[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations]
[General Services Administration Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The General Services Administration (GSA) establishes policy for and 
provides economical and efficient management of Government property and 
records, including construction and operation of buildings, procurement 
and distribution of supplies, utilization and disposal of property; 
transportation, traffic, and communications management; and management 
of the Governmentwide automatic data processing resources program.
GSA's regulatory priorities for 1995 reflect the President's mandate 
that regulations be streamlined to help create a Government that works 
better and costs less.
Changing the multiple award schedule ordering procedures is by far the 
most indicative of GSA's commitment to deregulate and unify a 
cumbersome bureaucratic process. Revisions to three regulations will 
result in a uniform set of guiding principles that will make it easier 
for agencies to buy products and services at lower prices.
Revising the entire GSA Acquisition Regulation is another sign of GSA's 
commitment to a simplified regulatory system that works toward 
providing services in a timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner.
As required by E.O. 12866, GSA will strive to ensure that our 
regulations reflect the President's regulatory philosophy, principles, 
and priorities, and that they conform with GSA's restructured business 
plan. Periodic reviews will guarantee regulations that are effective, 
consistent, sensible, and understandable. While GSA's regulations have 
limited impact on the general public and State and local governments, 
these reviews will also focus on ways to eliminate any unnecessary 
requirements our actions may impose on society. Our continuing policy 
is to use regulatory direction only when it offers the most effective 
means of carrying out GSA's mission and responsibilities, eliminates 
requirements that are a burden, and simplifies procurement procedures.
_______________________________________________________________________
GSA
            ___________________________________________________________
PRERULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
167.  IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCUREMENT STREAMLINING LEGISLATION
Legal Authority:


 40 USC 486(c)


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Congress is actively considering proposed legislation that will make 
major changes in the laws that impact the Federal procurement process 
in order to streamline procurement procedures. The proposed legislation 
addresses many of the recommendations of the Section 800 panel on 
streamlining the procurement laws applicable to the Department of 
Defense as well as the recommendations of the National Performance 
Review.


Statement of Need:


Once the proposed legislation is enacted, major changes in the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and agency supplemental acquisition 
regulations will be required to implement the statute. GSA, the 
Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, which are jointly responsible for the FAR, will be 
responsible for promulgating necessary changes to the FAR to implement 
the procurement streamlining legislation.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Unknown at this time. Legislation has not yet been enacted.


Alternatives:


Since the legislation has not been enacted, the alternatives for 
regulatory implementation cannot be detailed at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Formulation of a cost benefit analysis is premature until the statute 
is enacted.


Risks:


Cannot be established at this time.


Timetable:


Next Action Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Procurement:


This is a procurement-related action for which there is no statutory 
requirement. There is a paperwork burden associated with this action.


Agency Contact:
Marjorie Ashby
Management Analyst
Office of Acquisition Policy
General Services Administration
18th & F Streets NW.
Washington, DC 20405
202 501-3822
RIN: 3090-AF51
_______________________________________________________________________
GSA
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
168. REISSUANCE OF THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION ACQUISITION 
REGULATION (GSAR)
Legal Authority:


 40 USC 486(c)


CFR Citation:


 48 CFR 501


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


GSA proposes to revise and reissue chapter 5, 48 CFR, in its entirety. 
The reissuance will represent the culmination of the Total Quality 
Management project to review GSA's acquisition regulation/directive 
system.


Statement of Need:


GSA plans to publish a proposal to revise the entire GSAR. The proposal 
will redefine the objectives of the procurement system and its 
regulatory base, establish very narrow standards for the scope and 
nature of the regulation, eliminate provisions that impede productivity 
or unnecessarily increase administrative costs, reduce rigid rules in 
favor of guiding principles, delegate authority and accountability to 
the lowest level consistent with competency, and reduce the overall 
volume of the regulation by at least 50 percent. After consideration of 
public comments, the entire regulation will be issued in final form.


Alternatives:


Alternatives considered include an approach which would continue to 
include nonregulatory internal guidance in the GSAR rather than putting 
the internal guidance in a separate internal directive to be 
distributed to contracting personnel within the agency.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Issuance of the final regulation will facilitate GSA's ability to 
operate in a competitive environment by enabling GSA contracting 
offices to deliver services in a more timely, efficient, and cost-
effective manner. A specific dollar savings cannot be calculated.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/94
Final Action                                                   04/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Sectors Affected:


 All


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Procurement:


This is a procurement-related action for which there is no statutory 
requirement. There is a paperwork burden associated with this action.


