An official website of the United States Government
afac2017-1003
AFAC
Air Force Acquisition Circular (AFAC) 2017-1003
3 October 2017
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:
SAF/AQCP
1060 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1060
(571) 256-2387
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
AFAC CHANGES
NOTE: “****” below indicates that text is omitted.
5301.403c SAF/AQC is the approval authority for individual deviations from FAR 15.3, AFFARS 5315.3, and MP5315.3. Deviation requests must be submitted through the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCO) to SAF/AQC for approval. This approval authority must not be further delegated. Should a proposed deviation as described herein also require a waiver from DFARS 215.3, DoD Source Selection Procedures, the waiver process in AFFARS MP 5315.3, para 1.2.4., must also be followed.
****
5301.601-91 Air Force Contracting Self-Inspection Program
MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCOs (or for SMC, the SCCO) must forward a consolidated trend analysis report for the most recent and previous fiscal years to SAF/AQCP by 31 January of each year. See MP5301.601-91 for requirements of the Air Force Contracting Self-Inspection Program. See the tailorable Consolidated Trend Analysis Report template.
****
5301.602-2(c)(i)(A) Contracting officers must obtain legal advice during all phases of acquisitions. See the tailorable Legal Review (hyperlink) template. In particular, contracting officers must obtain legal advice, coordination, and review from the supporting legal office for the following situations, regardless of dollar amount:
The HCA designees delegated contracting authority in accordance with MP5301.601(a)(i), Item 3, must select and appoint contracting officers and terminate their appointments in accordance with this section and MP5301.603.
****
SUBPART 5301.7 – DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS
****
5301.9000(a)(7) Orders issued against indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts to include GSA schedules (see (b)(2)).
****
5301.9001(b) The clearance approval authority must ensure that the clearance process meets the objectives in paragraph (a) above. The clearance approval authority must use a multi-functional independent review team (MIRT) as an integral component of the clearance process for competitive acquisitions meeting the requirements of this Subpart when contract values are $100M or more, unless use of a MIRT is waived. See MP5301.9001(b).
****
(f) Contract actions meeting the contract value thresholds set below must not be awarded without obtaining the required business and contract clearance approval(s). Contract value is determined by the definition in FAR 1.108(c). Clearance approval authority may not be delegated (except as stated in (1)(i)). However, unit specific assignments pursuant to subparagraph (3) are authorized.
(1) Clearance Approval by the DAS(C)/ADAS(C):
(i) The DAS(C) or ADAS(C) are the business clearance approval authorities for all noncompetitive contract actions $500M or more and competitive contract actions valued at $1B or more; and any other contract action identified as special interest by the DAS(C) or ADAS(C) regardless of dollar amount. The DAS(C) or ADAS(C) may delegate business clearance authority on a case-by-case basis. The procedures in MP5301.9001(f) must be followed for business clearance at the DAS(C) or ADAS(C). SCOs/SCCOs retain contract clearance approval authority.
5304 |
5304.101: Incorporates Policy Memo 16-C-03. |
5304.101 Contracting Officer’s Signature
Contracting Officers are required to sign all contract actions (either via wet signature or digital signature produced with a DoD Public Key Infrastructure certificate using a Common Access Card), ensure contractor signatures are obtained, and maintain signed contractual documents within the official contract file.
5306 |
5306.302-4(c): Added the words “once completed” for clarity. |
5306.302-4 International Agreement
(c) Limitations. The document referred to in DFARS 206.302-4(c) must be titled, “International Agreement Competitive Restrictions (IACR).” The authority to prepare an IACR is delegated from the HCA to the contracting officer (see MP5301.601(a)(i)). The contracting officer must include the IACR and a copy of the associated Letter of Offer and Acceptance, once completed, in the contract file.
The DAS(C) or ADAS(C) is the authority to make the consolidation determination for actions $2 million or greater and shall be submitted through the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCOs (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCOs). The DAS(C) has delegated the authority to make the consolidation determination for actions less than $2 million to the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCOs (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCOs). This authority may not be redelegated to other than an SCCO. The determination must include the acquisition strategy information required in FAR 7.107-2. The determination may be included in an AS/LCMP/Commodity Sourcing Strategy/AP when coordination of the consolidation determination approving official is accomplished as part of the AS/LCMP/Commodity Sourcing Strategy/AP approval process. When preparing these documents clearly identify the consolidation determination. Coordination on such documents by the DAS(C) or ADAS(C) is approval of the required documentation. For all other consolidation determinations requiring DAS(C) or ADAS(C) approval, prepare a separate Determinations and Findings document.
