[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 189-194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33417]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 36
[FAC 2005-55; FAR Case 2005-037; Item III; Docket 2006-0020, Sequence
26]
RIN 9000-AK55
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Brand-Name Specifications
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA have adopted as final, with changes, the
interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
implement the Office of Management and Budget memoranda on brand-name
specifications.
DATES: Effective Date: February 2, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Clark, Procurement
Analyst, at (202) 219-1813, for clarification of content. For
information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the
Regulatory Secretariat at (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-55, FAR
Case 2005-037.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD, GSA, and NASA published an interim rule in the Federal
Register at 71 FR 57357 on September 28, 2006, to implement Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) memoranda and policies on the use of brand-
name specifications. Eight respondents submitted 32 comments in
response to the interim rule. The public comments were considered in
development of this final rule.
Prior to the interim rule, on April 11, 2005, OMB issued a
memorandum on the use of brand-name specifications that was designed to
reinforce the need to maintain vendor- and technology-neutral contract
specifications and provide for maximum competition by limiting the use
of brand-name specifications. OMB encouraged agencies to mitigate
brand-name usage and publicize the justification for using brand-names
in solicitations. OMB issued a second memorandum on April 17, 2006,
providing additional implementation guidance for publication of brand-
name justifications.
Subsequent to the interim rule, OMB issued two additional memoranda
addressing the use of brand-name specifications. One, entitled
``Appropriate Use of Brand Name or Equal Purchase Descriptions,'' dated
November 28, 2007, reminded agencies of the need to comply with the
requirements included in the interim rule and establish internal
controls to monitor compliance. The last memorandum, published December
19, 2007, entitled ``Reminder-Ensuring Competition When Acquiring
Information Technology and Using Common Security Configurations,''
summarized the FAR requirements on the use of brand-name purchase
descriptions and again asked agencies to establish internal controls.
All four of the OMB memoranda were considered in developing this final
rule.
However, the need to stabilize the FAR baseline because of changes
to be made by other pending FAR cases has delayed publication of this
final rule. Publication in the Federal Register at 76 FR 14548 on March
16, 2011, of the interim rule for FAR Case 2007-012, Requirements for
Acquisitions Pursuant to Multiple-Award Contracts, enabled the Civilian
Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations
Council (the Councils) to move ahead with this final rule. Some of the
changes made to the interim rule by this final rule are due solely to
the revised baseline.
This final rule amends FAR subparts 6.3, 8.4, 13.1, 13.5, and 16.5
to clarify that when applicable, the documentation or justification and
posting requirements for brand-name items only apply to the portion of
the acquisition that requires the brand-name item. FAR subparts 8.4 and
16.5 are amended to require screening of the brand-name justifications
for contractor proprietary data, and FAR subpart 16.5 is amended to
require contracting officers to post the justification for an order
peculiar to one manufacturer under indefinite-delivery contracts.
II. Discussion and Analysis
The Councils reviewed the comments 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 are provided as follows:
A. What To Post
Comments: The interim rule specifically requested comments on
whether agencies should be required to post brand-name justifications
(a) For orders against indefinite-delivery contracts, including
Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs), (b) for orders against
SmartBUY agreements and other strategic sourcing vehicles, and (c) to
renew software-license agreements that are required to receive software
updates. Several respondents addressed these questions as follows.
Most respondents expressed a strong belief that all Government
procurements should be subject to the same brand-name-or-equal rules,
at the basic-contract level and at the order level. One respondent
stated that a single posting requirement will go a long way toward
leveling the playing field. Other respondents believed that it would be
unfair to allow agencies to avoid the brand-name justification rule by
ordering against indefinite-delivery contracts.
One respondent distinguished between an agency-only indefinite-
delivery contract and GWACs, which can be used by multiple agencies.
