# DLAD PGI PART 1 – FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

- DLAD PGI PART 1 – FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

- PGI SUBPART 1.1 – PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, ISSUANCE

- PGI 1.170 Peer Reviews.[CH1]

- PGI 1.170-2 DPAP Pre-award Peer Reviews.
- PGI 1.170-4 Administration of DPAP Peer Reviews.
- PGI 1.170-90 Peer Reviews.

- PGI SUBPART 1.3 – AGENCY ACQUISITION REGULATIONS

- PGI 1.301 Policy.

- PGI 1.301-90 Procurement letters (PROCLTRs).

- PGI 1.390 [Removed.]

- PGI SUBPART 1.6 – CONTRACTING AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

- PGI 1.601-90 Critical Acquisition Responsibilities. [F5]
- PGI 1.601-90(b)(8)
- PGI 1.602-2(91)[CH6]
- PGI 1.602-2.91(a)
- PGI 1.602-3 Ratifications of Unauthorized Commitments.

- PGI 1.603 Selection, appointment, and termination of appointment.

- PGI 1.603-93(b)
- PGI 1.690-4 Contract clearance standards. [CH7]
- PGI 1.690-7 Notification, review and approval procedures.
- PGI 1.690-8 Waiver of HQ DLA Review.

DLAD PGI PART 1 – FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

PGI SUBPART 1.1 – PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, ISSUANCE

PGI 1.170 Peer Reviews.[CH1]

(a) Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) Peer Reviews.

(1)(90) General procedures. In developing an acquisition plan, contracting officers shall take into account the requirement for scheduling and conducting a DPAP Peer Review in accordance with this section. The additional time required for each DPAP Peer Review is a minimum of 15 work days for each phase (see PGI 1.170-2(a) and (b), below, for an explanation of review phases). For example, for a competitive procurement allow a minimum of 45 work days to cover the 3 required Peer Review phases. For a non-competitive procurement allow a minimum of 30 work days to cover the two required Peer Review phases. This time is in add1tion to the time required for the I-ARB Review process.

(2) In order to plan for Peer Reviews at the DPAP level, each activity shall provide information regard1ng acquisitions that meet the $1 Billion threshold. Use the following format to provide information to J-73 by the 15th of September, December, March, and June every year in fulfillment of this "rolling forecast" requirement. The report will be updated every quarter – add a new quarter to and delete the oldest quarter from the forecast each period so it always forecasts a year out.

Table 1. PRE-AWARD – COMPETITIVE

Supply Chain/Site Activity & Location | Program/Acquisition Name and Description | Dollar Amount | Supply or Service | Expected Date of solicitation Issuance | Expected Date of Request for Final proposal Revisions | Expected Date of Contract Award

Table 2. PRE-AWARD – NONCOMPETITVE

Supply Chain/Site Activity & Location | Program/Acquisition Name and Description | Dollar Amount | Supply or Service | Expected Date of Negotiations | Expected Date of Contract Award

Table 3. POST-AWARD – ALL SERVICE CONTRACTS

Supply Chain/Site Activity & Location | Program/Acquisition Name and Description | Dollar Amount | Date of Award | Date of Next Option Exercise | Expected Date of Contract Award

PGI 1.170-2 DPAP Pre-award Peer Reviews.

DPAP Peer Reviews are required for ALL acquisitions for supplies and/or services valued at $1 Billion and greater (including options and surge requirements). The threshold is determined by the value of the maximum amount possible to be purchased under the solicitation/program. Individual solicitations that do not meet the $1 Billion threshold but are part of a program that exceeds $1 Billion are required to have a DPAP Peer Review. Solicitations that are greater than $1 Billion that will result in multiple awards less than $1 Billion are subject to the Peer Review. The DPAP Pre-award review is categorized by competitive and non-competitive actions that have different review requirements I as described below:

(a) Competitive: Pre-Award Peer Reviews shall be conducted in three phases for Competitive procurements: 1) prior to issuance of the solicitation; 2) prior to request for final proposal revisions; and 3) prior to contract award. Each phase will require an approved I ARB before the documents are provided to DPAP. Phase 1 approval will be accomplished at milestone A and Phase 3 approval will be accomplished at milestone B. Phase 2 approval requires an additional I-ARB (this is a new requirement).

(b) Noncompetitive: For a non-competitive procurement I there are two phases: 1) prior to negotiation and 2) prior to award. Each phase will require an approved I-ARB before the documents are provided to DPAP. Note that there is no Peer Review requirement at milestone A. Phase 1 approval requires an additional I-ARB (this is a new requirement) and Phase 2 approvals will be accomplished at milestone B.

PGI1.170-3 Post-award DPAP Peer Reviews of service contracts.