5307.170-3 Policy and Procedures
See 5307.107-2 above.
5313.106-1(b) Soliciting From a Single Source
(1) For acquisitions that exceed the micro-purchase threshold, but do not exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, the tailorable Single Source Justification template may be used.
****
5313.501 Special Documentation Requirements
(a)(1)(ii) Contracting officers must cite the applicable statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition as established in 10 U.S.C. 2302b.
5315 |
5315.209(S-90): Revised paragraph to provide an example of language that may be included in Section L Instructions to Offers, when applicable. |
5315.209 Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses
(S-90) The contracting officer may include language in Section L (or equivalent in a solicitation for the acquisition of a commercial item) substantially the same as the following when a DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification is a requirement at time of award: “The offeror must possess, or acquire prior to award of a contract, a facility clearance equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) attached to the solicitation”.
5316 |
5316.103(d): Added hyperlink and reference to new determination and findings template.
|
5316.103 Negotiating Contract Type
(d) See the tailorable Determination and Findings template.
****
5316.504(c)(1)(ii)(D) Limitation on single award contracts
(1)(i) The contracting officer must submit the D&F through the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCO) simultaneously to SAF/AQ and SAF/AQC for processing to the SPE for approval. Reference 5301.707(a). When a J&A is required, the J&A package must be submitted with the D&F. D&Fs using the exception that only one source is qualified and capable of performing the work at a reasonable price to the Government should cite and attach the J&A as part of the staffing package.
5317.172 Multiyear Contracts for Supplies
(f)(2) The contracting officer must provide the determination described in DFARS 217.172(e)(2) through the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCO) to SAF/AQC for approval (see MP5301.601(a)(i)).
(e) The Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP)/Acquisition Plan (AP) approval authority has the authority to approve contract periods in excess of five years, unless otherwise restricted by statute. If a LCMP/AP is not required, the contracting officer has the authority to approve contract periods in excess of five years, unless otherwise restricted by statute.
****
(e)(iii) Requests for approval must be submitted through the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCO) to SAF/AQC at least 30 days prior to issuing an order.
See the tailorable Determination and Findings template.
See the tailorable Determination and Findings template.
5319 |
5319.201: Revised to allow organizations to change review thresholds pertaining to DD2579s and to update numbering. |
c)(10)(A) SB specialists/PCRs must be included early in the acquisition planning process. SB specialists review all acquisitions IAW DFARS 219.201(c)(10)(A) (excluding awards under the Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Programs). The MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (or for SMC, the SCCO) and the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO/SMC Director of Small Business may jointly agree, in writing, to lower the threshold to $10,000 (regardless of proposed set-aside strategy) for the purpose of achieving small business goals.
(B) Document review on the DD Form 2579, Small Business Coordination Record
(d) Refer to AFI 64-201, Small Business Programs, for Air Force Small Business Program requirements.
5332 |
5332.604(b): Added hyperlink to processing information and renumbered to align with higher level regulations and deleted outdated information. |
(b) Payment information for the demand for payment letter can be found at: https://www.dfas.mil/contractorsvendors/governmentremittance/returnfund…
5333 |
5333.290(b): Revised for clarity. |
5333.290(b) Prior to making a final decision on a claim or termination for default (including a termination for cause under FAR Part 12), the contracting officer must refer the proposed final decision to the cognizant legal office for legal advice, ADR suitability, and appropriate dispute resolution strategies. The contracting officer, with the assistance of the cognizant legal office, must seek review by AFLOA/JAQ of all proposed final decisions. At the same time, the contracting officer must provide SAF/GCR with any proposed final decision on a claim involving PEO programs and any proposed final decision on a claim greater than $500,000. The contracting officer or the referring person must promptly notify SAF/GCR and their MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCO) with all known information relating to any recommended termination for default.
5336 |
5336.209: Added approval requirements. |
5336.209 Construction Contracts with Architect-Engineer Firms
Submit requests through the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCO) to SAF/AQC for approval.