The respondent did not think that an agency should be required to post
brand-name justifications for orders under an internal indefinite-
delivery contract, because all requirements should have been met at the
time of posting the initial requirement for the basic indefinite-
delivery contract, even if a competitive solicitation leads to a de
facto brand-name indefinite-delivery contract. Further, this respondent
read the FAR to contain a loophole that allows an ordering agency to
avoid the posting requirements, as well as any
[[Page 190]]
requirement to prepare a justification, when placing orders for brand-
name products against a GWAC. Other respondents suggested that the FAR
should incorporate a requirement for brand-name justification
documentation and posting for GWACs only. Some respondents stated that
orders issued against indefinite-delivery contracts should be included
in the rule to the extent that the original indefinite-delivery action
was not supported by a class justification and approval. The existence
of the product on an indefinite-delivery contract does not, according
to respondents, justify its acquisition if the facts supporting the
product selection were not documented in the original indefinite-
delivery procurement process.
Respondents were not in agreement as to whether orders under
SmartBUY and other strategic-sourcing agreements should be subject to
the posting requirement. One respondent believes that, because these
are vehicles of choice, the determination to procure a brand-name
product is made at the order level and should be supported by a posted
justification for the order. Other respondents disagreed, stating that
the posting requirement should be satisfied prior to the award of the
basic agreement, not for individual orders.
Respondents did not consider that posting should be required for
the renewal of software-licensing agreements because only the original
equipment manufacturer has the software code to support the equipment
and, therefore, there is no ability to compete. Respondents pointed out
that FAR 13.106-1(b)(1) mentions license agreements separately from
brand-name requirements, which respondents considered to strengthen the
argument that software-license renewals should not be subject to the
posting requirement.
Response: The justification for use of a brand-name specification
and posting of the justification should take place when the requirement
for the brand-name item is determined. This will result in different
timing for multiple-award contracts from single-award contracts, e.g.,
requirements contracts. By definition, a requirements contract is with
a single source. Therefore, the requirement for the source's brand-name
item is determined prior to award of the basic contract, and the
justification for purchasing a brand-name item should be completed
prior to award of the requirements contract. On the other hand, a
multiple-award contract offers buyers products from a variety of
sources, some of which may offer particular brand-name products. The
existence of a brand-name item on a multiple-award contract does not
imply that it is the only such item available for purchase. In this
case, the requirement for a single manufacturer's brand-name item is
determined at the time of the order, not at the time that the multiple-
award contract is placed. Therefore, the justification for the brand-
name item would be required when placing the order. For example, if an
agency determined that it needed 50 Dell computers to be compatible
with the agency's existing Dell capabilities, then it might place an
order against a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract for Dell brand-
name computers. The agency placing the order would be responsible for
justifying the brand-name purchase, because it is at the order level
that it is determined that the requirement is for Dell computers,
versus other brand-name computers that are also available on FSS
contracts.
There is a benefit to posting a purchase description for an order
peculiar to one manufacturer because it provides for greater
transparency and accountability regarding the use of brand-name
specifications. Agencies can no longer avoid the posting requirement
for orders simply by placing an order against an indefinite-delivery
contract, unless it is a requirements contract with a single source.
Orders with a purchase description for an order peculiar to one
manufacturer issued against a GWAC or multiple-agency contract now are
also included in the posting requirement. Posting is required if a
justification covering the requirements in the order had not previously
been approved for the original contract in accordance with FAR 6.302-
1(c). The posting requirement for orders under indefinite-delivery
contracts, GWACs, and multiple-agency contracts is reflected in changes
at FAR subpart 16.5.
The exception to the synopsis requirement for orders at FAR
16.505(a)(1) is revised by directing the contracting officer to follow
the requirements of FAR 16.505(a)(4) for a proposed order peculiar to
one manufacturer. FAR 16.505(a)(4) is added to require the contracting
officer to document or prepare a justification when limiting
competition for an item peculiar to one manufacturer, unless the
justification covering the requirements in the order had been
previously approved under the contract or unless the base contract is a
single-award contract awarded under full and open competition. Under
the final rule, agencies must post the solicitation, and any
justification and supporting documentation on the agency Web site used
(if any) to solicit offers if the order is $25,000 or more; or provide
the justification and supporting documentation along with the
solicitation to all awardees under the indefinite-delivery contract.