Agency Contact:
Marjorie Ashby
Management Analyst
Office of Acquisition Policy (VP)
General Services Administration
18th & F Streets NW.
Washington, DC 20405
202 501-3822
RIN: 3090-AE90
_______________________________________________________________________
GSA
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
169. MULTIPLE AWARD SCHEDULE PRICE REDUCTIONS CLAUSE
Legal Authority:


 40 USC 486(c)


CFR Citation:


 48 CFR 538; 48 CFR 552


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed change to the General Services Administration Acquisition 
Regulation would prescribe a Price Reductions clause for use in 
multiple award schedule (MAS) solicitations and contracts. The clause 
is a modification of that currently in use. The requirements clarify 
the clause's applicability, reduce contractor reporting requirements, 
and eliminate MAS reductions based on a low price to an individual 
Federal agency.


Statement of Need:


GSA intends to amend the GSAR to prescribe the Price Reductions clause 
for use in multiple award schedule (MAS) contracts. The clause will 
replace the Price Reductions clause that is currently being used.


The proposed clause clarifies the clause's applicability, reduces 
contractor reporting requirements, and eliminates MAS reductions based 
on a low price to an individual Federal agency. GSA proposes to amend 
the clause for the following reasons:


The National Performance Review (NPR) recommended that GSA make all MAS 
contracts nonmandatory. NPR made the recommendation to enable line 
managers to buy the same or comparable products from a source other 
than the schedule, if they can find it for less. GSA has implemented 
the NPR recommendation. The current Price Reductions Clause, however, 
provides a disincentive for vendors to offer individual agencies less 
than the schedule price.


The current clause has been subject to differing interpretations. The 
different interpretations cause confusion and additional administrative 
burdens on contractors and customer agencies. The revised clause will 
be clarified.


The current clause also imposes certain administrative burdens on 
contractors that can be eliminated.


Alternatives:


In developing the proposed rule the following alternatives will be 
considered.


1. Eliminate the entire clause.


2. Retain the provisions of the clause that require a contractor to 
give all MAS customers a price reduction, if the contractors sell an 
item to one customer at less than the MAS price.


3. Add to the proposed clause a requirement that contractors report to 
the GSA contracting officer all price reductions to individual 
agencies.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A revised Price Reductions clause will enhance the ability of Federal 
agencies to obtain MAS products at less than the schedule price. The 
proposed clause will also reduce administrative requirements imposed 
upon vendors to track and report price reductions. A specific dollar 
savings cannot be calculated.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 8590                                     02/23/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/25/94
Final Action                                                   10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Sectors Affected:


 Multiple


Analysis:


Regulatory Flexibility Analysis


Procurement:


This is a procurement-related action for which there is no statutory 
requirement. There is a paperwork burden associated with this action.


Agency Contact:
Marjorie Ashby
Management Analyst
Office of Acquisition Policy (VP)
General Services Administration
18th & F Streets NW.
Washington, DC 20405
202 501-3822
RIN: 3090-AF15
_______________________________________________________________________
GSA
170. REMOVAL OF FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULE ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS
Legal Authority:


 40 USC 486(c)


CFR Citation:


 41 CFR 101-26


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Amend the Federal Property Management Regulations to remove Federal 
Supply Schedule ordering instructions. These instructions will be 
restated in the form of nonregulatory guiding principles. Similar 
action is being taken on the Federal Information Resources Management 
Regulation. When combined, these actions will result in a uniform set 
of flexible guiding principles that empower Federal agencies to make 
``best value'' purchasing decisions in a demonopolized environment. 
These actions are consistent with the National Performance Review and 
are part of GSA's larger plans to create a Government that works better 
and costs less.


Statement of Need:


Over time, the Federal Supply Schedule ordering instructions in the 
FPMR have become obsolete. Hence, it is no longer necessary to retain 
them.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal authority for this change is 40 USC 486(c). This proposed 
change is not required by law.


Alternatives:


This proposed change was published in the Federal Register for comment. 
The following alternatives were suggested:


Keep regulations; eliminate redundancy.


Remove regulations, but insert a strong endorsement of the Multiple 
Award Schedule Program.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This proposed change will carry out the principles of the National 
Performance Review by unburdening all Federal agencies from unnecessary 
regulations. A specific dollar savings cannot be calculated.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 8587                                     02/23/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/25/94
Final Action                                                   10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Procurement:


This is a procurement-related action for which there is no statutory 
requirement. There is no paperwork burden associated with this action.


Agency Contact:
Nicholas Economou
Director
FSS Acquisition Management Center (FCO)
General Services Administration
Federal Supply Service
Washington, DC 20406
703 305-6936
RIN: 3090-AF09
_______________________________________________________________________
GSA
171. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT REGULATION 
(FIRMR) TO REMOVE PROVISIONS FOR USING GSA NONMANDATORY SCHEDULE 
CONTRACTS FOR FIP RESOURCES
Legal Authority:


 40 USC 486(c); 40 USC 751(f)


CFR Citation:


 41 CFR 201


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule revises the FIRMR to remove most of the procedures for 
ordering from the multiple award schedules (MAS) Federal information 
processing (FIP) contracts. These procedures will be placed in a FIRMR 
bulletin as nonregulatory guidance. Due to comments received, 
requirements for synopsizing orders and the exception for specific make 
and model justifications will remain in the FIRMR. This rule also 
increases the synopsis threshold from $50,000 to $100,000, which will 
greatly expedite agencies' processing of small-dollar FIP MAS orders.


A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register concerning these 
changes. Nineteen agencies and six outside organizations provided 
comments. Comments on all issues were resolved. The three principal 
comments, which were incorporated into the final rule, were that 
respondents wanted the synopsis threshold left in the FIRMR, wanted the 
procedures for using the FIP MAS contracts to remain in the FIRMR (or 
in a FIRMR bulletin), and wanted the exception for specific make and 
model justifications to remain in the FIRMR.


Statement of Need:


The MAS program has been in existence for a number of years but is 
constantly being revised by GSA to improve performance and better meet 
the needs of the ordering activities. These changes will not impact 
Federal outlays. These changes are important to agencies, since they 
will simplify and expedite the acquisition of low-dollar FIP resources.


Alternatives:


GSA examined FIRMR provisions dealing with schedules requirements to 
determine their necessity. GSA also reviewed FIRMR provisions for FIP 
schedules and the regulatory coverage for Federal supply schedules. A 
FIRMR amendment was developed to make appropriate changes.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed amendment should improve Government efficiency by removing 
unnecessary regulatory requirements and replacing them with guiding 
principles. It was based on adequate information garnered from review 
and analysis of FIRMR provisions and their impact on agency 
requirements for FIP resources available on GSA schedules. The 
amendment will not have any effect on the economy.


Risks:


There are no risks associated with this rule because it does not affect 
public health, safety or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 8588                                     02/23/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/25/94
Final Action                                                   10/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Procurement:


This is a procurement-related action for which there is no statutory 
requirement. There is no paperwork burden associated with this action.


Agency Contact:
Judy Steele
Procurement Analyst
Regulations Analysis Division (KMR)
General Services Administration
Information Resources Management Service
Washington, DC 20405
202 501-3194
RIN: 3090-AF17
_______________________________________________________________________
GSA
172. DEFINITION OF ``EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY''
Legal Authority:


 PL 102-522, sec 108


CFR Citation:


 41 CFR 101-6


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, October 26, 1994.


Abstract:


The Federal Fire Safety Act of 1992, signed into law on October 26, 
1992, requires that ``the Administrator of General Services . . . shall 
promulgate regulations to further define the term 'equivalent level of 
safety'.'' In fulfillment of this requirement, GSA is drafting a 
regulation that will allow flexibility, encourage technological 
innovation, and provide cost savings. It is expected that the 
regulation will only be used in a limited number of cases where total 
building sprinkler protection is not viable.


The Act requires sprinklers or an equivalent level of safety, in 
certain types of Federal employee office buildings, Federal employee 
housing units, and federally assisted housing units. The Act's 
applicability and requirements are very complex and are summarized 
below.


A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on May 24, 1994. 
To be equivalent, the draft rule requires that a fire protection 
engineering analysis indicate a combination of building features 
(possibly including partial sprinkler protection) which will prevent a 
fire and its effects from leaving the room of fire origin.


Statement of Need:


In Federal employee office buildings with more than 25 Federal 
employees that are newly constructed, purchased, renovated, or leased 
(with the Government occupying 35,000 sq. ft. or more and some portion 
on or above the sixth floor):

 Buildings with six or more stories--sprinklers (or an 
            equivalent level of safety) throughout.
 All other buildings--sprinklers (or an equivalent level of 
            safety) for hazardous areas.


 In Federal employee housing:

 New or rebuilt multifamily housing--sprinklers (or an 
            equivalent level of safety) throughout, and hard-wired 
            smoke detectors.
 All other housing--hard-wired smoke detectors on tenant change 
            or at least by October 26, 1995.


In federally assisted housing:

 New multifamily housing, four or more stories--sprinklers and 
            hard-wired smoke detectors.
 New multifamily housing in New York City, four or more 
            stories--sprinklers (or an equivalent level of safety), and 
            hard-wired smoke detectors.
 Rebuilt multifamily property, four or more stories--life 
            safety features for existing apartment buildings outlined 
            in NFPA 101, Life Safety Code.
 All other housing--hard-wired or battery-operated smoke 
            detectors.


In addition, the following definitions apply to the requirements of the 
Act:

 Renovation--the cost of alterations must be more than 50 
            percent of the value of the structure.
 Rebuilt--the cost of alterations must be more than 70 percent 
            of the replacement cost of the structure.
 Automatic sprinkler system--an electrically supervised 
            integrated system of piping to which sprinklers are 
            attached in a systematic pattern, and which, when activated 
            by heat from a fire will protect human lives by discharging 
            water over a fire area.


The definition of an automatic sprinkler system is unique to the Act. 
In addition to describing an automatic sprinkler system, the definition 
sets a performance objective for the system. Automatic sprinkler 
systems installed in compliance with the Act must be designed to 
protect human lives. Sprinkler systems are generally not designed with 
this specific objective in mind.


The requirements of the Act apply to all Federal agencies and all 
federally owned and leased buildings, except those of the Postal 
Service and those under the control of the Resolution Trust 
Corporation.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


In certain buildings, the law requires sprinklers or an equivalent 
level of safety. An equivalent level of safety is defined in the law as 
an alternative approach (which may include partial sprinkler 
protection) determined by a fire protection engineering analysis to 
provide an equivalent level of life safety to that provided by 
sprinklers. GSA, in cooperation with the United States Fire 
Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and 
the Department of Defense, is required to issue regulations, by October 
26, 1994, further defining the term ``equivalent level of safety.''


In developing the regulations, GSA has held meetings with a working 
group composed of representatives from the agencies named in the 
legislation and other affected Federal agencies. The Department of 
Veterans Affairs, the Social Security Administration, the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Coast Guard were invited to 
participate because of the Act's potential impact on their office space 
or housing.


In addition, GSA has sought input from representatives or trade 
associations, State Fire Marshalls, fire chiefs, consulting engineering 
firms, building owners, academia, and research.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule provides for flexibility, innovation, and cost 
savings. However, some fire department representatives, and some 
others, believe equivalency should not be allowed. These groups believe 
sprinklers are the only solution, especially in highrise buildings, 
even though model codes allow equivalencies, technical analyses 
indicate alternatives exist, and practice results in mostly partially 
sprinklered buildings anyway.


Federally assisted housing units in New York City (which do not use 
sprinklers) may not provide the level of safety necessary to keep the 
fire in the room of origin. The equivalency option was specifically 
given to New York City by an amendment to the Act (Gonzalez substitute 
amendment for S. 1769) on November 22, 1993.


Risks:


Use of automatic sprinklers is usually the best approach to securing 
the level of life safety prescribed in the Act. Sprinklers respond 
automatically to fire, limit fire size, and are also able to notify 
occupants.


GSA intends to issue regulations outlining fire protection engineering 
principles which can be used to measure hazard and the amount of 
protection provided by the building. The regulations will specify 
certain performance criteria which the building must satisfy in order 
to be classified as equivalent.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 26768                                    05/24/94
Extend Comment P59 FR 33724                                    06/30/94
Final Action                                                   10/26/94
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Donald G. Bathurst
Chief, Fire Protection Engineering Branch (PMSF)
General Services Administration
18th & Streets NW.
Washington, DC 20405
202 501-1271
RIN: 3090-AE93
_______________________________________________________________________
GSA
173.  DELEGATION OF OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES OF 
FEDERALLY OWNED AND LEASED BUILDINGS
Legal Authority:


 40 USC 486(c), sec 205(c), 63 Stat 390


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In 1990, the Office of Real Property Management and Safety, assumed 
responsibility for delegations of authority involving operation and 
management for federally owned and leased buildings. Delegated agencies 
and regional management officials were concerned because there were not 
complete policies with regard to eligibility for delegations. As a 
result, administrative policies were developed working with delegated 
clients and regional officials which provided a framework for 
determining whether client agencies are eligible for a delegation of 
operation and maintenance authority. This administrative policy has 
been in effect and has not been changed since.


This will provide all agencies who have or are interested in having 
operational delegations the exact criteria which will be considered by 
GSA in evaluating and assessing a client agency request for an 
operational delegation.


Statement of Need:


This proposed rule states the eligibility requirements for the granting 
of a delegation of authority. There is a need to codify the internal 
procedures.


Alternatives:


The alternative is not to codify the procedures and continue informal 
process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule                                             07/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Jeffrey Neely
Chief, Delegations Branch
General Services Administration
18th & F Streets NW.
Washington, DC 20405
202 501-0378
RIN: 3090-AF52
BILLING CODE 6820-34-F