S.C. 804.

VI. Executive Order 13771

    This final rule is considered to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory 
action. Details on the estimated cost savings can be found in Section 
IV. of this rule.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is 
summarized as follows:
    This rule amends the DFARS to provide additional guidance to 
contracting officers on making price reasonableness determinations, 
expand opportunities for nontraditional defense contractors to do 
business with DoD, and provide additional details on the types of 
``other than certified cost or pricing data'' that offerors should 
include in their proposal in order to for the purposes of determining 
whether proposed prices for commercial items are fair and reasonable. 
The objective of this rule is to implement the requirements of sections 
851 through 853 and 855 through 857 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92, 
enacted November 25, 2015), as well as the requirements of section 831 
of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239, enacted January 2, 2013) and 
section 848 of the NDAA for FY 2018 (Pub. L. 115-91, enacted December 
12, 1017).
    There were no significant issues raised by the public in response 
to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
    This rule will apply to contractors that compete for contracts 
being awarded using FAR part 15 Negotiation procedures that are valued 
at $750,000 or more. According to data available in the Federal 
Procurement Data System for FY 2016, DoD awarded approximately 6,865 
contracts meeting this criteria to 5,105 unique contractors, of which 
4,544 contracts (~66 percent) were to 3,536 (~70 percent) unique small 
businesses.
    DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant impact on the 
small businesses that may be affected by this rule, because the rule 
does not add to or remove any of the existing requirements for the 
submission of other than certified cost or pricing data for the purpose 
of determining the reasonableness of prices proposed for commercial 
items. Rather the rule provides offerors additional details and a 
hierarchy of the ``other than certified cost or pricing data'' that 
should be included in their proposals. This additional detail could 
reduce the amount of time it takes a small business resubmit data 
during negotiations. In

[[Page 4442]]

addition, the exception to ``certified cost or pricing data'' for 
nontraditional defense contractors would be of benefit to small 
businesses that meet the definition.
    There are no significant alternative approaches to the rule that 
would meet the requirements of the statute.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 202, 212, 215, 234, 239, and 252

    Government procurement.

Jennifer L. Hawes,
Regulatory Control Officer Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 202, 212, 215, 234, 239, and 252 are 
amended as follows:

0
1. The authority citation for parts 202, 212, 215, 234, 239, and 252 
continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

PART 202--DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

0
2. Amend section 202.101 by adding, in alphabetical order, the 
definitions of ``non-Government sales'', ``sufficient non-Government 
sales'', and ``uncertified cost data'' to read as follows:


202.101   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Non-Government sales means sales of the supplies or services to 
non-Governmental entities for purposes other than governmental 
purposes.
* * * * *
    Sufficient non-Government sales means relevant sales data that 
reflects market pricing and contains enough information to make 
adjustments covered by FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii)(B).
* * * * *
    Uncertified cost data means the subset of ``data other than 
certified cost or pricing data'' (see FAR 2.101) that relates to cost.

PART 212--ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

0
3. Section 212.001 is added above subpart 212.1 to read as follows:


212.001   Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    Market research means a review of existing systems, subsystems, 
capabilities, and technologies that are available or could be made 
available to meet the needs of DoD in whole or in part. The review 
shall include, at a minimum, contacting knowledgeable individuals in 
Government and industry regarding existing market capabilities and 
pricing information, and may include any of the techniques for 
conducting market research provided in FAR 10.002(b)(2) (section 855 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 
114-92)).
    Nontraditional defense contractor means an entity that is not 
currently performing and has not performed any contract or subcontract 
for DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting 
standards prescribed pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1502 and the regulations 
implementing such section, for at least the 1-year period preceding the 
solicitation of sources by DoD for the procurement (10 U.S.C. 2302(9)).

0
4. Amend section 212.102 by--
0
a. Adding a paragraph (a)(i) heading;
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(ii) as (a)(i)(D) and revising the newly 
redesignated paragraph (a)(i)(D); and
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (a)(ii) and (a)(iii).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


