80 FR 26424 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Review and Justification of Pass-Through Contracts

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 88 (May 7, 2015)

Page Range		26424-26426
FR Document		2015-11029

DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. This section provides additional requirements relative to the review and justification of pass-through contracts.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 88 (Thursday, May 7, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26424-26426]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11029]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Part 15

[FAC 2005-82; FAR Case 2013-012; Item II; Docket No. 2013-0012; 
Sequence No. 1]
RIN 9000-AM57


Federal Acquisition Regulation; Review and Justification of Pass-
Through Contracts

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 802 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. 
This section provides additional requirements relative to the review 
and justification of pass-through contracts.

DATES: Effective: June 8, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathy J. Hopkins, Procurement 
Analyst, at 202-969-7226 for clarification of content. For information 
pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory 
Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-82, FAR Case 
2013-012.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register at 79 FR 39361 on July 10, 2014 to implement section 802 of 
the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) which provided for additional 
requirements relative to the review and justification of pass-through 
contracts. Specifically, in those instances where an offeror for a 
contract, task order, or delivery order informs the agency pursuant to 
FAR 52.215-22 of its intention to award subcontracts for more than 70 
percent of the total cost of work to be performed under the contract, 
task order, or delivery order, section 802 requires the contracting 
officer to (1) consider the availability of alternative contract 
vehicles and the feasibility of contracting directly with a 
subcontractor or subcontractors that will perform the bulk of the work; 
(2) make a written determination that the contracting approach selected 
is in the best interest of the Government; and (3) document the basis 
for such determination. These statutory requirements are being 
implemented in FAR 15.404-1(h). For consistency, this rule is 
applicable to all of the agencies subject to the FAR, even though 
section 802 only applied to the Department of Defense, the Department 
of State, and the United States Agency for International Development. 
Contract actions under section 46 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
657s) are exempt from the requirements under section 802 of the NDAA 
for FY 2013.
    Two respondents submitted comments on the proposed rule.

II. Discussion and Analysis

    The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition 
Regulations Council (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. Summary of Significant Changes

    This final rule makes two changes from the proposed rule. The first 
change revises FAR 15.404-1(h)(2) to make clear that competition 
requirements still apply if the contracting officer selects alternative 
approaches. The second change revises FAR 15.404-1(h)(3) to clarify 
that the requirements of this rule do not apply to small business set-
aside contracts.

B. Analysis of Public Comments

    The Regulatory Secretariat Division received responses from two 
respondents to the proposed rule which are discussed below:
1. Application of Rule to FAR Part 36
    Comment: One respondent requested that the final rule ensure that 
this new requirement take into consideration the requirements found in 
FAR 36.501, which addresses performance of work by prime construction 
contractors.
    Response: The statute does not exempt the contracting officer from 
making a written determination that the contracting approach selected 
is in the best interest of the Government under FAR part 36 
acquisitions. The contracting officer shall take into consideration 
industry practices in making this determination.
2. Conflict With FAR 52.219-14
    Comment: One respondent stated that FAR clause 52.219-14, 
Limitations on Subcontracting, could also conflict with the new 
requirements of this rule.

[[Page 26425]]