5337 |
5337.104(b): Added hyperlink and reference to new determination and findings template. |
5352.204-9000 Notification of Government Security Activity and Visitor Group Security Agreements
****
NOTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT SECURITY ACTIVITY AND VISITOR GROUP SECURITY AGREEMENTS (October 2017)
****
(a) At least thirty days prior to beginning operations, notify the Information Protection Office shown in the distribution block of the DD Form 254 as to:
(1) The name, address, and telephone number of this contract company’s representative and designated alternate in the U.S. or overseas area, as appropriate;
(2) The contract number and military contracting command;
(3) The highest classification category of defense information to which contractor employees will have access;
(4) The Air Force installations in the U.S. (in overseas areas, identify only the APO number(s)) where the contract work will be performed;
(5) The date contractor operations will begin on base in the U.S. or in the overseas area;
(6) The estimated completion date of operations on base in the U.S. or in the overseas area; and,
(7) Any changes to information previously provided under this clause.
This requirement is in addition to visit request procedures contained in DoDM 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual.
(b) Prior to beginning operations involving classified information on an installation identified on the DD Form 254, the contractor shall enter into a Visitor Group Security Agreement (or understanding) with the installation commander to ensure that the contractor’s security procedures are properly integrated with those of the installation. As a minimum, the agreement shall identify the security actions that will be performed:
(1) By the installation for the contractor, such as providing storage and classified reproduction facilities, guard services, security forms, security inspections, classified mail services, security badges, visitor control, and investigating security incidents; and
****
MP5301.601(a)(i) |
Items 42, 50, and 51: References updated to correspond with higher level numbering. |
MP5301.602-2(d) |
1.4.2.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.8.1, 1.7, 2.6, 3.6, and 3.7: Editorial changes for clarity. |
1.4.2.2 When an individual is designated as a COR for more than one contract (or multiple CORs are assigned on multiple task or delivery orders under a contract), a designation must be provided for each contract (or task or delivery order). A single letter of designation may be done at the overall contract level, if the same individual will serve as the COR for all orders issued against that contract.
****
****
1.4.8.1 The designation to the COR must be signed by the contracting officer, COR management, and the COR. The COR and COR supervisor should retain copies of the executed designation. The designation must be retained in the contracting officer’s contract file and the COR’s copy maintained in the online COR contract file. Notification of COR designation should be provided to the QAPC and contractor.
****
1.7 The CO must provide an annual assessment, as a minimum, on the COR’s performance to the COR supervisor. The assessment may be performed concurrently with the administrative review of the COR online file detailed in 1.4.5.
****
2.6 Perform only those duties/responsibilities delegated by the CO in the COR Designation.
****
3.6 If a Chief-Contracting Officer’s Representative (C-COR) is appointed for a service contract pursuant to AFI 63-138, Acquisition of Services, Chapter 2, the C-COR must maintain the sole online COR file in the CORT Tool for the contract. When a CO appoints a C-COR and CORs on the same contract, the relationship shall be annotated on the COR Designation.
3.7 Reference DFARS 201.602-2 and DFARS PGI 201.602-2 for COR responsibilities. Additional COR supervision responsibilities are addressed in DoDI 5000.72, DoD Standard for Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Certification, 26 Mar 15.
MP5301.603 |
3.3: Added statement to clarify that issuance of contingency contracting officer warrants do not require the COT test. |
3.3. Air Force Contracting Officer Test. Upon being nominated, candidates for warrants above the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT) must successfully complete the four-hour time-limited, open book (see paragraph 3.3.5 below) COT to assess contracting knowledge and research ability. Assistance to a candidate taking the COT by another individual or group is not permitted except that which is required to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee as documented on the Contracting Officer Appointment/Warrant Eligibility Transfer/Termination Request template. Completion of the COT is not required for Contingency Contracting Officer (CCO) warrants issued pursuant to 5301.603-2-90(e).
MP5301.9001(b) |
Incorporates Policy Memo 17-C-01 in its entirety. |
See attachment.
MP5301.9001(f) |
2.c: Modified to permit circumstances in which Business Clearance occurs after Peer Review. |
2.c. The Business Clearance Session to brief the DAS(C)/ADAS(C) may occur either before or after the commencement of the OSD Phase 1 Peer Review. The decision to hold Peer Reviews prior to Business Clearance approval must be coordinated with SAF/AQC. Should Business Clearance be held prior to Peer Review, Business Clearance must be conditional upon successful completion of the Peer Review as required by MP5301.170(a), paragraph 2.