212.102   Applicability.

    (a)(i) Commercial item determination. * * *
* * * * *
    (D) Follow the procedures and guidance at PGI 212.102(a)(i) 
regarding file documentation and commercial item determinations.
    (ii) Prior commercial item determination. This section implements 
10 U.S.C. 2306a(b)(4) and 10 U.S.C. 2380(b).
    (A) The contracting officer may presume that a prior commercial 
item determination made by a military department, a defense agency, or 
another component of DoD shall serve as a determination for subsequent 
procurements of such item. See PGI 212.102(a)(ii) for information about 
items that the Department has historically acquired as military unique, 
noncommercial items.
    (B) If the contracting officer does not make the presumption that a 
prior commercial item determination is valid, and instead chooses to 
proceed with a procurement of an item previously determined to be a 
commercial item using procedures other than the procedures authorized 
for the procurement of a commercial item, the contracting officer shall 
request a review of the commercial item determination by the head of 
the contracting activity that will conduct the procurement. Not later 
than 30 days after receiving a request for review of a commercial item 
determination, the head of a contracting activity shall--
    (1) Confirm that the prior determination was appropriate and still 
applicable; or
    (2) Issue a determination that the prior use of FAR part 12 
procedures was improper or that it is no longer appropriate to acquire 
the item using FAR part 12 procedures, with a written explanation of 
the basis for the determination (see 212.70).
    (iii) Nontraditional defense contractors. In accordance with 10 
U.S.C. 2380a, contracting officers may treat supplies and services 
provided by nontraditional defense contractors as commercial items. 
This permissive authority is intended to enhance defense innovation and 
investment, enable DoD to acquire items that otherwise might not have 
been available, and create incentives for nontraditional defense 
contractors to do business with DoD. It is not intended to recategorize 
current noncommercial items, however, when appropriate, contracting 
officers may consider applying commercial item procedures to the 
procurement of supplies and services from business segments that meet 
the definition of ``nontraditional defense contractor'' even though 
they have been established under traditional defense contractors. The 
decision to apply commercial item procedures to the procurement of 
supplies and services from nontraditional defense contractors does not 
require a commercial item determination and does not mean the item is 
commercial.

0
5. Section 212.209 is added to read as follows:


212.209   Determination of price reasonableness.

    (a) Market research shall be used, where appropriate, to inform 
price reasonableness determinations.
    (b) If the contracting officer determines that the information 
obtained through market research pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 
section, is insufficient to determine the reasonableness of price, the 
contracting officer shall consider information submitted by the offeror 
of recent purchase prices paid by the Government and commercial 
customers for the same or similar commercial items under comparable 
terms and conditions in establishing price reasonableness on a 
subsequent purchase if the contracting

[[Page 4443]]

officer is satisfied that the prices previously paid remain a valid 
reference for comparison. In assessing whether the prices previously 
paid remain a valid reference for comparison, the contracting officer 
shall consider the totality of other relevant factors such as the time 
elapsed since the prior purchase and any differences in the quantities 
purchased (10 U.S.C. 2306a(b)).
    (c) If the contracting officer determines that the offeror cannot 
provide sufficient information as described in paragraph (b) of this 
section to determine the reasonableness of price, the contracting 
officer should request the offeror to submit information on--
    (1) Prices paid for the same or similar items sold under different 
terms and conditions;
    (2) Prices paid for similar levels of work or effort on related 
products or services;
    (3) Prices paid for alternative solutions or approaches; and
    (4) Other relevant information that can serve as the basis for 
determining the reasonableness of price.
    (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude the 
contracting officer from requiring the contractor to supply information 
that is sufficient to determine the reasonableness of price, regardless 
of whether or not the contractor was required to provide such 
information in connection with any earlier procurement. If the 
contracting officer determines that the pricing information submitted 
is not sufficient to determine the reasonableness of price, the 
contracting officer may request other relevant information regarding 
the basis for price or cost, including uncertified cost data such as 
labor costs, material costs, and other direct and indirect costs.

0
6. Amend section 212.301 by adding paragraph (f)(vi)(E) to read as 
follows:


212.301   Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the 
acquisition of commercial items.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (E) Use the provision 252.215-7010, Requirements for Certified Cost 
or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, as 
prescribed at 215.408(6)(i) to comply with section 831 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) and 
sections 851 and 853 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92).
    (1) Use the basic provision as prescribed at 215.408(6)(i)(A).
    (2) Use the alternate I provision as prescribed at 
215.408(6)(i)(B).
* * * * *

0
7. Add subpart 212.70 to read as follows:
Subpart 212.70--Limitation on Conversion of Procurement from Commercial 
Acquisition Procedures
Sec.
212.7000 Scope.
212.7001 Procedures.

Subpart 212.70--Limitation on Conversion of Procurement from 
Commercial Acquisition Procedures


212.7000   Scope.

    This subpart implements section 856 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92).