    Response: FAR clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, 
applies only to contracts that have been set aside for small business 
concerns or 8(a) concerns. Section 1615 of the NDAA for FY 2014 (Pub. 
L. 113-66) exempts contract actions subject to Section 46 of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657s). The text at FAR 15.404-1(h)(3) has been 
revised to clarify that contract actions awarded pursuant to FAR 
subparts 19.5, 19.8, 19.13, 19.14, or 19.15 are exempt from the 
requirements of this rule. Therefore, the requirements of this rule do 
not conflict with FAR clause 52.219-14.
3. Potential Increase in Bid Protests
    Comment: One respondent stated that by requiring contracting 
officers to consider direct award to a subcontractor that will perform 
more than 70 percent of the work, those subcontractors could become 
interested parties for bid protest purposes. This could open the door 
to a substantial number of bid protests and significantly impact the 
ability of agencies to make timely awards.
    Response: The statute requires that the contracting officer 
consider the availability of alternative contract vehicles and the 
feasibility of contracting directly with a subcontractor or 
subcontractors that will perform the bulk of the work, make a 
determination that the contracting approach selected is in the best 
interest of the Government, and document the basis for such 
determination. By following these requirements and adhering to the 
established solicitation procedures in the FAR, contracting officers 
will mitigate the risk of protests. This rule does not change existing 
competition requirements, nor does it change the status of 
subcontractors in the bid protest process.
4. Subcontractors Lacking Prime Contractor Experience
    Comment: One respondent stated that direct award to subcontractors 
that do not have sufficient prime experience can severely impact 
procurements and result in a substantial increase in workload for both 
the contractor and the Government (i.e. additional audits and business 
system reviews).
    Response: The statute requires that contracting officers consider 
direct award to subcontractors and the purpose of this rule is to amend 
the FAR to implement that requirement. However, it should be noted that 
both the statute and the rule only require that the contracting officer 
consider direct award. Contracting officers shall continue to ensure 
that purchases shall be made from, and contracts shall be awarded to, 
responsible prospective contractors only, in accordance with FAR 9.103.
5. Subcontractors Contracting Directly With the Government
    Comment: One respondent opined that prime contractors will try to 
avoid the impact of this rule by using contract provisions that 
prohibit subcontractors from entering into a direct contract with the 
agency. So, if this rule is going to work, a clause preventing primes 
from including a restrictive provision in a teaming arrangement and/or 
subcontract needs to be included in the rule.
    Response: FAR clause 52.203-6 ``Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales 
to the Government'' precludes prime contractors from including such 
restrictions in their agreements with actual or prospective 
subcontractors. For acquisitions of commercial items, the prohibition 
applies only to the extent that any agreement restricting sales by 
subcontractors results in the Federal Government being treated 
differently from any other prospective purchaser for the sale of the 
commercial item(s).
6. Subcontractor Pricing and Participation in Negotiations
    Comment: One respondent stated that in many cases, the prime 
contractors do not allow subcontractors to see the final version of the 
prime's proposal sent in response to the Government's RFP or allow 
subcontractors to participate in negotiations. As such, the 
subcontractor pricing that the Government sees in the prime 
contractor's proposal or during negotiations may not be accurate. This 
issue can be resolved by revising the proposed clause in the rule to 
require the prime contractor to obtain the signed approval of the 
subcontractor's portion of the final offer submitted to the Government 
and allowing subcontractors that will perform 70 percent or more work 
to participate in negotiations.
    Response: FAR 15.404-3 already provides requirements for evaluating 
subcontractor pricing and obtaining certified cost or pricing data as 
required. Prime contractors are responsible for managing their 
subcontractors and appropriately evaluating subcontractor cost or 
pricing data in accordance with FAR subpart 15.4.

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

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 augments the 
current responsibilities of contracting officers relative to the review 
and justification of pass-through contracts and does not initiate or 
impose any new administrative or performance requirements on 
contractors. In addition, contract actions awarded pursuant to FAR 
subparts 19.5, 19.8, 19.13, 19.14, or 19.15 are exempt from the 
requirements of this rule.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

List of Subject in 48 CFR Part 15

    Government procurement.

    Dated: April 30, 2015.
William Clark,
Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of 
Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR part 15 as set forth 
below:

PART 15--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 15 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 
U.S.C. 20113.


0
2. Amend section 15.404-1 by adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:


15.404-1  Proposal analysis techniques.

