Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. and 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.
Source: 49 FR 11972, Mar. 28, 1984, unless otherwise noted.
(d)(2) The Head of the Contracting Activity, or designee, for contracts estimated to be within the limits of their delegated authority, may approve the use of an economic price adjustment clause when appropriate in accordance with 48 CFR 16.203-4.
[49 FR 11955, Mar. 28, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 9105, Feb. 25, 1994; 76 FR 7693, Feb. 11, 2011]
(c)(2) The Head of the Contracting Activity, or designee, for contracts estimated to be within their delegated authority, may approve (sign) the determination and findings establishing the basis for application of the statutory price or fee limitations.
[49 FR 11955, Mar. 28, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 9105, Feb. 25, 1994]
(a) When contracting with a commercial organization, modify paragraph (a) of the clause at 48 CFR 52.216-7 by adding the phrase “as supplemented by subpart 931.2 of the DEAR” after “FAR subpart 31.2.”
(g) Insert the clause at 48 CFR 52.216-15, Predetermined Indirect Cost Rates, modified as specified in 952.216-15 in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement research and development contract with a State or local government is contemplated and predetermined indirect cost rates are to be used.
[49 FR 11972, Mar. 28, 1984, as amended at 74 FR 36364, July 22, 2009; 76 FR 7693, Feb. 11, 2011]
(d) Fee determination plans. Award fee arrangements limited to technical performance considerations are prohibited because they may increase cost disproportionately to any benefits gained. Instead, the award fee arrangement shall include both technical performance (including scheduling as appropriate) and business management considerations tailored to the needs of the particular situation. In addition, in a situation where cost estimating reliability and other factors are such that the negotiation of a separate predetermined incentive sharing arrangement applicable to cost performance is determined both feasible and advantageous, cost incentives may be added. The resulting contract would then be identified as a cost-plus-incentive-fee/award-fee combination type. The goals and evaluation criteria should be results-oriented. The award fee should be concentrated on the end product of the contract, that is, output, be it hardware, research and development, demonstration or services, together with business management considerations. However, input criteria such as equal employment opportunity, small business programs, functional management areas, such as safety, security, etc., should not be disregarded and may be appropriate criteria upon which to base some part of the award fee. Specific goals or objectives shall be established in relation to each performance evaluation criterion against which contractor performance is measured.
[49 FR 11955, Mar. 28, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 9105, Feb. 25, 1994. Redesignated at 74 FR 36364, July 22, 2009]
(c) The contracting officer shall establish minimum ordering guarantees with each awardee for all indefinite-quantity, multiple award contracts to ensure that adequate consideration exists to contractually bind each awardee to participate in the ordering process throughout the term of the multiple award contract. Minimum ordering guarantees should be equal among all awardees, and shall be determined on a case-by-case basis for each acquisition commensurate with the size, scope and complexity of the contract requirements.
[62 FR 53757, Oct. 16, 1997]
(b)(6)(i) The Director, Office of Contract Management, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, is designated as the DOE Ombudsman for task and delivery order contracts in accordance with 48 CFR 16.505(b)(6).
(ii) The Heads of Contracting Activities shall designate a senior manager to serve as the Contracting Activity Ombudsman for task and delivery order contracts. If, for any reason, the Contracting Activity Ombudsman is unable to execute the duties of the position, the Head of the Contracting Activity shall designate an Acting Contracting Activity Ombudsman.
(iii) The Contracting Activity Ombudsman shall—
(A) Be independent of the contracting officer who awarded and/or is administering the contract under which a complaint is submitted;
(B) Not assume any duties and responsibilities pertaining to the evaluation or selection of an awardee for the issuance of an order under a multiple award, task or delivery order contract;
(C) Review complaints from contractors awarded a task or delivery order contract;
(D) Collect all facts from the cognizant organizations or individuals that are relevant to a complaint submitted to ensure that the complainant and all contractors were afforded a fair opportunity to be considered for the order issued in accordance with the procedures set forth in each awardees' contract;
(E) Maintain a written log to track each complaint submitted from receipt through disposition;
(F) Ensure that no information is released which is determined to be proprietary or is designated as source selection information; and
(G) Resolve complaints at the contracting activity for which they have cognizance.
(iv) If, upon review of all relevant information, the Contracting Activity Ombudsman determines that corrective action should be taken, the Contracting Activity Ombudsman shall report the determination to the cognizant contracting officer. Issues which cannot be so resolved should be forwarded to the DOE Ombudsman.
[74 FR 36364, July 22, 2009, as amended at 81 FR 45977, July 15, 2016]