The agency is required to keep a copy of the brand-name justification
in the official contract file.
With regard to orders placed pursuant to the SmartBUY program, the
Councils concluded that agencies utilizing SmartBUY will be required to
comply with the procedures of the SmartBUY blanket purchase agreements
(BPAs).
If an acquisition specifies a brand-name item, the justification or
documentation shall be posted, as required, with the solicitation or
request for quotation (RFQ) (see FAR 5.102(a)(6), 8.405-6 or 16.505).
As such, if an acquisition for renewal of a software-license agreement
requires a brand-name justification or documentation and a solicitation
or RFQ, then the justification or documentation shall be posted, as
required, with the solicitation or RFQ. Any exception to this
requirement should cite the applicable FAR reference. For example, an
order placed under an FSS contract for a software-license renewal that
cites logical follow-on as the circumstance (see FAR 8.405-
6(a)(1)(i)(C)) for placing the order would not require a brand-name
justification. However, if the order exceeds the simplified acquisition
threshold, the limited-source justification is required to be posted
(see FAR 8.405-6(a)(2)). The parenthetical reference to exclusive
licensing agreements at FAR 13.106-1(b)(1), as cited by the
respondents, does not provide the applicable FAR reference for an
exception to posting the brand-name justification or documentation
required for an acquisition for renewal of software-license agreements.
B. Where To Post Justifications
Comment: One respondent stated that ``agencies shall use GSA e-Buy
to post RFQs, eliminating FedBid, thus assuring adequate notice and
competition.'' Another respondent stated that e-Buy should be used
consistently for FSS purchases because ``(u)se of FedBizOpps invites
additional interest outside of the FSS community and creates confusion
as to whether the acquisition is conducted under FAR parts 8, 13, 15,
etc. procedures.''
Response: Agencies are required to post brand-name justifications
or documentation to (1) the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) system
at http://www.fedbizopps.gov/ with the solicitation or (2) the e-Buy system at
[[Page 191]]
http://www.ebuy.gsa.gov/ with the RFQ when using the GSA's FSS. The
interim rule applied the posting requirement to acquisitions exceeding
$25,000 that use brand-name specifications, including simplified
acquisitions, sole-source procurements, and multiple-award FSS orders.
If an agency uses a third-party system such as FedBid for posting
notices or soliciting offers for orders under the multiple-award FSS,
the official posting location is still e-Buy. If publication of the
justification or documentation with the solicitation is inappropriate
because one of the exceptions in FAR 8.405-6(b)(3)(ii) or
16.505(a)(4)(iii)(C) applies, then agencies should retain a copy of the
justification or documentation in the contract file.
C. Posting Increases Acquisition Lead Time
Comment: One respondent noted that requiring posting of a brand-
name justification, as well as creating an e-Buy solicitation for
orders over $25,000, will add to lead time. The respondent stated that,
in many cases, the posting of requirements could necessitate some type
of legal or other review of the brand-name justification to ensure
against unintentional disclosure of sensitive information. According to
the respondent, ``While classified information clearly falls within an
exception to the posting rule, the primary concern is with the
identification of sensitive information that does not carry a
classification. It should not be the Contracting Officer's
responsibility to determine the appropriateness of this information for
release to the public.'' The respondent recommended that the posting
requirement should only be imposed on orders over the simplified
acquisition threshold, and then only if the requirements and technical
personnel are required to certify that the information regarding the
need for the brand-name is appropriate for public release.