* * * * *

[[Page 26426]]

    (h) Review and justification of pass-through contracts. (1) The 
requirements of this paragraph (h) are applicable to all agencies. The 
requirements apply by law to the Department of Defense, the Department 
of State, and the United States Agency for International Development, 
per section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 
Fiscal Year 2013. The requirements apply as a matter of policy to other 
Federal agencies.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (h)(3) of this section, when an 
offeror for a contract or a task or delivery order informs the 
contracting officer pursuant to 52.215-22 that it intends to award 
subcontracts for more than 70 percent of the total cost of work to be 
performed under the contract, task or delivery order, the contracting 
officer shall--
    (i) Consider the availability of alternative contract vehicles and 
the feasibility of contracting directly with a subcontractor or 
subcontractors that will perform the bulk of the work. If such 
alternative approaches are selected, any resulting solicitations shall 
be issued in accordance with the competition requirements under FAR 
part 6;
    (ii) Make a written determination that the contracting approach 
selected is in the best interest of the Government; and
    (iii) Document the basis for such determination.
    (3) Contract actions awarded pursuant to subparts 19.5, 19.8, 
19.13, 19.14, or 19.15 are exempt from the requirements of this 
paragraph (h) (see section 1615 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Pub. L. 113-66)).

[FR Doc. 2015-11029 Filed 5-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P

26424 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

With regard to equal opportunity for DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE best interest of the Government; and (3)
individuals with disabilities, DOL estimated document the basis for such
that its rule impacts 20,490 Federal GENERAL SERVICES determination. These statutory
contractors with between 50 and 500 ADMINISTRATION requirements are being implemented in
employees (approximately 44% of Federal FAR 15.404–1(h). For consistency, this
contractors may be impacted). NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND rule is applicable to all of the agencies
This FAR rule does not add any new
SPACE ADMINISTRATION subject to the FAR, even though section
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance burdens. The FAR rule makes 802 only applied to the Department of
contracting officers and contractors aware of 48 CFR Part 15 Defense, the Department of State, and
the DOL requirements. [FAC 2005–82; FAR Case 2013–012; Item the United States Agency for
DoD, GSA, and NASA are not aware of any II; Docket No. 2013–0012; Sequence No. 1] International Development. Contract
significant alternatives which would actions under section 46 of the Small
accomplish the stated objectives of RIN 9000–AM57 Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657s) are
implementing the DOL final rules, while exempt from the requirements under
minimizing impact on small entities. DoD, Federal Acquisition Regulation;
section 802 of the NDAA for FY 2013.
GSA, and NASA do not have the flexibility Review and Justification of Pass-
Two respondents submitted
of changing the DOL rules, which have been Through Contracts
comments on the proposed rule.
published for public comment and are in
effect as final rules. There is no significant
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), II. Discussion and Analysis
impact on small entities imposed by the FAR General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space The Civilian Agency Acquisition
rule.
Administration (NASA). Council and the Defense Acquisition
Interested parties may obtain a copy ACTION: Final rule.
Regulations Council (the Councils)
of the FRFA from the Regulatory reviewed the comments in the
Secretariat. The Regulatory Secretariat SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are development of the final rule. A
has submitted a copy of the FRFA to the issuing a final rule amending the discussion of the comments and the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to changes made to the rule as a result of
Business Administration. implement section 802 of the National those comments are provided as
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for follows:
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. This section A. Summary of Significant Changes
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 provides additional requirements
U.S.C. chapter 35) does apply; however, relative to the review and justification of This final rule makes two changes
these changes to the FAR do not impose pass-through contracts. from the proposed rule. The first change
additional information collection DATES: Effective: June 8, 2015. revises FAR 15.404–1(h)(2) to make
requirements to the paperwork burden clear that competition requirements still
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
previously approved for the DOL apply if the contracting officer selects
Kathy J. Hopkins, Procurement Analyst,
regulations under OMB Control alternative approaches. The second
at 202–969–7226 for clarification of
Numbers 1250–0004, OFCCP change revises FAR 15.404–1(h)(3) to
content. For information pertaining to
Recordkeeping and Reporting clarify that the requirements of this rule
status or publication schedules, contact
Requirements—38 U.S.C. 4212, Vietnam do not apply to small business set-aside
the Regulatory Secretariat Division at
Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance contracts.
202–501–4755. Please cite FAC 2005–
Act of 1974, as amended; 1250–0005, 82, FAR Case 2013–012. B. Analysis of Public Comments
OFCCP Recordkeeping and Reporting SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regulatory Secretariat Division
Requirements—Section 503 of the
I. Background received responses from two
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
respondents to the proposed rule which
29 U.S.C. 703; and 1293–0005, Federal DoD, GSA, and NASA published a are discussed below:
Contractor Veterans’ Employment proposed rule in the Federal Register at
Report, VETS–100/VETS–100A. 79 FR 39361 on July 10, 2014 to 1. Application of Rule to FAR Part 36
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1, 22, implement section 802 of the NDAA for Comment: One respondent requested
and 52 FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112–239) which that the final rule ensure that this new
provided for additional requirements requirement take into consideration the
Government procurement. relative to the review and justification of requirements found in FAR 36.501,
Dated: April 30, 2015.
pass-through contracts. Specifically, in which addresses performance of work
those instances where an offeror for a by prime construction contractors.
William Clark,
contract, task order, or delivery order Response: The statute does not
Director, Office of Government-wide informs the agency pursuant to FAR
Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition
exempt the contracting officer from
Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
52.215–22 of its intention to award making a written determination that the
subcontracts for more than 70 percent of contracting approach selected is in the
Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without the total cost of work to be performed best interest of the Government under
Change under the contract, task order, or FAR part 36 acquisitions. The
delivery order, section 802 requires the contracting officer shall take into
Accordingly, the interim rule contracting officer to (1) consider the consideration industry practices in
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