MP5315.3 |
1.2.1, 1.2.4: Incorporates Policy Memo 17-C-02.
|
1.2.1 Acquisitions exempted in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 1.2.1, need not comply with this MP.
1.2.1.1 Acquisitions with an estimated dollar value no greater than $50M may use price as the only evaluated factor and therefore be exempt from the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016 and from this MP if all of the following conditions are met:
1) The requirement is non-complex and well-defined, such that consideration of non-cost/price evaluation factors (e.g., technical, past performance, etc.) would not provide any meaningful differentiation amongst proposals and would add no value to the selection of a successful offeror;
2) Past performance record and history will be assessed as one of the multiple standards required for a successful offeror to be determined responsible as described in FAR 9.104;
3) Use of price as the only evaluation factor is the most advantageous approach to the government; and
4) The acquisition strategy approving official has determined that use of price as the only evaluated factor is the most appropriate source selection methodology for the requirement and the justification for this determination is included in the approved acquisition strategy/plan.
1.2.1.2 Waivers for acquisitions with an estimated dollar value greater than $50M to use price as the only evaluated factor must be forwarded through the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (for AFLCMC or SMC, the SCCO) to SAF/AQC for DAS(C) consideration and approval on a case-by-case basis.
1.2.4 The DoD Source Selection Procedures require waivers to the provisions of the procedures. Waivers for solicitations valued at $1 billion or more may only be approved by the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, and must be forwarded through the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCO) to SAF/AQC for review and processing. Waivers for solicitations valued at $10 million up to $1 billion must be approved by the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting) (DAS(C)). Waivers for solicitations valued above the simplified acquisition threshold up to $10 million must be approved by the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCO).
1.2.4.1 The MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCO) must provide a copy of all waivers they approve to SAF/AQCP.
1.2.4.2. Waiver procedures apply only to the DoD Source Selection Procedures and this MP. The requirements of FAR 15.3, as supplemented, cannot be waived as these requirements are subject to the FAR deviation process. Deviation approval levels are set forth in AFFARS 5301.403(c) and 5301.404(b).
****
2.3.6. Requirements that fall within the areas of traditional offeror responsibility factors may trigger the Small Business Administration Certificate of Competency (CoC) process if such requirements are evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, as a rating of unacceptable for an otherwise apparently successful business offeror equates to a non-responsibility determination. For example, issues related to facility clearance/security requirements or evaluation of professional employee compensation as an element of responsibility are areas that may trigger the CoC process for small business offerors. In order to avoid this situation, such factors may be evaluated on a subjective (color/adjectival rating) basis. PCOs should consult with legal counsel regarding the use and treatment of such evaluation factors/subfactors.
****
3.1 Evaluation Activities.
3.1.1.5 When FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (February 1993), is included in the RFP, the Government shall evaluate whether all offerors considered for award understand the contract requirements and have proposed a compensation plan appropriate for those requirements. This evaluation may be accomplished through a technical subfactor to evaluate offerors’ proposed management approach and or/staffing plan, or including the evaluation under the cost/price factor or as a “Volume I” proposal submission and element of proposal compliance and offeror responsibility.
3.1.1.5.1 When including the professional employee compensation evaluation as a “Volume I” proposal submission and element of proposal compliance and offeror responsibility in a source selection with small business offerors, a finding of non-responsibility due to an inadequate professional employee compensation plan for an otherwise successful small business offeror requires the PCO to engage the Small Business Administration Certificate of Competency (CoC) process.
****
6.5 Source Selection Training Material.
The Source Selection Training Modules, Trainer’s Lesson Plans, and Resource/Reference Material are accessible by designated trainers and training managers on the Source Selection Train the Trainers website. Additional training materials for teams are available in the AFFARS Library, Part 5315.
MP5315.606-90 |
(a): Editorial changes for clarity. |
(a) Unsolicited proposals (UP) are defined at FAR 2.101 and described in FAR 15.603(c), MAJCOMs/DRUs/AFRCO/SMC and subordinate contracting units are considered to be the cognizant point of contact for evaluation and disposition of a UP which is received at their respective base/activity. Organizations that are part of the Headquarters Air Force (HAF) that receive a submission that is considered a UP must forward it to SAF/AQC for assignment to the proper Air Force MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO/SMC contracting unit cognizant point of contact.
ATTACHMENT
MP5301.9001(b) -
Clearance: Multi-Functional Independent Review Teams
[ Revised October 3, 2017 ]
1. Objective. Multi-functional Independent Review Teams (MIRT) conduct independent reviews to ensure the quality and effectiveness of the competitive contracting process, and facilitate cross-sharing of best practices and lessons learned. The MIRT operates in an advisory manner in their assessment of the acquisition approach employed, and the consistency and sufficiency of the source selection team products.
2. Policy.
2.1. The Clearance Approval Authority (CAA) must use MIRTs as an integral component of the clearance process, as specified in AFFARS 5301.9001(a), for all competitive acquisitions meeting the requirements of 5301.90 when contract values are $100M or more, unless waived. At the discretion of the CAA, in coordination with the Source Selection Authority (SSA), MIRTs may be used for competitive acquisitions below $100M. The CAA should tailor the MIRT procedures consistent with the risks associated with the requirement and the complexity of the source selection process utilized. The CAA may use existing Independent Review Teams, peer reviews, Acquisition Center of Excellence (ACE) established review teams, or other established processes to satisfy the MIRT requirement.
2.2. The CAA, after consultation with the SSA, may waive the use of a MIRT for individual acquisitions based on acquisition complexity, source selection team level of experience, and other oversight mechanisms. A discussion regarding the use, tailoring or waiver of MIRTs should take place during the Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP), if convened.
2.3. The CAA must engage with the SSA upon establishment of the MIRT to promote an understanding of the MIRT process and determine the rules of engagement for the MIRT (how many reviews are planned, the expected duration of each review, and what is required to close MIRT comments prior to the CAA granting clearance), as well as the relationship between the clearance process and source selection process events.
3. MIRT Process.
3.1. The CAA must establish an independent and objective process, tailored to the needs of the acquisition, employing cross-functional subject matter experts (SME) with source selection experience and knowledge of current source selection procedures. The CAA should ensure that the established review process encourages frank and open discussion among MIRT members concerning their observations and recommendations.
3.2. The MIRT is formed at the beginning of each competitive acquisition with membership approved by the CAA. When DAS(C) or ADAS(C) is the CAA, AQC will rely on the MAJCOM/DRU/AFRCO SCO (or for AFLCMC and SMC, the SCCO) to appoint the MIRT and interact with the SSA as required. Recommended team members include the Technical/Requirements Activity, Legal, Contracting, Finance/Cost, Small Business, and participants from other specialized areas as needed. A member from the SAF/AQCP Field Support Team may be requested to participate on MIRTs when DAS(C) or ADAS(C) is the CAA. To promote consistency, it is desirable that the same MIRT members participate in each critical decision point review for the duration of the acquisition unless otherwise approved by the CAA. The MIRT members must not be members of the source selection team. The team must be comprised of government personnel to the maximum extent practicable.
4. Critical Decision Points (CDP). CDPs are potential opportunities for MIRT activity at the discretion of the CAA. CDPs 1 and 2 would occur prior to request for Business Clearance, and CDPs 3, 4 and 5 would occur prior to request for Contract Clearance. The CAA, after consultation with the SSA, determines the CDPs, or other focus areas, to be reviewed for each acquisition.
CDP#1: Review draft ASP Brief or review of draft Acquisition Plan (AP). (Includes review of requirements documents, results of market research and risk assessment, and incentive structure, as applicable.)
CDP#2: Review Sections L and M of the Request for Proposal (RFP). (Includes review of Source Selection Plan, requirements documents, and other portions of the solicitation, as necessary, to ensure executable evaluation criteria.)
CDP#3: Review draft Initial Evaluation/Competitive Range Brief or review of draft Award without Discussions Brief. (Review of these draft briefs include review of supporting documentation and evaluation notices or interim ratings, etc.)
CDP#4: Review draft Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Request. (Review of this draft brief includes review of pre-FPR brief including interim ratings after discussions, etc.)
CDP#5: Review draft Source Selection Decision briefing. (Review of this draft brief includes review of the Source Selection Evaluation Board Report, Source Selection Advisory Council Comparative Analysis Report and Award Recommendation, etc.)
5. MIRT Work Product. The MIRT must out-brief the source selection team at the conclusion of each MIRT review conducted, and provide an assessment to the CAA on the state of the acquisition. The MIRT assessment and Contracting Officer disposition of MIRT comments/recommendations shall be included with the applicable Business and Contract Clearance requests. All unresolved MIRT comments must be adjudicated by the CAA. The SSA should be provided a copy of MIRT reports for their information and use as appropriate.