Response: The Councils agree that posting of a brand-name
justification, as well as creating an e-Buy solicitation for orders
over $25,000, may increase the procurement lead time and will have to
be factored during acquisition planning. However, these actions foster
competition, broaden industry participation and increase transparency
of the acquisition process. The Councils note that the $25,000
threshold for posting a brand-name justification was established in the
memoranda issued by OMB. FAR 5.102(a)(6) assigns overall responsibility
to the contracting officer, as a core member of the acquisition team,
for ensuring the brand-name justification, to be included with the
solicitation, is properly screened and redacted, as necessary, prior to
posting. Moreover, the contracting officer, when deemed necessary, may
consult with the appropriate subject matter expert(s) when determining
the appropriateness of information for public release.
D. What posting requirements are applicable to BPAs issued under FSS
contracts and orders placed under the BPAs?
Comment: Some respondents believed the interim rule resulted in
confusion as to the applicability of the requirements to the placement
of orders under BPAs versus the placement of BPAs. Respondents stated
that some contracting officers may apply the posting language to
solicitations for BPAs, while other contracting officers may only apply
the brand-name specification posting requirement to RFQs for orders and
not to BPAs. Respondents believed that the intent should be clear.
Response: In this final rule, the Councils have clarified FAR
subpart 8.4 to require that the documentation or justification for use
of a brand-name specification must be completed and approved at the
time the requirement for a brand-name item is determined. FAR 8.405-6
is revised to make it clear that the justification for a brand-name
item is required at the order level when a justification for the brand
item was not completed for the BPA or does not adequately cover the
requirements in the order.
E. Interim Rule Prohibits Agency Use of Brand-Name Specifications When
Placing Orders
Comment: A respondent stated that the requirement to post a brand-
name justification should be applied only at the order level and never
to the establishment of a BPA under an FSS contract.
Response: The Councils determined that it is appropriate to post
the justification and documentation for brand-names at the time the
requirement is established, i.e., when a single-source contract is
created or when an order is being placed against a multiple-award
contract. Thus, the requirement to post a brand-name justification
would not apply to the creation of a BPA unless it was a single-source
BPA issued against an FSS contract. See also responses to comments in
section II.A. and D.
F. Limiting Consideration to Brand-Names
Comment: A respondent was concerned that the interim rule goes
beyond limiting consideration to brand-names and actually prohibits
agencies from utilizing brand-name specifications when placing orders.
To fix that, the respondent suggested that the FAR must be clearer in
separating the initial-needs description from the actual ordering
process because, without the ability to name products by brands,
contracting officers will be unable to fill specific orders correctly.
Also, respondents claimed that the requirement to post brand-name
justifications for FSS orders in excess of $25,000 reduces the ability
to use streamlined acquisition procedures to place FSS orders.
Response: To implement the OMB memorandum, the interim rule
restricted use of oral orders over $25,000 against FSS when purchase
descriptions contained brand-name specifications. The Councils
recognize that the interim rule required that an RFQ be issued for a
proposed order when the purchase description specifies a brand-name
requirement. That requirement is consistent with the OMB memoranda and
is retained in the final rule to reinforce the need to maintain vendor-
and technology-neutral specifications to provide for maximum
competition. However, additional clarification is needed, and the
Councils have revised FAR 8.405-1(e) to specify that an RFQ is required
when a purchase description specifies a brand-name for a proposed order
issued under a FSS.
The interim rule does not prohibit the use of brand-name
specifications when placing orders. However, the FAR could be clearer,
and the Councils have made changes at FAR subparts 8.4 and 16.5, to
reflect the documentation or justification and posting requirements
that apply to the purchase description for proposed orders when placed
against FSS contracts and indefinite-delivery contracts.
G. When a Brand-Name Product Is Included in the Agency's Enterprise
Architecture, an Additional Justification Should Not Be Required
Comment: One respondent noted that a Government agency is now
required to have an Enterprise Architecture for its information-
technology (IT) systems. Once the Enterprise Architecture has been
approved, the respondent believed that contracting officers should be
able to purchase brand-name IT equipment described and identified
within the
[[Page 192]]
Enterprise Architecture without any justification, bypassing the
posting requirement. The respondent proposed that, as a minimum, there
should be provision for standardized maintenance agreements with a
single company.
Response: If an agency's Enterprise Architecture includes brand-
name IT equipment, this fact will be a critical element in the brand-
name justification. It does not eliminate the requirement for the
justification or posting the justification.
H. Posting an RFQ Is Not Always Required When Using a Brand-Name
Specification for Orders
Comment: The interim rule, according to respondents, confused
limiting consideration to brand-names with selecting a brand-name item.
Respondents stated that the OMB memoranda were reasonably focused on
the use of brand-name specifications at the requirements and
solicitation stages, not at the ordering stage. Respondents believed
that it is illogical to require an agency to post an RFQ or brand-name
specification justification after a source selection, ``including when
the source selection necessarily results in the order of a brand-name
good or service.''
Response: The final rule incorporates appropriate language at FAR
16.505 and 8.405-6 to reflect that the justification and posting
requirements apply at the time the requirement for the brand-name item
is determined. Therefore, posting an RFQ with its associated brand-name
justification will not be required at the order level for certain
contracts or FSS BPAs (see also response to comments in section II.A.).
I. Ties to Synopsis Exceptions for Open-Market Purchases
Comment: Respondents stated that, for open-market purchases, the
requirement to post the brand-name justification is tied to
solicitations synopsized through GPE and, therefore, any solicitation
not synopsized through GPE by virtue of the exceptions to the notice
requirements at 5.202 technically will not need to be published.
Response: The respondents' analysis correctly reflects that, if a
solicitation is not synopsized through the GPE based on one of the
exceptions at FAR 5.202, the associated brand-name justification or
documentation is not required to be published through the GPE.
J. Clarify Thresholds, Cross-References, and Documentation Requirements
Comment: One respondent recommended that FAR 5.102(a)(6) be revised
to clarify whether the posting requirement applies when the acquisition
in total exceeds $25,000 (regardless of the amount attributed to brand-
name specifications) or only when the brand-name component of it
exceeds $25,000.
The respondent also recommended that FAR 5.102(a)(6) should have a
reference to FAR 8.405-6(d) which requires documentation and
justification for restricting competition when ordering under the FSS.
The respondent stated that FAR 5.102(a)(6) requires the contracting
officer to post the documentation required by FAR 13.106-1(b) when an
acquisition contains brand-name specifications. However, there are no
documentation requirements at FAR 13.106-1(b).
Response: No change is required at FAR 5.102(a)(6) to clarify the
thresholds or to reference to FAR 8.405-6(d). The justification and
posting requirements for orders containing brand-name specifications
placed under FSS contracts are adequately covered under FAR 8.405-6(b).
The Councils have revised FAR 6.302-1(c), 13.106-1(b), 8.405-
6(b)(4), and 13.501(a) to address requirements for documentation,
justification, and approval for the portion of the acquisition which is
brand-name.
There are adequate documentation requirements at FAR 13.106-1(b).
For purchases not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, FAR
13.106-1(b) requires that the contracting officer document the
circumstances (e.g., brand-name) when it is determined that only one
source is reasonably available. For sole-source (including brand-name)
acquisitions of commercial items in excess of the simplified
acquisition threshold, FAR 13.106-1(b) provides the cross reference to
FAR 13.501(a) for the documentation.
Comment: One respondent indicated that FAR 8.405-1(c)(2) seems to
contradict the $25,000 posting threshold because the title of FAR
8.405-1(c) is ``Orders exceeding the micro-purchase threshold but not
exceeding the maximum order threshold.'' The respondent believed that
the documentation or justification requirements for FSS orders
containing brand-name specifications apply to any such order greater
than $3,000, when in fact, they apply only to orders exceeding $25,000.