amending 48 CFR parts 1, 22, and 52, availability of alternative contract making this determination.
which was published in the Federal vehicles and the feasibility of
Register at 79 FR 43575 on July 25, contracting directly with a 2. Conflict With FAR 52.219–14
2014, is adopted as a final rule without subcontractor or subcontractors that will Comment: One respondent stated that
change. perform the bulk of the work; (2) make FAR clause 52.219–14, Limitations on
[FR Doc. 2015–11028 Filed 5–6–15; 8:45 am] a written determination that the Subcontracting, could also conflict with
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P contracting approach selected is in the the new requirements of this rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:21 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07MYR2.SGM 07MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 88 / Thursday, May 7, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 26425

Response: FAR clause 52.219–14, awarded to, responsible prospective (including potential economic,
Limitations on Subcontracting, applies contractors only, in accordance with environmental, public health and safety
only to contracts that have been set FAR 9.103. effects, distributive impacts, and
aside for small business concerns or 8(a) equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
5. Subcontractors Contracting Directly
concerns. Section 1615 of the NDAA for importance of quantifying both costs
With the Government
FY 2014 (Pub. L. 113–66) exempts and benefits, of reducing costs, of
contract actions subject to Section 46 of Comment: One respondent opined harmonizing rules, and of promoting
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657s). that prime contractors will try to avoid flexibility. This is not a significant
The text at FAR 15.404–1(h)(3) has been the impact of this rule by using contract regulatory action and, therefore, was not
revised to clarify that contract actions provisions that prohibit subcontractors subject to review under Section 6(b) of
awarded pursuant to FAR subparts 19.5, from entering into a direct contract with E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and
19.8, 19.13, 19.14, or 19.15 are exempt the agency. So, if this rule is going to Review, dated September 30, 1993. This
from the requirements of this rule. work, a clause preventing primes from rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C.
Therefore, the requirements of this rule including a restrictive provision in a 804.
do not conflict with FAR clause 52.219– teaming arrangement and/or subcontract
14. needs to be included in the rule. IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Response: FAR clause 52.203–6 The Department of Defense, the
3. Potential Increase in Bid Protests ‘‘Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales to General Services Administration, and
Comment: One respondent stated that the Government’’ precludes prime the National Aeronautics and Space
by requiring contracting officers to contractors from including such Administration certify that this final
consider direct award to a subcontractor restrictions in their agreements with rule will not have a significant
that will perform more than 70 percent actual or prospective subcontractors. economic impact on a substantial
of the work, those subcontractors could For acquisitions of commercial items, number of small entities within the
become interested parties for bid protest the prohibition applies only to the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility
purposes. This could open the door to extent that any agreement restricting Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the
a substantial number of bid protests and sales by subcontractors results in the rule augments the current
significantly impact the ability of Federal Government being treated responsibilities of contracting officers
agencies to make timely awards. differently from any other prospective relative to the review and justification of
Response: The statute requires that purchaser for the sale of the commercial pass-through contracts and does not
the contracting officer consider the item(s). initiate or impose any new
availability of alternative contract administrative or performance
vehicles and the feasibility of 6. Subcontractor Pricing and
Participation in Negotiations requirements on contractors. In
contracting directly with a addition, contract actions awarded
