[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25148-25152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08811]



[[Page 25148]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 227 and 252

[Docket DARS-2019-0048]
RIN 0750-AK71


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Validation of 
Proprietary and Technical Data (DFARS Case 2018-D069)

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 a section of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 that amended 
the statutory presumption of development exclusively at private expense 
for commercial items in the procedures governing the validation of 
asserted restrictions on technical data.

DATES: Effective April 28, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David E. Johnson, telephone 202-
913-5764.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 85 FR 
53755 on August 31, 2020, to implement section 865 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (Pub. L. 
115-232), which repeals several years of congressional adjustments to 
the statutory presumption of development at private expense for 
commercial items in the validation procedures at paragraph (f) of 10 
U.S.C. 2321. The DFARS implementation of this mandatory presumption has 
evolved accordingly to track the statutory changes, with the primary 
coverage found at paragraph (c) of section 227.7103-13, and paragraph 
(b) of the contract clause at 252.227-7037, Validation of Restrictive 
Markings on Technical Data. One respondent submitted written public 
comments in response to the proposed rule.

II. Discussion and Analysis

    DoD reviewed the public comments submitted in writing and discussed 
by the attendees at the virtual public meeting on November 19, 2020, in 
the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the 
changes made to the rule as a result of those comments is provided, as 
follows:

A. Summary of Significant Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based on comments received, language was added to DFARS 227.7103-
13(c) and DFARS 252.227-7037(e) to indicate the information that 
supports the challenge notice must be included in the challenge notice, 
subject to handling procedures for classified information or controlled 
unclassified information (CUI).

B. Analysis of Public Comments

1. DoD Must Provide Sufficient Information To Support the Challenge 
Notice
    Comment: The respondent requested elimination of the phrase ``to 
the maximum extent practicable'' in the proposed revisions to DFARS 
227.7103-13(c)(2) and DFARS 252.227-7037(e)(1)(i) and (f) because this 
phrase does not appear in the underlying statute. The respondent 
asserted that this language introduces uncertainty as to whether and 
when the contracting officer must provide sufficient information to 
overcome the presumption. The respondent asserted that the Government 
should furnish CUI in the manner in which the Government conventionally 
furnishes other CUI to contractors. If classified information cannot be 
provided with the challenge notice in an unclassified communication, 
then the classified information may be contemporaneously furnished via 
alternate means that complies with the applicable security 
requirements.
    Response: DoD adopted the respondent's recommendation to remove the 
phase ``to the maximum extent practicable.'' In view of the 
respondent's comments, the rule has also been revised to indicate that 
the challenge notice will include sufficient information to reasonably 
demonstrate that a commercial item was not developed exclusively at 
private expense, subject to the handling procedures for classified 
information and controlled unclassified information. Such handling 
procedures may include, but are not limited to, contemporaneous 
communications (referenced in the challenge notice) that consist of 
classified information transmitted via secured channels.
2. DoD Should Restore 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 to the DFARS List of 
Statutes Which Are Inapplicable to Subcontracts for Commercial Items 
and Eliminate Mandatory Flowdown Requirements
    Comment: The respondent recommended that, because section 865 
repealed several congressional amendments to the statutory presumption 
of development exclusively at private expense, 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 
should be included in the DFARS 212.504 exclusionary list of statutes 
that are inapplicable to contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition 
of commercial items. The respondent also recommended removing the 
mandatory flowdown requirements in the contract clauses at DFARS 
252.227-7013, 252.227-7015, and 252.227-7037.
    Response: This case implements specific amendments to 10 U.S.C. 
2321(f), and the applicability of those implementing revisions to 
contracts for the acquisition of commercial items is addressed in 
Section III of this preamble. To the extent the respondent's 
recommendations are directed to the applicability of the entirety of 10 
U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 to commercial items contracts and subcontracts and 
extend beyond the proposed implementation of 10 U.S.C. 2321(f), those 
recommendations are beyond the scope of this case. DoD acknowledges 
that the respondent's concerns and recommendations address broader 
scope issues also raised in the Section 813 Government-Industry 
Advisory Panel Report, and cognizant DoD policy stakeholders, including 
the Intellectual Property (IP) Cadre, are considering such issues as 
part of DoD's overarching efforts to review and improve its IP policies 
and implementing procedures.
3. Mandatory Flowdown Requirements for Supplier Agreements Are 
Inconsistent With the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act
    Comment: The respondent recommended elimination of mandatory 
flowdown language in the clauses at DFARS 252.227-7037(l), 252.227-
7013(k)(2), and 252.227-7015(e), which require contractors to use the 
clauses in other contractual instruments for commercial items with 
suppliers at any tier if the other contractual instruments require the 
delivery of technical data. The respondent asserted that this mandatory 
flowdown is both inconsistent with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
Act of 1994 (FASA) and undermines DoD's efforts to acquire commercial 
items.