Response: FAR 8.405-1(c) was revised by FAR Case 2007-012. As a
result of the case, FAR 8.405-1(c)(2) is now a separate paragraph at
FAR 8.405-1(e), and the documentation or justification and posting
requirements for FSS orders at the applicable thresholds are located at
FAR 8.405-6(b). The documentation requirement starts at $3,000; the
posting requirement starts at $25,000.
III. 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 a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was 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.
IV. 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 addresses
internal Federal agency procedures. The rule will benefit small
business entities by providing the opportunity for review of brand-name
justification and approval documents for contracts and orders awarded
noncompetitively or with limited competition, thereby increasing the
opportunity for competition for future awards.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final 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 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18, and 36
Government procurement.
Dated: December 21, 2011.
Laura Auletta,
Director, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of
Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
Interim Rule Adopted as Final With Changes
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 5, 6, 8, 11,
13, 16, 18, and 36 which was published in the Federal Register at 71 FR
57357,
[[Page 193]]
September 28, 2006, is adopted as final with the following changes:
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18, and
36 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42
U.S.C. 2473(c).
PART 5--PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS
0
2. Amend section 5.202 by revising paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:
5.202 Exceptions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(6) The proposed contract action is an order placed under subpart
16.5. When the order contains brand-name specifications, see especially
16.505(a)(4);
* * * * *
PART 6--COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS
0
3. Amend section 6.302-1 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
6.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services
will satisfy agency requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Application for brand-name descriptions. (1) An acquisition or
portion of an acquisition that uses a brand-name description or other
purchase description to specify a particular brand-name, product, or
feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer--
(i) Does not provide for full and open competition, regardless of
the number of sources solicited; and
(ii) Shall be justified and approved in accordance with 6.303 and
6.304.
(A) If only a portion of the acquisition is for a brand-name
product or item peculiar to one manufacturer, the justification and
approval is to cover only the portion of the acquisition which is
brand-name or peculiar to one manufacturer. The justification should
state it is covering only the portion of the acquisition which is
brand-name or peculiar to one manufacturer, and the approval level
requirements will then only apply to that portion;
(B) The justification should indicate that the use of such
descriptions in the acquisition or portion of an acquisition is
essential to the Government's requirements, thereby precluding
consideration of a product manufactured by another company; and
(C) The justification shall be posted with the solicitation (see
5.102(a)(6)).
(2) Brand-name or equal descriptions, and other purchase
descriptions that permit prospective contractors to offer products
other than those specifically referenced by brand-name, provide for
full and open competition and do not require justifications and
approvals to support their use.
* * * * *
PART 8--REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES
0
4. Amend section 8.405-1 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
8.405-1 Ordering procedures for supplies, and services not requiring a
statement of work.
* * * * *
(e) When an order contains brand-name specifications, the
contracting officer shall post the RFQ on e-Buy along with the
justification or documentation, as required by 8.405-6. An RFQ is
required when a purchase description specifies a brand-name.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend section 8.405-6 by--
0
a. Removing from paragraph (b)(2)(ii) ``threshold see'' and adding
``threshold, see'' in its place; and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(2)(iii), (b)(3)(i)(C), and (b)(4).
The added and revised text reads as follows:
8.405-6 Limiting sources.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The documentation or justification must be completed and
approved at the time the requirement for a brand-name item is
determined. In addition, the justification for a brand-name item is
required at the order level when a justification for the brand-name
item was not completed for the BPA or does not adequately cover the
requirements in the order.
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) The documentation in paragraph (b)(2)(i) and the justification
in paragraph (c) of this subsection is subject to the screening
requirement in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) When applicable, the documentation and posting requirements in
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this subsection apply only to the portion
of the order or BPA that requires a brand-name item. If the
justification and approval is to cover only the portion of the
acquisition which is brand-name, then it should so state; the approval
level requirements will then only apply to that portion.
* * * * *
PART 11--DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS
0
6. Amend section 11.105 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
11.105 Items peculiar to one manufacturer.
* * * * *
(c) For orders under indefinite-quantity contracts, see
16.505(a)(4).