DPAP post-award Peer Reviews are required for all contracts for services valued at $1 Billion and greater. The threshold is determined by the value of the maximum estimated amount (including options and surge). Post-award Peer Reviews shall occur prior to every option period exercise. If the base period of performance is greater than one year l the first post-award Peer Review should take place at the mid-point of the base period of performance. If the base period of performance is one year or less, the post-award Peer Review should occur prior to exercise of the first option year. An I-ARB is required prior to the DPAP Peer Review to obtain approval of J-7. Contracting officers should ensure the I-ARB and Peer Review take place at least 3 months prior to the required option exercise date.

PGI 1.170-4 Administration of DPAP Peer Reviews.

(a) The review recommendations of the DPAP Peer Review team are advisory in nature. However, significant findings may result in changes to the acquisition.

(b) The DPAP program manager will organize review teams and facilitate reviews. DPAP Peer Review participants from DLA who will serve on other (non-DLA Peer Reviews) DoD Peer reviews are identified by job title as follows:

Senior Procurement Executive/Component Acquisition Executive

Acquisition Management Directorate

Deputy Director for Business Process Management

Deputy Director for Business Operations

Contracting and Acquisition Management, Executive Directors at DSCC, DSCP, and DSCR.

(c) DPAP Peer Reviews are conducted at the location of the contract action. The CCO is responsible for serving as the focal point for the DPAP Program Manager. Appropriate entrance and exit briefings shall be conducted. The subject matter experts involved in the acquisition shall be available for consultation while the DPAP Peer Review team is performing the review.

(d) A list of the documents that must be made available to the review team and the specific elements the team will examine is contained in DFARS PGI 201.170-4 Administration of Peer Reviews. The documents will be forwarded to DPAP by J-73.

(e) DPAP Peer Review Team report. The DPAP Peer Review team will provide immediate verbal feedback to the contracting officer and the senior procurement official upon completion of a review. The written report will generally be provided within 3 work days after completion of the review to the contracting Officer. A copy of the report must be provided to J-73 as soon as it is received. If there is a discrepancy between the approved DLA direction and the Peer Review recommendations, the HCA shall confer with the Director J-7 to determine appropriate action.

(f) The contracting officer shall document the disposition of all DPAP Peer Review recommendations (i.e., state whether the recommendation will be followed and, if not, why not) by a memorandum for the record in the applicable contract file prior to embarking on the next phase of an acquisition. A copy of the memorandum shall be furnished immediately to J-73. J-73 will in turn, provide the memorandum to DPAP.

(90) DPAP Peer Review waivers. Under unusual circumstances request for waiver from the DPAP Peer Review requirement can be pursued. A waiver may be appropriate for certain acquisitions, such as those that are repetitive in nature. Waivers are generally not granted so there is no standard format or time frame prescribed. Requests for waivers shall be forwarded by the HCA to J-73 for processing. Approval by the Director J-7 is required prior to approaching DPAP. Waivers can only be granted by the DPAP Director.

PGI 1.170-90 Peer Reviews.

(a) Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Peer Review policy.

When developing the acquisition plan, contracting officers shall take into account the requirement for scheduling and conducting a DLA Peer Review in accordance with this section. The additional time required for each DLA Peer Review is a minimum of 15 work days for each milestone - A and B. This time is in addition to the time required for the I-ARB milestone A and B review process.

(2) In order to plan for DLA Peer Reviews, each activity shall nominate a pre-award acquisition to be reviewed. It must be valued less than $1 Billion and therefore not subject to a DPAP Peer Review, but represent a significant acquisition for the activity. In addition, the nomination should meet the I-ARB requirements (if possible), as an I-ARB review will be required. Use the format at Table 1. to provide information to J-72 by August 1st of every year for the next fiscal year.

Supply Chains should provide a consolidated report that includes their DLR sites, as the DLR sites are required to nominate an acquisition for the DLA Peer Review Program.

Table 1. PRE-AWARD Nomination

Supply Chain/Site/Activity & Location | Program/Acquisition Name and Description | Dollar Amount | Supply or Service | Expected Date of Solicitation Issuance | Expected Date of Contract Award

(3) Post-award DLA Peer Reviews of service Contracts. Each activity that has an active service contract will nominate a significant service contract by August 1st of each year to J-72. The service contract can be the same acquisition as is nominated for Milestone A and B DLA Peer Review, if the award will be made in a timely manner so a meaningful Milestone C DLA Peer Review can be conducted within the Fiscal Year. The nomination should be provided in the format at table 2. Consider the timing of the contract when nominating for a Peer Review. The post-award DLA Peer Review should take place at the mid-point of the base or option period of performance. A Milestone C I-ARB will follow the DLA Peer Review. Contracting officers should ensure the I-ARB and Peer Review take place at least three months prior to the required option exercise date.

Table 2. POST-AWARD SERVICE CONTRACTS

Supply Chain/Site/Activity & Location | Program/Acquisition Name and Description | Dollar Amount | Date of Award | Date of Next Option Exercise | Entire Period of Performance – number of years an date contract ends

(b) Administration of DLA Peer Review Program.

(1) The J-72 DLA Peer Review Program Manager will schedule the DLA Peer Reviews, organize review teams, and facilitate reviews. DLA Peer Review Teams will be comprised of HQs J7 code and field level contracting leadership personnel -DAWIA Level III in Contracting, (generally 1102 or 1101 -GS 14/15 or YC/YA 02 or 03). This includes such positions as the Director and Deputy of Procurement Operations, the Director and Deputy of Supplier Operations, Chief of the Contracting Office (CCO) and Deputy CCO. The DLA Peer Review Program Manager will contact activities to request name(s) be provided for Peer Reviews as they are scheduled. The teams will be comprised of 3 to 4 members. The same team will review the acquisition at Milestone A, B, and C, if appropriate

(2) DLA Peer reviews will be conducted at the location of the contract action. The local CCO is responsible for serving as the focal point for the DLA Peer Review Team. Appropriate entrance and exit briefings shall be conducted. The subject matter experts involved in the acquisition shall be available for consultation while the DLA Peer Review team is performing the review at the location.

(c) Documents. The following documents must be made available to the team. The documents will be emailed to J-72 DLA Peer Review Program Manager at the time the review is scheduled. The Program Manager will email documents to the team at least 5 work days prior to the date of the review to allow time for review prior to the team meeting at the contracting location. It is expected that all team members will have reviewed the documents prior to the Peer Review.

(1) Milestone A - After I-ARB and prior to solicitation the following documents are required to be made available for the Peer Review, if applicable. (Note: The list is not all inclusive):

i. The requirements document or purchase request

ii. The acquisition strategy or acquisition plan

iii. The source selection plan

iv. The Request for Proposals (RFP)

v. The Determination & Finding (D&F) memorandum for single source delivery orders

vi. The Justification and Approval (J&A) memorandum for use of non-competitive procedures

vii. Consolidation memorandum (if applicable)

viii. Business Case Analysis

ix. Contract Management Plan

Milestone B -prior to contract award the following documents are required to be made available for the Peer Review, if applicable. (Note: The list is not all inclusive):

i. The initial RFP and all amendments including any RFP requirements (technical or contractual) that were changed and the reasons why

ii. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) analysis and findings

iii. Any meeting minutes memorializing discussions between the Government and offerors

iv. All evaluation notices generated as a result of deficiencies in the offerors proposals as well as the offerors responses to those evaluation notices

v. All minutes memorializing the conduct of the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) deliberations

vi. The offerors responses to the request for Final Proposal Revisions

vii. The final SSAC deliberations

viii. The final SSA determination and source selection decision

ix. Award/incentive fee arrangements (if applicable)

x. Documentation of any required HCA D&Fs regarding non-availability of objective criteria

xi. Documentation of pre-negotiation objectives, cost/price negotiation and the assessment of contractor risk in determining profit or fee

xii. Price Negotiation Memorandum

Milestone C -Service Contracts Only -Post-Award -the following documents are required to be made available for the Peer Review, if applicable (Note: The list is not all inclusive):

i. The contract and all modifications

ii. The Contract Management Plan compliance

iii. Subcontract Plan

iv. The requirements document or purchase request associated with any modifications;

v. Contractor surveillance documentation to include metrics and quality assurance surveillance plans

vi. The business case analysis

vii. Market research documentation;

viii. The Price Negotiation Memorandum or business clearance including documentation of cost/price negotiation and the assessment of contractor risk in determining profit or fee.

ix. Price adjustments-Economic Price Adjustments or redetermination documentation.

(d) The DLA Peer review Team will assess the following areas. This is used as a guide, as the Peer review Team may review other issues or areas as they determine necessary.

(1) Milestone A -Supply Acquisitions

i. Are the requirements clearly defined and stated in performance-based terms?

ii. Are performance-based characteristics directly tied to program objectives? (These should include consideration of program cost.)

iii. Are the critical program objectives reflected in the evaluation criteria?

iv. Is there a multi-functional support cadre in place or planned to manage the contract? (The support cadre should include trained and qualified contracting officer representatives.)

v. Has the acquisition team developed a tailored quality assurance surveillance plan to monitor contractor performance?

vi. Does the acquisition team have a sufficient number of experienced, trained/qualified personnel dedicated and assigned to accomplish the source selection?

vii. Does the contracting officer or source selection authority have a plan to provide training to the acquisition team?

viii. Is the contract type appropriate --Does the risk analysis address and support the recommendations for contract type, pricing structure or type of source selection?

ix. If there are special contract requirements are they consistent with law, regulation and other terms of the solicitation?

x. Has the acquisition team mapped Section L to Section M to the Source Selection Plan to ensure consistency throughout?

xi. Are minimum thresholds and maximum performance objectives clearly defined?

xii. Are requirements stated in certain terms such that the evaluators will be able to assess whether the offeror meets or exceeds a particular outcome?

xiii. Is Surge and Sustainment included in the acquisition plan?

xiv. Is competition maintained, protected, or were attempts made to enhance?

xv. Describe lessons learned, problems encountered, and best practices. The peer review team must obtain a POC for each issue identified, so they may be contracted at a later date if needed.

(2) Milestone A -Service Acquisitions. The following are mandatory areas that shall be assessed by the DLA Peer Review Team. This data will be provided annually to DPAP in accordance with DPAP Memorandum dated February 18, 2009, Subject: Review Criteria for the Acquisition of Services. J-72 Peer Review program Manager is responsible for collecting this information.

i. Acquisition strategy - Is there a detailed written and approved acquisition strategy? Service acquisitions should have a comprehensive acquisition strategy that reflects program objectives, leverages spend data to arrive at strategic sourcing solutions for the enterprise being supported, incorporates strategic contracting tools, is developed prior to the issuance of the solicitation (amended as applicable), and is adhered to throughout the performance.

ii. Clearly Defined Requirements - Are requirements clearly stated? Service acquisitions should use performance work statements or statement of objectives that clearly defines the services the program seeks to receive.

iii. Period of Performance - Is the length of the contract appropriate? Service acquisitions should employ contract periods of performance of an appropriate length, consistent with the technological dependence, industry standards, and sufficient time to reclaim the program, ownership (in cases with an acquisition history of a single provider) such that fair competition can occur. Service contract length should typically be 3-5 years with certain exceptions (e.g., performance-based logistics and energy-savings performance contracts).

iv. Appropriate Contract Type - Is the contract type appropriate? Service acquisitions should employ contract types, CLIN and pricing structures that are appropriate for the acquisition situation. Time and Materials contracts are the least preferable contract type and must be justified when used and should be used in limited cases (e.g., no more than 10 percent of the contract value).

v. Socio Economic Considerations - Are there small business opportunities? The values small business contributions and expects maximum opportunities for small business participation.

vi. Participation Decisions Points - Are there decision points (on and off ramps) for longer term contracts? Service contracts with longer periods of performance, particularly multiple award contracts, should provide for decision points (on and off ramps) to ensure that the Government has a qualified pool of contractors that will provide continuous service throughout the life of the contract.

vii. Competition - Does the approach provide for robust competition? Service acquisition requirements should be articulated in such a way to provide for maximum competition for multiple award contracts, throughout the life of the contract with meaningful competition for orders. Evaluation factors are tied to key program requirements.

viii. Objective Incentives - Are awards/incentives set up to reward effective outcomes? Objective criteria will be utilized, whenever possible, to measure contract performance. Where objective criteria exist, and it is appropriate to also incentivize subjective elements of performance, the most appropriate contract type would be a multiple incentive type contract containing both incentive and award fee criteria.

ix. Inherently Governmental Functions - Are required determinations appropriately executed? Acquisitions for services must address the extent of the agency's reliance on contractors to perform acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions as defined by FAR Subpart 7.5, and DFARS 207.5.

x. Conflicts of Interest - Are financial interests of support contractors evaluated as required? When one contractor will provide oversight for another contractor or direct work to another contractor, the acquisition documentation should address measures to reduce /eliminate potential conflict of interest.

xi. Performance Management - Are meaningful performance measures in place? Service acquisitions should utilize performance based characteristics to the maximum extent practicable to include measures that are directly tied to program objectives.

xii. Contract Surveillance - Are appropriate government oversight personnel in place? Service acquisitions must have assigned Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) that use tailored quality assurance surveillance plans to monitor contractor performance.

xiii. Describe lessons learned, problems encountered, and best practices. Provide a POC for each issue identified for later contact to implement DLA policy/procedure

(3) Milestone B -Supply and Service Acquisitions

i. Source Selection was carried out in accordance with the Source Selection Plan and RFP;

ii. The SSEB evaluation was clearly documented;

iii. The SSAC advisory panel recommendation was clearly documented;

iv. The SSA decision was clearly derived from the conduct of the source selection process;

v. Did the evaluation team follow/comply with Sections L& M of the RFP, the Source Selection Evaluation Guide (if used), and Source Selection Plan?

vi. Was there consistency and fairness in evaluating each offer against Section M (evaluation criteria)?

vii. Was there consistency in applying the ratings across the offerors?

viii. What clarifications and/or communications, if any, were conducted?

ix. Were the appropriate clarifications and/or communications?

x. If discussions were held, were they meaningful and was the communication open so the offeror and government clearly understood each other's position and assumptions? (It is not sufficient to handle discussions in a way that is it only for the benefit of the government to understand the offeror's proposal.)

xi. Did the evaluation team apply any standards or undisclosed evaluation criteria to their evaluation of proposals or past performance?

xii. Does the documentation memorialize deficiencies, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance desorbed in the evaluation notices? Were assumptions addressed as appropriate or acceptable?

xiii. Does the supporting documentation describe details of the evaluations?

xiv. Were discussions conducted IAW sections L &M?

xv. Does the supporting documentation adequately describe the basis and justification for the ratings?

xvi. Do the Interim Ratings prior to final evaluation support the degree of discussions held with each offeror? (E.g. there is no misunderstanding by the offeror that the Contracting Officer clearly discussed the issues that resulted in the red or yellow ratings.)

xvii. Is the documentation complete so the SSA has the complete picture from approval to establish competitive range to completion of meaningful d1soussions (with or without releasing of Interim Ratings

xviii. If interim ratings were not released prior to Final proposal Revision request, has the Contracting Officer clearly articulated his/her rationale?

xix. f an offeror's proposal is no longer be in the competitive range, does the documentation support the recommendation to eliminate it from consideration for award?

xx. Did the SSEB complete proposal evaluation, incorporate information provided through discussions and Final proposal Revisions IAW section M?

xxi. Is the proposal Analysis Report (PAR) (or similar document) reflective of the evaluations and justification documents?

xxii. Is the Source Selection Decision Document reflective of the SBA's integrated assessment and own personal decision leading to the selection of a contractor(s)?

xxiii. Does the documentation clearly summarize and justify the evaluation results?

xxiv. If a Proposal Analysis Report is not used, does the documentation contain adequate details of the evaluation results and a comparative analysis (cost/price, past performance, mission capability, proposal risk, and a source selection recommendation) of the competitive offers?

xxv. Can the SSA make an integrated assessment best value decision based on the information presented in the documentation?

xxvi. Can the information in the documentation be used, as applicable, for the source selection decision document?

xxv. Can the SSA make an integrated assessment best value decision based on the information presented in the documentation?

xxvi. Can the information in the documentation be used, as applicable, for the source selection decision documents?

xxvii. Overall, does the documentation of the acquisition support decisions/justifications?

xxviii. Describe lessons learned, problems encountered, and best practices. Provide a POC for each issue identified.

(4) Milestone C -Service Contracts. The following are mandatory areas that shall be assessed by the DLA Peer Review Team to be provided to DPAP in accordance with DPAP Memorandum dated February 18, 2009, Subject: Review Criteria for the Acquisition of Services.

i. Contractor Performance Assessment - Does the program meet or exceed established cost, schedule and performance criteria? Service acquisitions undergo periodic reviews to ensure the program is on course with respect to cost, schedule and performance requirements: and any necessary adjustments are made.

ii. Maintaining Competition - Is there robust competition for orders? Was appropriate contract type used (e.g., could a firm fixed price contract be used when a Cost reimbursement or other type of contract was used -or vice versa…)? Are the requirements well defined? Were appropriate cost/pricing methods used? Multiple award services acquisitions use contracting mechanisms, including the use of competition, the contract structure and type, the definition of contract requirements, cost pr price methods, the award and negotiation of task orders, and managing and oversight mechanisms.

iii. Contractor's Subcontract Management - Is the Contractor's subcontract management evaluated? Service acquisitions undergo periodic reviews to monitor the contractor's use, management, and oversight of subcontractors.

iv. Contract Surveillance - Are appropriate government oversight personnel in place? Service acquisitions undergo periodic reviews to ensure the appropriate staffing of government contract management and oversight functions to include CORs

v. Assessment of Excessive Pass-Through Charges - Are contractor pass-through charges evaluated? Service acquisitions undergo periodic review to evaluate the extent of any pass-through and excessive pass-through charges by the contractor.

vi. Inherently Governmental Functions - Are appropriate performance of contractor functions evaluated as required? For service acquisitions under which one contractor provides oversight for services performed by other contractors, periodic reviews evaluate the extent of the agency's reliance on the contractor to perform acquisition functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions as defined in section 2383 (b) (3) of title 10, United states Code.

vii. Conflicts of interest (financial) - Are financial interests of support contractors evaluated as required? For service acquisitions under which one contractor provides oversight for services performed by other contractors, periodic reviews evaluate the financial interests of any prime contractor.

viii. Objective Incentives - Are award/incentive fees paid in a manner consistent with DoD Policy, or with a corrective action plan in place to address past inconsistencies? For contracts with award and/or incentive fee, objective criteria will be utilized, whenever possible, to measure contract performance. Where objective criteria exist, and it is appropriate to also incentivize subjective elements of performance, the most appropriate contract type would be a multiple incentive type contract containing both incentive and award fee criteria.

ix. Describe lessons learned, problems encountered, and best practices. Provide a POC for each issue identified.

(e) The review recommendations of the DLA Peer Review team are advisory in nature. However, significant findings may result in changes to the acquisition. The DLA Peer Review report for the subject milestone will be provided within 3 work days after completion of the review to the HCA/CCO as applicable, at the activity. A copy of the report must be provided to J-72 by the Peer Review Team. If there is a discrepancy between the HCA/CCO direction and the Peer Review recommendations, the HCA shall confer with the Director, J-7 to determine appropriate action.

(f) The contracting officer shall document the disposition of all DLA Peer Review recommendations (i.e., state whether the recommendation will be followed and, if not, why not) by a memorandum for the record in the applicable contract file prior to embarking on the next phase of an acquisition. A copy of the memorandum shall be furnished to J-72.

(g) An I -ARB is required following a DLA Peer review to ensure J-7 is updated on the peer review program progress (except for milestone A - where the Peer review can only take place after the milestone A I-ARB so documents can be prepared.) The Peer Review Team members will participate in the Milestone B and C I-ARB by either VTC, telecom, or in person. The DLA Peer Review Program Manager or a DLA Peer Review team member will present the findings at the I-ARB. Pertinent comments and/or recommendations will be included in the I-ARB minutes to document the Peer Review.

(h) The DLA Peer Review Program Manager will build a data base of best practices, lessons learned, and trends for all peer reviews. An annual report will be issued that captures this information. Adjustments to the program may be made based on the results of the reviews.

PGI SUBPART 1.3 – AGENCY ACQUISITION REGULATIONS

(Revised September 27, 2011 through PROCLTR 2011-45)

PGI 1.301 Policy.

PGI 1.301-90 Procurement letters (PROCLTRs).

(a) There are three types of PROCLTRs as determined by the Chief, Acquisition Policy and Systems Division (J71):

(1) Standard. Provides DLAD supplementation due to new or changed policy promulgated by DLA, OSD or other authority. Also includes revisions that alter the substantive meaning of any coverage in the DLAD. PROCLTRs are not used to approve deviations to the FAR/DFARS/DLAD. PROCLTRs with DLAD coverage are not used to restate statutes, executive orders, or higher level acquisition regulations. They provide any DLA-unique aspects to such policy or regulation. Revisions to the DLAD PGI are also made by standard PROCLTR. A standard PROCLTR is signed by the Director, DLA Acquisition.

(2) Exhortatory. Reminds the target audience of an existing policy requirement and provides no DLAD supplementation. An exhortatory PROCLTR is signed by the Director, DLA Acquisition.

(3) Technical. Editorial, stylistic, administrative or other revisions that have no impact on the basic meaning of the coverage being revised. A technical PROCLTR may be signed by the Director, DLA Acquisition, or Chief, DLA Acquisition Policy and Systems Division (J71).

(b) Unnumbered multiple-address letters may be issued for one-time requests for comments or reports, announcements of procurement conferences and other meetings. These are not considered PROCLTRs and no implementation beyond the action requested is contemplated.

(c) Numbering. PROCLTRs will be assigned sequential PROCLTR numbers for each year (e.g., PROCLTR 2011-01) and tracked in the PROCLTR Index located at the PROCLTR website on the Common Access Card (CAC) – enabled DLA Acquisition (J7) E-Workplace site. Once a PROCLTR number has been assigned, it cannot be reissued or reassigned if the PROCLTR is withdrawn or otherwise no longer required before it has been completed, signed and issued. In this situation, the DLAD Editor will note the disposition of the affected PROCLTR in the PROCLTR Index.

(d) Responsibilities.

(1) DLA Headquarters Action Officer (HQ AO). Reviews the need for a PROCLTR, drafts the PROCLTR, and coordinates the PROCLTR package with the appropriate areas of the DLA enterprise for review, impact on DLA, including policy and systems, comments, draft revisions, concurrences, and signature. If the DLAD and/or clauses are impacted, coordinates with the DLAD Editor.

(2) DLA Acquisition Programs and Business Operations Division (J74) Business Office. Coordinates final PROCLTR package for appropriate signature and date, and returns the final file after signature to the DLAD Editor.

(3) Subject matter experts. Includes DLA Acquisition Division Chiefs, Field Policy Chiefs, process owners and DLA General Counsel (DG). Review, provide comments, and coordinate on PROCLTR package.

(4) DLAD Editor. Reviews the PROCLTR package, assigns the PROCLTR number, issues and distributes the PROCLTR, and updates the DLAD and/or DLAD PGI as appropriate, as well as the PROCLTR index.

(5) DLA Acquisition Systems (J71). Reviews the draft PROCLTR and determines systems impact. Coordinates necessary systems updates to implement the final PROCLTR.

(e) Drafting guidelines. PROCLTRs will follow the PROCLTR template and the FAR Operating Guide and FAR Drafting Guide (see (f) below).

(f) Documents. PROCLTR templates and checklists, along with instructions and samples, are located at the PROCLTR website on the Common Access Card (CAC) – enabled DLA Acquisition (J7) E-Workplace site. The following is a list of documents to be used for the PROCLTR process:

(1) PROCLTR Overview Checklist.

(2) PROCLTR Template.

(3) FAR Operating Guide.

(4) FAR Drafting Guide.

(5) PROCLTR DLA Impact Checklist.

(6) PROCLTR Clause Prescription Checklist.

(7) PROCLTR Coordination Checklist.

(8) PROCLTR Comment Matrix.

(9) PROCLTR File Checklist.

(10) PROCLTR DLAD Editor’s Checklist.

(g) Process.

(1) When the need for a PROCLTR is identified, a J7 Division Chief assigns a HQ AO and notifies the Chief, DLA Acquisition Policy and Systems (J71) and the team lead, DLA Acquisition Policy. The HQ AO will then notify and coordinate further activities with the J71 procurement analyst responsible for the associated DLAD part(s). The HQ AO shall complete the PROCLTR Overview Checklist for all standard PROCLTRs.

(2) The HQ AO drafts the PROCLTR (preliminary draft) with the appropriate signature block and supporting documents. Changes in other areas of the DLAD or DLAD PGI shall be included in the preliminary draft PROCLTR as appropriate (i.e., DLAD referenced sections, PGI, clauses, forms, appendices). The PROCLTR Template shall be used for all preliminary drafts. The original text of the DLAD and/or DLAD PGI that is being revised with marked changes and the conformed copy shall be included in all standard PROCLTRs, as applicable.

(3) The HQ AO shall review the impact that the guidance in a PROCLTR may have on DLA, including policy and systems. Coordinate with the procurement systems group (J71) for any systems impact from the intended change, including any needed resolution. Complete the PROCLTR DLA Impact checklist. Update the preliminary draft PROCLTR with results of the discussion as appropriate and include the completed PROCLTR DLA Impact Checklist with notes as appropriate.

(4) The HQ AO shall ensure any clause prescription in the coverage describes its use accurately and with specificity, including restricting use to particular supply chains when appropriate. Complete the PROCLTR Clause Prescription Checklist.

(5) The HQ AO shall electronically coordinate with the field and HQ contacts as appropriate. Complete the PROCLTR Coordination Checklist.

(i) All PROCLTRs shall be coordinated with DLA General Counsel (DG) and the DLAD Editor.

(ii) Standard and exhortatory PROCLTRs will be coordinated with DLA Acquisition Policy and Systems Division Chief (J71), DLA Acquisition Operations Division Chief (J72), DLA Compliance Oversight and Acquisition Workforce Division Chief (J73), and DLA Acquisition Programs and Business Operations Division Chief (J74).

(iii) Technical PROCLTRs will be coordinated with the Chief, DLA Acquisition Policy and Systems Division Chief (J71).

(iv) Identify other stakeholders, such as other J-codes and the PLFAs, and provide the proposed PROCLTR for comment. The Chief, DLA Acquisition Policy and Systems Division (J71), may waive this requirement when it is clear that there are no other stakeholders that will be significantly affected by the PROCLTR or in cases of unusual urgency (in these latter cases, stakeholders should still be afforded the opportunity to comment to the extent practicable under the circumstances). Identify stakeholders based on the purpose and effect of the proposed PROCLTR. For example, if a PROCLTR proposes to delete a PLFA clause or otherwise significantly impacts PLFA contracting, the affected PLFAs would be stakeholders; if a PROCLTR affects payment procedures, DLA Finance (J8) would be a stakeholder.

(v) Specify a suspense date, normally three to five business days. An initial no response at this stage will be presumed to be concurrence, with the exception of DLA General Counsel (DG).

(vi) Reconcile and incorporate comments as received. If anyone non-concurs on the proposed contents of the PROCLTR, they must provide the rationale for non-concurrence to the HQ AO.

(vii) After comments are considered and any revisions made, send draft PROCLTR via e-mail again to field and HQ contacts so that they can see all the changes made. Seek new concurrence if changes are significant.