212.7001   Procedures.

    (a) Limitation. (1) For a procurement valued at more than $1 
million, but less than $100 million, previously procured under a prime 
contract using FAR part 12 procedures based on a commercial item 
determination made by a military department, a defense agency, or 
another DoD component, prior to converting the procurement from 
commercial acquisition procedures to noncommercial acquisition 
procedures under FAR part 15, the head of the contracting activity 
shall determine in writing, upon recommendation from the contracting 
officer for the procurement that--
    (i) The earlier use of commercial acquisition procedures under FAR 
part 12 was in error or based on inadequate information; and
    (ii) DoD will realize a cost savings compared to the cost of 
procuring a similar quantity or level of such item or service using 
commercial acquisition procedures.
    (2) In the case of a procurement valued at $100 million or more, a 
contract may not be awarded pursuant to a conversion of the procurement 
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section until a copy of the head 
of contracting activity determination is provided to the Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
    (b) In making a determination under paragraph (a) of this section, 
the determining official shall, at a minimum, consider the following 
factors:
    (1) The estimated cost of research and development to be performed 
by the existing contractor to improve future products or services.
    (2) The costs for DoD and the contractor in assessing and 
responding to data requests to support a conversion to noncommercial 
acquisition procedures.
    (3) Changes in purchase quantities.
    (4) Costs associated with potential procurement delays resulting 
from the conversion.
    (c) The requirements of this subpart terminate November 25, 2020.

PART 215--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

0
8. Section 215.401 is added to subpart 215.4 to read as follows:


215.401   Definitions.

    As used in this subpart--
    Market prices means current prices that are established in the 
course of ordinary trade between buyers and sellers free to bargain and 
that can be substantiated through competition or from sources 
independent of the offerors.
    Relevant sales data means information provided by an offeror of 
sales of the same or similar items that can be used to establish price 
reasonableness taking into consideration the age, volume, and nature of 
the transactions (including any related discounts, refunds, rebates, 
offsets, or other adjustments).

0
9. Amend section 215.402 by--
0
a. Redesignating the existing text as paragraph (a)(ii); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(i).
    The addition reads as follows:


215.402   Pricing policy.

    (a)(i) Pursuant to section 831 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239)--
    (A) The contracting officer is responsible for determining if the 
information provided by the offeror is sufficient to determine price 
reasonableness. This responsibility includes 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, and determining the extent of uncertified cost data that should 
be required in cases in which price information is not adequate;
    (B) The contracting officer shall not limit the Government's 
ability to obtain any data that may be necessary to support a 
determination of fair and reasonable pricing by agreeing to contract 
terms that preclude obtaining necessary supporting information; and
    (C) When obtaining uncertified cost data, the contracting officer 
shall require

[[Page 4444]]

the offeror to provide the information in the form in which it is 
regularly maintained in the offeror's business operations.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend section 215.403-1 by adding paragraph (c)(3)(C) to read as 
follows:


215.403-1   Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data (10 
U.S.C. 2306a and 41 U.S.C. chapter 35).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (C) When applying the commercial item exception under FAR 15.403-
1(b)(3), see 212.102(a)(ii) regarding prior commercial item 
determinations.
* * * * *

0
11. Amend section 215.404-1 by--
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (2)(i) through (iv) as 
paragraphs (a)(i), (a)(ii), and (a)(ii)(A) through (D), respectively;
0
b. Adding a paragraph (a) heading; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b).
    The additions read as follows:


215.404-1   Proposal analysis techniques.

    (a) General. (i) * * *
* * * * *
    (b) Price analysis for commercial and noncommercial items. (i) In 
the absence of adequate price competition in response to the 
solicitation, pricing based on market prices is the preferred method to 
establish a fair and reasonable price (see PGI 215.404-1(b)(i)).
    (ii) If the contracting officer determines that the information 
obtained through market research is insufficient to determine the 
reasonableness of price, the contracting officer shall consider 
information submitted by the offeror of recent purchase prices paid by 
the Government and commercial customers for the same or similar 
commercial items under comparable terms and conditions in establishing 
price reasonableness on a subsequent purchase if the contracting 
officer is satisfied that the prices previously paid remain a valid 
reference for comparison. The contracting officer shall consider the 
totality of other relevant factors such as the time elapsed since the 
prior purchase and any differences in the quantities purchased (section 
853 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 
(Pub. L. 114-92)).
    (iii) If the contracting officer determines that the offeror cannot 
provide sufficient information as described in paragraph (b)(ii) of 
this section to determine the reasonableness of price, the contracting 
officer should request the offeror to submit information on--
    (A) Prices paid for the same or similar items sold under different 
terms and conditions;
    (B) Prices paid for similar levels of work or effort on related 
products or services;
    (C) Prices paid for alternative solutions or approaches; and
    (D) Other relevant information that can serve as the basis for 
determining the reasonableness of price.
    (iv) If the contracting officer determines that the pricing 
information submitted is not sufficient to determine the reasonableness 
of price, the contracting officer shall request other relevant 
information, to include cost data. However, no cost data may be 
required in any case in which there are sufficient non-Government sales 
of the same item to establish reasonableness of price (section 831 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 
112-239)).
    (v) When evaluating pricing data, the contracting officer shall 
consider materially differing terms and conditions, quantities, and 
market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer 
shall also consider material differences between the similar item and 
the item being procured (see FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii)(B) and PGI 215.404-
1(b)(v)). Material differences are those that could reasonably be 
expected to influence the contracting officer's determination of price 
reasonableness. The contracting officer shall consider the following 
factors when evaluating the relevance of the information available:
    (A) Market prices.
    (B) Age of data.
    (1) Whether data is too old to be relevant depends on the industry 
(e.g., rapidly evolving technologies), product maturity (e.g., stable), 
economic factors (e.g., new sellers in the marketplace), and various 
other considerations.
    (2) A pending sale may be relevant if, in the judgement of the 
contracting officer, it is probable at the anticipated price, and the 
sale could reasonably be expected to materially influence the 
contracting officer's determination of price reasonableness. The 
contracting officer may consult with the cognizant administrative 
contracting officers (ACOs) as they may have information about pending 
sales.
    (C) Volume and completeness of transaction data. Data must include 
a sufficient number of transactions to represent the range of relevant 
sales to all types of customers. The data must also include key 
information, such as date, quantity sold, part number, part 
nomenclature, sales price, and customer. If the number of transactions 
is insufficient or the data is incomplete, the contracting officer 
shall request additional sales data to evaluate price reasonableness. 
If the contractor cannot provide sufficient sales data, the contracting 
officer shall request other relevant information.
    (D) Nature of transactions. The nature of a sales transaction 
includes the information necessary to understand the transaction, such 
as terms and conditions, date, quantity sold, sale price, unique 
requirements, the type of customer (government, distributor, retail 
end-user, etc.), and related agreements. It also includes warranties, 
key product technical specifications, maintenance agreements, and 
preferred customer rewards.
    (vi) The contracting officer shall consider catalog prices to be 
reliable when they are regularly maintained and supported by relevant 
sales data (including any related discounts, refunds, rebates, offsets, 
or other adjustments). The contracting officer may request that the 
offeror support differences between the proposed price(s), catalog 
price(s), and relevant sales data.
    (vii) The contracting officer may consult with the DoD cadre of 
experts who are available to provide expert advice to the acquisition 
workforce in assisting with commercial item and price reasonableness 
determinations. The DoD cadre of experts is identified at PGI 215.404-
1(b)(vii).

0
12. Amend section 215.408 by--
0
a. In paragraph (3)(i)(A) introductory text, removing ``Requirement for 
Data'' and adding ``Requirement for Submission of Data'' in its place;
0
b. In paragraph (3)(i)(A)(1) introductory text, removing ``FAR 52.215-
20, Requirement for'' and adding ``DFARS 252.215-7010, Requirements for 
Certified Cost or Pricing Data and'' in its place;
0
c. In paragraph (3)(i)(A)(2), removing ``FAR 52.215-20'' and adding 
``DFARS 252.215-7010'' in its place;
0
d. Revising paragraph (3)(i)(B);
0
e. In paragraph (3)(ii)(A) introductory text, removing ``Requirement 
for Data'' and adding ``Requirement for Submission of Data'' in its 
place; and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (6) and (7).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


215.408   Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

* * * * *
    (3) * * *

[[Page 4445]]

    (i) * * *
    (B) Do not use 252.225-7003 in lieu of DFARS 252.215-7010 in 
competitive acquisitions; and
* * * * *
    (6) When reasonably certain that the submission of certified cost 
or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data will 
be required--
    (i) Use the basic or alternate of the provision at 252.215-7010, 
Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than 
Certified Cost or Pricing Data, in lieu of the provision at FAR 52.215-
20, Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than 
Certified Cost or Pricing Data, in solicitations, including 
solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of 
commercial items.
    (A) Use the basic provision when submission of certified cost or 
pricing data is required to be in the FAR Table 15-2 format, or if it 
is anticipated, at the time of solicitation, that the submission of 
certified cost or pricing data may not be required.
    (B) Use the alternate I provision to specify a format for certified 
cost or pricing data other than the format required by FAR Table 15-2;
    (ii) Use the provision at 252.215-7011, Requirements for Submission 
of Proposals to the Administrative Contracting Officer and Contract 
Auditor, when using the basic or alternate of the provision at 252.215-
7010 and copies of the proposal are to be sent to the ACO and contract 
auditor; and
    (iii) Use the provision at 252.215-7012, Requirements for 
Submission of Proposals via Electronic Media, when using the basic or 
alternate of the provision at 252.215-7010 and submission via 
electronic media is required.
    (7) Use the provision at 252.215-7013, Supplies and Services 
Provided by Nontraditional Defense Contractors, in all solicitations.

PART 234--MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION

0
13. Amend section 234.7002 by--
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B), adding the word ``and'' after the 
semicolon;
0
b. Removing paragraph (a)(1)(ii);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(iii) as paragraph (a)(1)(ii);
0
d. In paragraph (b) introductory text, removing ``may'' and adding 
``shall'' in its place, and removing ``only if--'' and adding ``if--'' 
in its place;
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(2);
0
f. In paragraph (c)(1) introductory text, removing ``only if--'' and 
adding ``if--'' in its place;
0
g. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii); and
0
h. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revisions read as follows:


234.7002   Policy.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The contracting officer determines in writing that the 
subsystem is a commercial item.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The contracting officer determines in writing that the 
component or spare part is a commercial item.
* * * * *
    (d) Relevant information. This section implements 10 U.S.C. 2379.
    (1) To the extent necessary to make a determination of price 
reasonableness, the contracting officer shall require the offeror to 
submit prices paid for the same or similar commercial items under 
comparable terms and conditions by both Government and commercial 
customers.
    (2) If the contracting officer determines that the offeror cannot 
provide sufficient information described in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section to determine the reasonableness of price, the contracting 
officer shall request the offeror to submit information on--
    (i) Prices paid for the same or similar items under different terms 
and conditions;
    (ii) Prices paid for similar levels of work or effort on related 
products or services;
    (iii) Prices paid for alternative solutions or approaches; and
    (iv) Other relevant information that can serve as the basis for a 
price reasonableness determination.
    (3) If the contracting officer determines that the information 
submitted pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section is not 
sufficient to determine the reasonableness of price, the contracting 
officer shall request the offeror to submit other relevant information, 
including uncertified cost data. However, no uncertified cost data may 
be required in any case in which there are sufficient non-Government 
sales of the same item to establish reasonableness of price.
    (4) An offeror shall not be required to submit information 
described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section with regard to a 
commercially available off-the-shelf item. An offeror may be required 
to submit such information with regard to any other item that was 
developed exclusively at private expense only after the head of the 
contracting activity determines in writing that the information 
submitted pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section is not 
sufficient to determine the reasonableness of price.

PART 239--ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

0
14. Revise section 239.101 to read as follows:


239.101   Policy.

    (1) A contracting officer may not enter into a contract in excess 
of the simplified acquisition threshold for information technology 
products or services that are not commercial items unless the head of 
the contracting activity determines in writing that no commercial items 
are suitable to meet the agency's needs, as determined through the use 
of market research appropriate to the circumstances (see FAR 
10.001(a)(3)) (section 855 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92)).
    (2) See subpart 208.74 when acquiring commercial software or 
software maintenance.
    (3) See 227.7202 for policy on the acquisition of commercial 
computer software and commercial computer software documentation.

PART 252--ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

0
15. Add section 252.215-7010 to read as follows:


252.215-7010   Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data 
Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data.