subcontractor or subcontractors that will Comment: One respondent stated that pursuant to FAR subparts 19.5, 19.8,
perform the bulk of the work, make a in many cases, the prime contractors do 19.13, 19.14, or 19.15 are exempt from
determination that the contracting not allow subcontractors to see the final the requirements of this rule.
approach selected is in the best interest version of the prime’s proposal sent in
of the Government, and document the response to the Government’s RFP or V. Paperwork Reduction Act
basis for such determination. By allow subcontractors to participate in The rule does not contain any
following these requirements and negotiations. As such, the subcontractor information collection requirements that
adhering to the established solicitation pricing that the Government sees in the require the approval of the Office of
procedures in the FAR, contracting prime contractor’s proposal or during Management and Budget under the
officers will mitigate the risk of protests. negotiations may not be accurate. This Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
This rule does not change existing issue can be resolved by revising the chapter 35).
competition requirements, nor does it proposed clause in the rule to require
change the status of subcontractors in the prime contractor to obtain the List of Subject in 48 CFR Part 15
the bid protest process. signed approval of the subcontractor’s Government procurement.
portion of the final offer submitted to
4. Subcontractors Lacking Prime Dated: April 30, 2015.
the Government and allowing
Contractor Experience William Clark,
subcontractors that will perform 70
Comment: One respondent stated that percent or more work to participate in Director, Office of Government-wide
direct award to subcontractors that do Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition
negotiations.
not have sufficient prime experience Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
Response: FAR 15.404–3 already
can severely impact procurements and provides requirements for evaluating Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA
result in a substantial increase in subcontractor pricing and obtaining amend 48 CFR part 15 as set forth
workload for both the contractor and the certified cost or pricing data as required. below:
Government (i.e. additional audits and Prime contractors are responsible for PART 15—CONTRACTING BY
business system reviews). managing their subcontractors and
Response: The statute requires that NEGOTIATION
appropriately evaluating subcontractor
contracting officers consider direct cost or pricing data in accordance with ■ 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
award to subcontractors and the FAR subpart 15.4. part 15 continues to read as follows:
purpose of this rule is to amend the FAR
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

to implement that requirement. III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C.
However, it should be noted that both Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.
the statute and the rule only require that 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs ■ 2. Amend section 15.404–1 by adding
the contracting officer consider direct and benefits of available regulatory paragraph (h) to read as follows:
award. Contracting officers shall alternatives and, if regulation is
continue to ensure that purchases shall necessary, to select regulatory 15.404–1 Proposal analysis techniques.
be made from, and contracts shall be approaches that maximize net benefits * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:21 May 06, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\07MYR2.SGM 07MYR2

Document Created: 2015-12-16 07:50:17
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 07:50:17

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule.
Dates		Effective: June 8, 2015.
Contact		Ms. Kathy J. Hopkins, Procurement Analyst, at 202-969-7226 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-82, FAR Case 2013-012.
FR Citation		80 FR 26424
RIN Number		9000-AM57

80 FR 26424 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Review and Justification of Pass-Through Contracts

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEGENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIONNATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 88 (May 7, 2015)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION