Skip to Content

Rule

Federal Acquisition Regulation; Preference for Performance-Based Contracting

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble Start Printed Page 21533

AGENCIES:

Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) have agreed on a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement Section 821 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act. The FAR rule explicitly states that performance-based contracting is the preferred method for acquiring services, enumerates an order of precedence, and further clarifies the documentation required in an acquisition plan when acquiring services.

DATES:

Effective Date: May 15, 2002.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405, (202) 501-4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Ms. Julia Wise, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 208-1168. Please cite FAC 2001-07, FAR case 2000-307.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

DoD, GSA, and NASA published an interim rule in the Federal Register at 66 FR 22082, May 2, 2001. The interim rule explicitly stated that performance-based contracting is the preferred method for acquiring services and enumerated the order of precedence established by Section 821 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-398). The coverage contained in the final rule is the same as that in the interim rule except that the final rule amends paragraph (b)(4) of FAR 7.105 to clarify that contracting officers must provide rationale if a performance-based contract will not be used or if a performance-based contract for services is contemplated on other than a firm-fixed price basis (see 37.102(a) and 16.505(a)(3)).

Two respondents submitted comments on the interim rule. The first comment suggested that the language changes in FAR Parts 2 and 37 in this rule should be incorporated into FAR Part 8. While the Councils do not believe added references in Part 8 are needed as a general matter with respect to this rulemaking, revisions to Subpart 8.4 regarding use of the Federal Supply Schedules for the acquisition of services are under development and references to Part 37 policies on performance-based service contracting will be considered for incorporation as appropriate as part of that regulatory initiative.

The second comment stated that the FAR Part 2 definition for performance-based contracting is internally inconsistent because it calls for requirements to be set forth in clear, specific, and objective terms with measurable outcomes but also dictates the use of “broad and imprecise” statements of work. The Councils disagree. As revised, the definition of performance-based contracting, consistent with section 821(e) of the Defense Authorization Act for FY 01, explains what performance-based contracting should not include (e.g., broad and imprecise work statements, a structure centering on the manner that the work should be performed), and what it should contain (e.g., a work statement that has clear, specific, and objective terms with measurable outcomes).

This commenter further suggested that the regulations do not need to be changed, but acquisition personnel need to be trained in developing performance-based requirements. The regulatory changes in this rule are not meant as a substitute for training that will enhance the knowledge and skills of acquisition personnel in performance-based contracting. Guidance is available at the following websites:

http://www.arnet.gov/​Library/​OFPP/​BestPractices/​,

http://oamweb.osec.doc.gov/​pbsc/​index.html, or

http://www.gsa.gov/​Portal/​content/​pubs content.jsp?contentOID=119969&contentType=1008&PMVP=1.

Finally, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy has advised the FAR Council that it is establishing an inter-agency group to ensure a common understanding among the agencies regarding performance-based contracting requirements.

This is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule does not impose a new policy requirement on small entities. The FAR currently promotes the use of and documentation of performance-based service contracting and the use of firm-fixed-price type of contracts and task orders when it is appropriate to do so. Therefore, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was not performed. The Councils invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The Councils will also consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR subparts in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAC 2001-07, FAR Case 2000-307), in correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 2, 7, and 37

End List of Subjects Start Signature

Dated: April 23, 2002

Al Matera,

Director, Acquisition Policy Division.

End Signature

Interim Rule Adopted as Final with One Change

Start Amendment Part

Accordingly, DoD, GSA, and NASA adopt the interim rule amending

End Amendment Part Start Part

PART 7—ACQUISITION PLANNING

End Part Start Amendment Part

1. The authority citation for

End Amendment Part Start Authority

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

End Authority Start Printed Page 21534 Start Amendment Part

2. Amend section 7.105 by adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:

End Amendment Part
Contents of written acquisition plans.
* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) * * * Provide rationale if a performance-based contract will not be used or if a performance-based contract for services is contemplated on other than a firm-fixed price basis (see 37.102(a) and 16.505(a)(3)).

* * * * *
End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 02-10369 Filed 4-29-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P