    Basic. As prescribed in 215.408(6)(i) and (6)(i)(A), use the 
following provision:

Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than 
Certified Cost or Pricing Data--Basic (Jan 2018)

    (a) Definitions. As used in this provision--
    Market prices means current prices that are established in the 
course of ordinary trade between buyers and sellers free to bargain 
and that can be substantiated through competition or from sources 
independent of the offerors.
    Non-Government sales means sales of the supplies or services to 
non-Governmental entities for purposes other than governmental 
purposes.
    Relevant sales data means information provided by an offeror on 
sales of the same or similar items that can be used to establish 
price reasonableness taking into consideration the age, volume, and 
nature of the transactions (including any related discounts, 
refunds, rebates, offsets, or other adjustments).
    Sufficient non-Government sales means relevant sales data that 
reflects market pricing and contains enough information to

[[Page 4446]]

make adjustments covered by FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii)(B).
    Uncertified cost data means the subset of ``data other than 
certified cost or pricing data'' (see FAR 2.101) that relates to 
cost.
    (b) Exceptions from certified cost or pricing data. (1) In lieu 
of submitting certified cost or pricing data, the Offeror may submit 
a written request for exception by submitting the information 
described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this provision. The 
Contracting Officer may require additional supporting information, 
but only to the extent necessary to determine whether an exception 
should be granted and whether the price is fair and reasonable.
    (i) Exception for prices set by law or regulation--
Identification of the law or regulation establishing the prices 
offered. If the prices are controlled under law by periodic rulings, 
reviews, or similar actions of a governmental body, attach a copy of 
the controlling document, unless it was previously submitted to the 
contracting office.
    (ii) Commercial item exception. For a commercial item exception, 
the Offeror shall submit, at a minimum, information that is adequate 
for evaluating the reasonableness of the price for this acquisition, 
including prices at which the same item or similar items have been 
sold in the commercial market. Such information shall include--
    (A) For items previously determined to be commercial, the 
contract number and military department, defense agency, or other 
DoD component that rendered such determination, and if available, a 
Government point of contact;
    (B) For items priced based on a catalog--
    (1) A copy of or identification of the Offeror's current catalog 
showing the price for that item; and
    (2) If the catalog pricing provided with this proposal is not 
consistent with all relevant sales data, a detailed description of 
differences or inconsistencies between or among the relevant sales 
data, the proposed price, and the catalog price (including any 
related discounts, refunds, rebates, offsets, or other adjustments);
    (C) For items priced based on market pricing, a description of 
the nature of the commercial market, the methodology used to 
establish a market price, and all relevant sales data. The 
description shall be adequate to permit the DoD to verify the 
accuracy of the description;
    (D) For items included on an active Federal Supply Service 
Multiple Award Schedule contract, proof that an exception has been 
granted for the schedule item; or
    (E) For items provided by nontraditional defense contractors, a 
statement that the entity is not currently performing and has not 
performed, for at least the 1-year period preceding the solicitation 
of sources by DoD for the procurement or transaction, any contract 
or subcontract for DoD that is subject to full coverage under the 
cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1502 and 
the regulations implementing such section.
    (2) The Offeror grants the Contracting Officer or an authorized 
representative the right to examine, at any time before award, 
books, records, documents, or other directly pertinent records to 
verify any request for an exception under this provision, and to 
determine the reasonableness of price.
    (c) Requirements for certified cost or pricing data. If the 
Offeror is not granted an exception from the requirement to submit 
certified cost or pricing data, the following applies:
    (1) The Offeror shall prepare and submit certified cost or 
pricing data and supporting attachments in accordance with the 
instructions contained in Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408, which is 
incorporated by reference with the same force and effect as though 
it were inserted here in full text. The instructions in Table 15-2 
are incorporated as a mandatory format to be used in any resultant 
contract, unless the Contracting Officer and the Offeror agree to a 
different format and change this provision to use Alternate I.
    (2) As soon as practicable after agreement on price, but before 
contract award (except for unpriced actions such as letter 
contracts), the Offeror shall submit a Certificate of Current Cost 
or Pricing Data, as prescribed by FAR 15.406-2.
    (d) Requirements for data other than certified cost or pricing 
data. (1) Data other than certified cost or pricing data submitted 
in accordance with this provision shall include the minimum 
information necessary to permit a determination that the proposed 
price is fair and reasonable, to include the requirements in DFARS 
215.402(a)(i) and 215.404-1(b).
    (2) In cases in which uncertified cost data is required, the 
information shall be provided in the form in which it is regularly 
maintained by the Offeror or prospective subcontractor in its 
business operations.
    (3) Within 10 days of a written request from the Contracting 
Officer for additional information to permit an adequate evaluation 
of the proposed price in accordance with FAR 15.403-3, the Offeror 
shall provide either the requested information, or a written 
explanation for the inability to fully comply.
    (4) Subcontract price evaluation. (i) Offerors shall obtain from 
subcontractors the minimum information necessary to support a 
determination of price reasonableness, as described in FAR part 15 
and DFARS part 215.
    (ii) No cost data may be required from a prospective 
subcontractor in any case in which there are sufficient non-
Government sales of the same item to establish reasonableness of 
price.
    (iii) If the Offeror relies on relevant sales data for similar 
items to determine the price is reasonable, the Offeror shall obtain 
only that technical information necessary--
    (A) To support the conclusion that items are technically 
similar; and
    (B) To explain any technical differences that account for 
variances between the proposed prices and the sales data presented.
    (e) Subcontracts. The Offeror shall insert the substance of this 
provision, including this paragraph (e), in subcontracts exceeding 
the simplified acquisition threshold defined in FAR part 2. The 
Offeror shall require prospective subcontractors to adhere to the 
requirements of--
    (1) Paragraphs (c) and (d) of this provision for subcontracts 
above the threshold for submission of certified cost or pricing data 
in FAR 15.403-4; and
    (2) Paragraph (d) of this provision for subcontracts exceeding 
the simplified acquisition threshold defined in FAR part 2.

(End of provision)

    Alternate I. As prescribed in 215.408(6)(i) and (6)(i)(B), use the 
following provision, which includes a different paragraph (c)(1).

Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than 
Certified Cost or Pricing Data--Alternate I (Jan 2018)

    (a) Definitions. As used in this provision--
    Market prices means current prices that are established in the 
course of ordinary trade between buyers and sellers free to bargain 
and that can be substantiated through competition or from sources 
independent of the offerors.
    Non-Government sales means sales of the supplies or services to 
non-Governmental entities for purposes other than governmental 
purposes.
    Relevant sales data means information provided by an offeror on 
sales of the same or similar items that can be used to establish 
price reasonableness taking into consideration the age, volume, and 
nature of the transactions (including any related discounts, 
refunds, rebates, offsets, or other adjustments).
    Sufficient non-Government sales means relevant sales data that 
reflects market pricing and contains enough information to make 
adjustments covered by FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii)(B).
    Uncertified cost data means the subset of ``data other than 
certified cost or pricing data'' (see FAR 2.101) that relates to 
cost.
    (b) Exceptions from certified cost or pricing data. (1) In lieu 
of submitting certified cost or pricing data, the Offeror may submit 
a written request for exception by submitting the information 
described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this provision. The 
Contracting Officer may require additional supporting information, 
but only to the extent necessary to determine whether an exception 
should be granted and whether the price is fair and reasonable.
    (i) Exception for price set by law or regulation--Identification 
of the law or regulation establishing the price offered. If the 
price is controlled under law by periodic rulings, reviews, or 
similar actions of a governmental body, attach a copy of the 
controlling document, unless it was previously submitted to the 
contracting office.
    (ii) Commercial item exception. For a commercial item exception, 
the Offeror shall submit, at a minimum, information that is adequate 
for evaluating the reasonableness of the price for this acquisition, 
including prices at which the same item or similar items have been 
sold in the commercial market. Such information shall include--
    (A) For items previously determined to be commercial, the 
contract number and

[[Page 4447]]

military department, defense agency, or other DoD component that 
rendered such determination, and if available, a Government point of 
contact;
    (B) For items priced based on a catalog--
    (1) A copy of or identification of the Offeror's current catalog 
showing the price for that item; and
    (2) If the catalog pricing provided with this proposal is not 
consistent with all relevant sales data, a detailed description of 
differences or inconsistencies between or among the relevant sales 
data, the proposed price, and the catalog price (including any 
related discounts, refunds, rebates, offsets, or other adjustments);
    (C) For items priced based on market pricing, a description of 
the nature of the commercial market, the methodology used to 
establish a market price, and all relevant sales data. The 
description shall be adequate to permit the DoD to verify the 
accuracy of the description;
    (D) For items included on an active Federal Supply Service 
Multiple Award Schedule contract, proof that an exception has been 
granted for the schedule item; or
    (E) For items provided by nontraditional defense contractors, a 
statement that the entity is not currently performing and has not 
performed, for at least the 1-year period preceding the solicitation 
of sources by the DoD for the procurement or transaction, any 
contract or subcontract for the DoD that is subject to full coverage 
under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 
1502 and the regulations implementing such section.
    (2) The Offeror grants the Contracting Officer or an authorized 
representative the right to examine, at any time before award, 
books, records, documents, or other directly pertinent records to 
verify any request for an exception under this provision, and to 
determine the reasonableness of price.
    (c) Requirements for certified cost or pricing data. If the 
Offeror is not granted an exception from the requirement to submit 
certified cost or pricing data, the following applies:
    (1) The Offeror shall submit certified cost or pricing data and 
supporting attachments in the following format: [Insert description 
of the data and format that are required, and include access to 
records necessary to permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed 
price in accordance with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, Note 2. The 
Contracting Officer shall insert the description at the time of 
issuing the solicitation or specify that the format regularly 
maintained by the offeror or prospective subcontractor in its 
business operations will be acceptable. The Contracting Officer may 
amend the description as the result of negotiations.]
    (2) As soon as practicable after agreement on price, but before 
contract award (except for unpriced actions such as letter 
contracts), the Offeror shall submit a Certificate of Current Cost 
or Pricing Data, as prescribed by FAR 15.406-2.
    (d) Requirements for data other than certified cost or pricing 
data. (1) Data other than certified cost or pricing data submitted 
in accordance with this provision shall include all data necessary 
to permit a determination that the proposed price is fair and 
reasonable, to include the requirements in DFARS 215.402(a)(i) and 
215.404-1(b).
    (2) In cases in which uncertified cost data is required, the 
information shall be provided in the form in which it is regularly 
maintained by the Offeror or prospective subcontractor in its 
business operations.
    (3) The Offeror shall provide information described as follows: 
[Insert description of the data and the format that are required, 
including access to records necessary to permit an adequate 
evaluation of the proposed price in accordance with FAR 15.403-3.]
    (4) Within 10 days of a written request from the Contracting 
Officer for additional information to support proposal analysis, the 
Offeror shall provide either the requested information, or a written 
explanation for the inability to fully comply.
    (5) Subcontract price evaluation. (i) Offerors shall obtain from 
subcontractors the information necessary to support a determination 
of price reasonableness, as described in FAR part 15 and DFARS part 
215.
    (ii) No cost information may be required from a prospective 
subcontractor in any case in which there are sufficient non-
Government sales of the same item to establish reasonableness of 
price.
    (iii) If the Offeror relies on relevant sales data for similar 
items to determine the price is reasonable, the Offeror shall obtain 
only that technical information necessary--
    (A) To support the conclusion that items are technically 
similar; and
    (B) To explain any technical differences that account for 
variances between the proposed prices and the sales data presented.
    (e) Subcontracts. The Offeror shall insert the substance of this 
provision, including this paragraph (e), in all subcontracts 
exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold defined in FAR part 
2. The Offeror shall require prospective subcontractors to adhere to 
the requirements of--
    (1) Paragraph (c) and (d) of this provision for subcontracts 
above the threshold for submission of certified cost or pricing data 
in FAR 15.403-4; and
    (2) Paragraph (d) of this provision for subcontracts exceeding 
the simplified acquisition threshold defined in FAR part 2.

(End of provision)


0
16. Add section 252.215-7011 to read as follows:


252.215-7011   Requirements for Submission of Proposals to the 
Administrative Contracting Officer and Contract Auditor.

    As prescribed in 215.408(6)(ii), use the following provision:

Requirements for Submission of Proposals to the Administrative 
Contracting Officer and Contract Auditor (Jan 2018)

    When the proposal is submitted, the Offeror shall also submit 
one copy each to--
    (a) The Administrative Contracting Officer; and
    (b) The Contract Auditor.

(End of provision)


0
17. Add section 252.215-7012 to read as follows:


252.215-7012   Requirements for Submission of Proposals via Electronic 
Media.

    As prescribed in 215.408(6)(iii), use the following provision:

Requirements for Submission of Proposals Via Electronic Media (Jan 
2018)

    The Offeror shall submit the cost portion of the proposal via 
the following electronic media: [Insert media format, e.g., 
electronic spreadsheet format, electronic mail, etc.]

(End of provision)


0
18. Add section 252.215-7013 to read as follows:


252.215-7013   Supplies and Services Provided by Nontraditional Defense 
Contractors.

    As prescribed in 215.408(7), use the following provision:

Supples and Services Provided by Nontraditional Defense Contractors 
(Jan 2018)

    Offerors are advised that in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2380a, 
supplies and services provided by a nontraditional defense 
contractor, as defined in DFARS 212.001, may be treated as 
commercial items. The decision to apply commercial item procedures 
to the procurement of supplies and services from a nontraditional 
defense contractor does not require a commercial item determination 
and does not mean the supplies or services are commercial.

(End of provision)

[FR Doc. 2018-01781 Filed 1-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P