PART 13--SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
0
7. Amend section 13.106-1 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
13.106-1 Soliciting competition.
* * * * *
(b) Soliciting from a single source. (1) For purchases not
exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. (i) Contracting
officers may solicit from one source if the contracting officer
determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one
source reasonably available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing
agreements, brand-name or industrial mobilization).
(ii) Where a single source is identified to provide a portion of a
purchase because that portion of the purchase specifies a particular
brand-name item, the documentation in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section only applies to the portion of the purchase requiring the
brand-name item. The documentation should state it is covering only the
portion of the acquisition which is brand-name.
(2) For purchases exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold.
The requirements at 13.501(a) apply to sole-source (including brand-
name) acquisitions of commercial items conducted pursuant to subpart
13.5.
(3) See 5.102(a)(6) for the requirement to post the brand-name
justification or documentation.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend section 13.501 by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(a)(2) to read as follows:
13.501 Special documentation requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) Justifications and approvals are required under this subpart
for sole-source (including brand-name) acquisitions or portions of an
acquisition requiring a brand-name. If the justification is to cover
only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name, then it should
so state; the approval level requirements will then only apply to that
portion.
* * * * *
[[Page 194]]
PART 16--TYPES OF CONTRACTS
0
9. Amend section 16.505 by--
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(10) as paragraphs (a)(5)
through (a)(11), respectively; and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (a)(4).
The revised and added text reads as follows:
16.505 Ordering.
(a) * * *
(1) In general, the contracting officer does not synopsize orders
under indefinite-delivery contracts; except see 16.505(a)(4) and (11),
and 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(D).
* * * * *
(4) The following requirements apply when procuring items peculiar
to one manufacturer:
(i) The contracting officer must justify restricting consideration
to an item peculiar to one manufacturer (e.g., a particular brand-name,
product, or a feature of a product that is peculiar to one
manufacturer). A brand-name item, even if available on more than one
contract, is an item peculiar to one manufacturer. Brand-name
specifications shall not be used unless the particular brand-name,
product, or feature is essential to the Government's requirements and
market research indicates other companies' similar products, or
products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be
modified to meet, the agency's needs.
(ii) Requirements for use of items peculiar to one manufacturer
shall be justified and approved using the format(s) and requirements
from paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A), (B), and (C) of this section, modified
to show the brand-name justification. A justification is required
unless a justification covering the requirements in the order was
previously approved for the contract in accordance with 6.302-1(c) or
unless the base contract is a single-award contract awarded under full
and open competition. Justifications for the use of brand-name
specifications must be completed and approved at the time the
requirement for a brand-name is determined.
(iii)(A) For an order in excess of $25,000, the contracting officer
shall--
(1) Post the justification and supporting documentation on the
agency Web site used (if any) to solicit offers for orders under the
contract; or
(2) Provide the justification and supporting documentation along
with the solicitation to all contract awardees.
(B) The justifications for brand-name acquisitions may apply to the
portion of the acquisition requiring the brand-name item. If the
justification is to cover only the portion of the acquisition which is
brand-name, then it should so state; the approval level requirements
will then only apply to that portion.
(C) The requirements in paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(A) of this section do
not apply when disclosure would compromise the national security (e.g.,
would result in disclosure of classified information) or create other
security risks.
(D) The justification is subject to the screening requirement in
paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
PART 18--EMERGENCY ACQUISITIONS
18.105 [Amended]
0
10. Amend section 18.105 by removing ``(see 16.505(a)(7))'' and adding
``(see 16.505(a)(8))'' in its place.
PART 36--CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS
36.600 [Amended]
0
11. Amend section 36.600 by removing ``(see 16.505(a)(8))'' and adding
``(see 16.505(a)(9))'' in its place.
[FR Doc. 2011-33417 Filed 12-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P