[[Page 25149]]

    Response: This case implements specific amendments to 10 U.S.C. 
2321(f), and the applicability of those implementing revisions to 
contracts for the acquisition of commercial items is addressed in 
Section III of this preamble. To the extent the respondent's 
recommendations are directed to the application of the mandatory 
flowdown requirements for the entirety of multiple clauses to suppliers 
at any tier and ``other contractual instruments'' for commercial items 
and extend beyond implementation of 10 U.S.C. 2321(f), those 
recommendations are beyond the scope of this case. DoD acknowledges 
that the respondent's concerns and recommendations address broader 
scope issues also raised in the Section 813 Government-Industry 
Advisory Panel Report, and cognizant DoD policy stakeholders, including 
the IP Cadre, are considering such issues as part of DoD's overarching 
efforts to review and improve its IP policies and implementing 
procedures.
4. DFARS 252.227-7013 Should Not Apply to Commercial Items With ``Of a 
Type'' or ``Minor'' Modifications
    Comment: The respondent noted that the current DFARS policy permits 
use of both DFARS clauses at 252.227-7013 (for technical data related 
to noncommercial and commercial technology developed with Government 
funds) and 252.227-7015 (for technical data related to commercial 
technology developed at private expense). The respondent expressed 
concern that this paradigm creates a complicated mix of commercial and 
noncommercial terms along with potentially costly portion-marking. The 
respondent also asserted that these rules may discourage companies from 
selling modified commercial items to the Government. The respondent 
recommended that the noncommercial technical data rights clause at 
DFARS 252.227-7013 should not apply to commercial items with ``of a 
type'' or ``minor'' modifications. The respondent stated that DFARS 
252.227-7037 and the associated prescriptive guidance should be revised 
to clarify that Government funds used to modify a commercial item shall 
not be used as the basis for rebutting the presumption of development 
exclusively at private expense so long as the modified item continues 
to meet the commercial item definition at Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) 2.101. The respondent also suggested revising DFARS 
252.227-7013, 252.227-7015, and the associated guidance for contracting 
officers to clarify that 252.227-7013 shall not apply to commercial 
items modified at Government expense so long as the modified item 
continues to meet the commercial item definition at FAR 2.101.
    Response: This case implements specific amendments to 10 U.S.C. 
2321(f), and the applicability of those implementing revisions to 
contracts for the acquisition of commercial items is addressed in 
Section III of this preamble. To the extent that the respondent's 
recommendations are directed to the applicability of DFARS 252.227-7013 
to commercial items with ``of a type'' or ``minor'' modifications and 
extend beyond implementation of 10 U.S.C. 2321(f), those 
recommendations are beyond the scope of this case. DoD acknowledges 
that the respondent's concerns and recommendations address broader 
scope issues also raised in the Section 813 Government-Industry 
Advisory Panel Report, and cognizant DoD policy stakeholders, including 
the IP Cadre, are considering such issues as part of DoD's overarching 
efforts to review and improve its IP policies and implementing 
procedures.

C. Other Changes

    Minor editorial changes are made in DFARS clause 252.227-7037 to 
the expressed time periods to conform to standard rule drafting 
conventions.

III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition 
Threshold, for Commercial Products (Including Commercially Available 
Off-the-Shelf Items), and for Commercial Services

    This rule amends the contract clause at 252.227-7037 and the 
prescription at DFARS 227.7103-13. However, this rule does not impose 
any new requirements on contracts at or below the simplified 
acquisition threshold (SAT), for commercial products (including 
commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items), or for commercial 
services. The prescription and clause will continue to apply to 
acquisitions at or below the SAT and to acquisitions of commercial 
products (including COTS items).

A. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition 
Threshold

    41 U.S.C. 1905 governs the applicability of laws to contracts or 
subcontracts in amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition 
threshold. It is intended to limit the applicability of laws to such 
contracts or subcontracts. 41 U.S.C. 1905 provides that if a provision 
of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the Federal 
Acquisition Regulatory Council makes a written determination that it is 
not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt contracts 
or subcontracts at or below the SAT, the law will apply to them. The 
Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC), is the 
appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations 
to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the FAR system of 
regulations. DoD has made that determination. Therefore, this rule does 
apply to contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold.

B. Applicability to Contracts for the Acquisition of Commercial 
Products (Including COTS Items) and Commercial Services

    10 U.S.C. 2375 governs the applicability of laws to contracts and 
subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products (including COTS 
items) and commercial services and is intended to limit the 
applicability of laws to contracts for the acquisition of commercial 
products (including COTS items) and commercial services. 10 U.S.C. 2375 
provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil 
penalties, or if the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Sustainment (USD(A&S)) makes a written determination that it is not in 
the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt commercial 
product or commercial service contracts, the provision of law will 
apply to contracts for the acquisition of commercial products or 
commercial services.
    Due to delegations of authority from USD(A&S), the Principal 
Director, DPC, is the appropriate authority to make this determination. 
DoD has made that determination to apply this rule to the acquisition 
of commercial products (including COTS items), if otherwise applicable.

C. Determination

    This rule implements statutory requirements regarding the 
presumption of development at private expense for commercial products 
(including COTS items) in validations of asserted restrictions. Not 
applying the rule to contracts at or below the SAT would exclude 
contracts at low dollar values for commercial products intended to be 
covered by this rule. An exclusion for contracts at or below the SAT 
would therefore undermine the overarching purpose of the rule. 
Therefore, DoD has determined that it is in the best interest of the 
Federal Government to apply the rule to contracts valued at or below 
the SAT.

[[Page 25150]]

    Given that the requirements of section 865 of the NDAA for FY 2019 
were enacted to return to a presumption of development exclusively at 
private expense for commercial products, DoD has determined that it is 
in the best interest of the Federal Government to apply the rule to 
contracts for the acquisition of commercial products, including COTS 
items, as those terms are defined at FAR 2.101. An exception for 
contracts for the acquisition of commercial products, including COTS 
items, would exclude contracts intended to be covered by the law, 
thereby undermining the overarching public policy purpose of the law.

IV. Expected Impact of the Rule

    The final rule applies the statutory requirements regarding the 
presumption of development at private expense for commercial items in 
validations of asserted restrictions. Specifically, the rule returns 
the coverage at DFARS 227.7103-13 and 252.227-7037 substantially back 
to the original Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act-implementing 
language with regard to the presumption of development exclusively at 
private expense for commercial items. This statutory change places the 
burden of proof on DoD, not on the contractor or subcontractor, for 
commercial items.
    Under the new rule, DoD is required to presume that the contractor 
or subcontractor has justified the asserted restriction on the basis 
that the item was developed exclusively at private expense for 
commercial items, regardless of whether the contractor or subcontractor 
submits a justification in response to the Government's challenge 
notice. In such a case, the challenge to the use or release restriction 
may be sustained only if information provided by DoD demonstrates that 
the item was not developed exclusively at private expense. Within the 
validation procedures, the presumption of development at private 
expense for commercial items is primarily designed to protect the 
contractors' interests.
    The impact of these changes may be positive, for both the public 
and the Government, because the Government will not initiate challenges 
when it does not have sufficient information to support the initiation 
of a challenge. Contractors will not be required to respond to 
challenges or pre-challenge requests for information regarding 
commercial items. Therefore, if DoD does not have information 
demonstrating that a commercial item was not developed exclusively at 
private expense, a contracting officer may reasonably decide not to 
initiate a challenge. DoD does not have data on the number of 
challenges that may be avoided.
    If DoD does not have sufficient information to successfully 
initiate a challenge to a contractor's restrictive markings on 
technical data for commercial items, DoD will have to comply with those 
restrictive markings. Such information may exist but be in the custody 
and control of the contractor. For contractors, the impact may be 
positive, as it would limit how DoD could use technical data related to 
a contractor's commercial item. For the Government, the markings may 
impact DoD's ability to use the technical data to obtain competitive 
procurement of an item and thus result in higher costs. DoD does not 
have data on the number of times this situation is likely to occur.

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.

VI. Congressional Review Act

    As required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808) 
before an interim or final rule takes effect, DoD will submit a copy of 
the interim or final rule with the form, Submission of Federal Rules 
under the Congressional Review Act, to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A 
major rule under the Congressional Review Act cannot take effect until 
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not 
a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) has been prepared 
consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. 
The FRFA is summarized as follows:
    DoD is proposing to implement section 865 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232), 
which revised 10 U.S.C. 2321. Section 865 of the NDAA for FY 2019 
repeals amendments to 10 U.S.C. 2321(f) made by the NDAAs for FY 2007 
through FY 2016. The impact is to return the DFARS coverage at section 
227.7103-13 and the contract clause at 252.227-7037, Validation of 
Restrictive Markings on Technical Data, substantially back to its 
original language implementing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
of 1994. Section 865 also codifies and revises DoD challenges to 
contractor-asserted restrictions on technical data pertaining to a 
commercial item, i.e., DoD is required to presume that the contractor 
or subcontractor has justified the asserted restriction on the basis 
that the item was developed exclusively at private expense, regardless 
of whether the contractor or subcontractor submits a justification in 
response to the Government's challenge notice. In such a case, the 
challenge to the use or release restriction may be sustained only if 
information provided by DoD demonstrates that the item was not 
developed exclusively at private expense.
    There were no public comments received in response to the initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis.
    This final rule will apply to small entities that have contracts 
with DoD requiring delivery of technical data. Based on data from 
Electronic Data Access for FY 2018 through FY 2020, DoD estimates that 
an average of 814 contractors may be impacted by the changes in this 
final rule. Of those entities, approximately 507 (62 percent) are small 
entities.
    This final rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, 
or other compliance requirements for small entities.
    There are no known alternatives which would accomplish the stated 
objectives of the applicable statute.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) applies to this 
rule. However, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional 
information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously 
approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0369, entitled ``DFARS Subparts 
227.71, Rights in Technical Data; and Subpart 227.72, Rights in 
Computer Software and Computer Software Documentation, and related 
provisions and clauses.''

[[Page 25151]]

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 227 and 252

    Government procurement.

Jennifer D. Johnson,
Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

    Therefore, 48 CFR parts 227 and 252 are amended as follows:

0
1. The authority citation for parts 227 and 252 continues to read as 
follows:

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

PART 227--PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS

0
2. Amend section 227.7103-13 by--
0
a. Revising paragraph (c);
0
b. In paragraph (d)(2)(i) removing ``subsection'' and adding 
``section'' in its place; and
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(4).
    The revisions read as follows:


227.7103-13   Government right to review, verify, challenge, and 
validate asserted restrictions.

* * * * *
    (c) Challenge considerations and presumption--(1) Requirements to 
initiate a challenge. Contracting officers shall have reasonable 
grounds to challenge the validity of an asserted restriction. Before 
issuing a challenge to an asserted restriction, carefully consider all 
available information pertaining to the assertion.
    (2) Commercial items--presumption regarding development exclusively 
at private expense. 10 U.S.C. 2320(b)(1) and 2321(f) establish a 
presumption and procedures regarding validation of asserted 
restrictions for technical data related to commercial items on the 
basis of development exclusively at private expense. Contracting 
officers shall presume that a commercial item was developed exclusively 
at private expense whether or not a contractor or subcontractor submits 
a justification in response to a challenge notice. The contracting 
officer shall not challenge a contractor's assertion that a commercial 
item was developed exclusively at private expense unless the Government 
can specifically state the reasonable grounds to question the validity 
of the assertion. The challenge notice shall include sufficient 
information to reasonably demonstrate that the commercial item was not 
developed exclusively at private expense. In order to sustain the 
challenge, the contracting officer shall provide information 
demonstrating that the commercial item was not developed exclusively at 
private expense. The challenge notice and all related correspondence 
shall be subject to handling procedures for classified information and 
controlled unclassified information. A contractor's or subcontractor's 
failure to respond to the challenge notice cannot be the sole basis for 
issuing a final decision denying the validity of an asserted 
restriction.
    (d) * * *
    (4) Challenge notice. The contracting officer shall not issue a 
challenge notice unless there are reasonable grounds to question the 
validity of an assertion. For commercial items, also see paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section. The contracting officer may challenge an 
assertion whether or not supporting documentation was requested under 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Challenge notices shall be in writing 
and issued to the contractor or, after consideration of the situations 
described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the person asserting the 
restriction. The challenge notice shall include the information in 
paragraph (e) of the clause at 252.227-7037.
* * * * *

PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

0
3. Amend section 252.227-7037 by--
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. In the introductory text, removing ``27.7104(e)(5)'' and adding 
``227.7104(e)(5)'' in its place;
0
c. Revising the clause date;
0
d. Revising paragraph (b);
0
e. In paragraph (c) removing ``paragraph (b)(1)'' and adding 
``paragraph (b)'' in its place;
0
f. In paragraph (d)(2) removing ``Contracting Officer shall'' and 
adding ``Contracting Officer will'' in its place;
0
g. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) introductory text and (e)(1)(i);
0
h. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii) removing ``sixty (60) days'' and adding ``60 
days'' in its place;
0
i. In paragraph (e)(2) removing ``shall'' and adding ``will'' in its 
place;
0
j. In paragraph (e)(3) removing ``Contract Disputes'' and adding 
``Contract Disputes,'' in its place;
0
k. In paragraph (e)(4) removing ``shall formulate'' and ``shall 
afford'' and adding ``will formulate'' and ``will afford'' in their 
places, respectively;
0
l. Revising paragraph (f);
0
m. In paragraph (g)(1) removing ``shall'' and ``sixty (60) days'' 
wherever they appear and adding ``will'' and ``60 days'' in their 
places, respectively;
0
n. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(i);
0
o. In paragraph (g)(2)(ii) removing ``ninety (90) days'' wherever it 
appears and ``ninety (90)-day period'' and adding ``90 days'' and ``90-
day period'' in their places, respectively;
0
p. In paragraph (g)(2)(iii) removing ``ninety (90) days'' and ``one (1) 
year'' and adding ``90 days'' and ``1 year'' in their places, 
respectively;
0
q. In paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii) removing ``Government shall'' and 
adding ``Government will'' in its place; and
0
r. In paragraph (i) introductory text--
0
i. Removing ``three (3) years'' wherever it appears and adding ``3 
years'' in its place; and
0
ii. Removing ``disclosure or use'' and adding ``disclosure, or use'' in 
its place.
    The revisions read as follows:


252.227-7037   Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data.

* * * * *

Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data (APR 2022)

* * * * *
    (b) Commercial items--presumption regarding development exclusively 
at private expense. The Contracting Officer will presume that the 
Contractor's or a subcontractor's asserted use or release restrictions 
with respect to a commercial item are justified on the basis that the 
item was developed exclusively at private expense. The Contracting 
Officer will not issue a challenge unless there are reasonable grounds 
to question the validity of the assertion that the commercial item was 
developed exclusively at private expense.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Notwithstanding any provision of this contract concerning 
inspection and acceptance, if the Contracting Officer determines that a 
challenge to the restrictive marking is warranted, the Contracting 
Officer will send a written challenge notice to the Contractor or 
subcontractor asserting the restrictive markings. The challenge notice 
and all related correspondence shall be subject to handling procedures 
for classified information and controlled unclassified information. 
Such challenge will--
    (i) State the specific grounds for challenging the asserted 
restriction including, for commercial items, sufficient information to 
reasonably demonstrate that the commercial item was not developed 
exclusively at private expense;
* * * * *
    (f) Final decision when Contractor or subcontractor fails to 
respond. Upon a failure of a Contractor or subcontractor to submit any 
response to the challenge notice the Contracting Officer will issue a 
final decision to the Contractor or

[[Page 25152]]

subcontractor in accordance with the Disputes clause of this contract. 
In order to sustain the challenge for commercial items, the Contracting 
Officer will provide information demonstrating that the commercial item 
was not developed exclusively at private expense. This final decision 
will be issued as soon as possible after the expiration of the time 
period of paragraph (e)(1)(ii) or (e)(2) of this clause. Following 
issuance of the final decision, the Contracting Officer will comply 
with the procedures in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this 
clause.
    (g) * * *
    (2)(i) If the Contracting Officer determines that the validity of 
the restrictive marking is not justified, the Contracting Officer will 
issue a final decision to the Contractor or subcontractor in accordance 
with the Disputes clause of this contract. In order to sustain the 
challenge for commercial items, the Contracting Officer will provide 
information demonstrating that the commercial item was not developed 
exclusively at private expense. Notwithstanding paragraph (e) of the 
Disputes clause, the final decision will be issued within 60 days after 
receipt of the Contractor's or subcontractor's response to the 
challenge notice, or within such longer period that the Contracting 
Officer has notified the Contractor or subcontractor that the 
Government will require. The notification of a longer period for 
issuance of a final decision will be made within 60 days after receipt 
of the response to the challenge notice.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-08811 Filed 4-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P