(6) The HQ AO works with the DLAD Editor to compile the official PROCLTR file (final draft) and coordinates with the DLA Acquisition business office for review and signature, including the staff summary sheet. Complete and attach the PROCLTR File Checklist and the PROCLTR DLAD Editor’s Checklist.

(7) The DLA Acquisition business office obtains the signature of the Director, DLA Acquisition, on the hard copy of the final PROCLTR and returns it with the official PROCLTR file to the DLAD Editor.

(8) The DLAD Editor shall complete administration of the PROCLTR and file, which includes assigning a PROCLTR number and updating the PROCLTR Index, revising the DLAD and/or DLAD PGI, issuing the PROCLTR, posting the final PROCLTR on the PROCLTR website on the Common Access Card (CAC) – enabled DLA Acquisition (J7) E-Workplace site and archiving the file.

(9) DLA Acquisition Systems (J71) coordinates systems updates to implement the PROCLTR as appropriate.

PGI 1.390 [Removed.]

PGI SUBPART 1.6 – CONTRACTING AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

PGI 1.601-90 Critical Acquisition Responsibilities. [F5]

PGI 1.601-90(b)(8)

Contract Administration training requirements for all contracting personnel are as follows:

EMPLOYEE POSITION | INITIAL TRAINING - Must be completed within 1 year | REFRESHER TRAINING - Must be completed within 2 years of initial training | FOCUS AREAS By Level of Certification
Contract Administrator Supervisory Contract Administrator | Mandatory 4-5 day “Contract Administration” or “Advanced Contract Administration” classroom training (May be courses currently offered by ESI or Management Concepts or equivalent). CON 112 (DAU) is an acceptable equivalent. | Approximately 50% of the Continuous Learning Points required to be completed every 2 years (or 40 CLPs) must focus on post award training. CLPs may be obtained through classroom training, continuous learning courses, forums, seminars, on-the-job training, job rotation, college courses, or other training determined to be acceptable by the employee’s supervisor. Approximately 50% of the Continuous Learning Points required to be completed every 2 years (or 40 CLPs) must focus on pre-award training and/or professional, business, and leadership skill training. | Level I certified in contracting (GS 5-7) Focus on basic training courses and OJT Level II certified in contracting (GS 9-12) Focus on more advanced training courses and more complex OJT Level III certified in contracting (GS 13 & above) Focus on diverse concepts, high level management and oversight courses
Pre-Award Contract Specialist and Supervisory Contract Specialist Cradle-to-Grave Contract Specialist and Supervisory Contract Specialist Procurement Analyst Price Analyst Small Business Specialist | Mandatory 4-5 day “Contract Administration” or “Advanced Contract Administration” classroom training (May be courses currently offered by ESI or Management Concepts or equivalent). CON 112 (DAU) is an acceptable equivalent. | Approximately 25% of the Continuous Learning Points required to be completed every 2 years (or 20 CLPs) must focus on post award training. CLPs may be obtained through classroom training, continuous learning courses, forums, seminars, on-the-job training, job rotation, college courses, or other training determined to be acceptable by the employee’s supervisor. Approximately 75% of the Continuous Learning Points required to be completed every 2 years (or 60 CLPs) must focus on pre-award training and/or professional, business, and leadership skill training. | Level I certified in contracting (GS 5-7) Focus on basic training courses and OJT Level II certified in contracting (GS 9-12) Focus on more advanced training courses and more complex OJT Level III certified in contracting (GS 13 & above) Focus on diverse concepts, high level management and oversight courses

Employees and their supervisors are required to record/track CLPs in ACQTAS. Local training coordinators are responsible for monitoring compliance with Contract Administration training requirements for their activities.

The objective of the required training above is to provide diverse, well-rounded training for all employees, regardless of their current positions, for career development planning. Training should provide exposure to all facets of contracting, and help employees design Individual Development Plans to develop competencies beyond those required for their current jobs. In addition to enhancing career development, rotational assignments for contracting personnel (including interns) will ensure that employees are permanently assigned to positions that best utilize their skills.

Local training coordinators at each activity should be consulted for sources of approved contract administration training courses. Activities should review and redevelop the main focus of training each year based on employee capability assessments, Procurement Management Review findings, and Acquisition Integrity Dashboard results. DAU approved contract administration training courses are available on the DAU course website at https://learn.dau.mil/html/clc/Clc1.jsp?cl=. DAU equivalency courses from other DOD/federal agencies, civilian organizations and professional societies, and commercial vendors are available on the DAU website at http://www.dau.mil/learning/appg.aspx. Approved DLA Training Center (DTC) contract administration training courses are available on the DTC website at http://www.hr.dla.mil/resources/index.html under “Training.”

PGI 1.602-2(91)[CH6]

PGI 1.602-2.91(a)

The following are the recommended DLA COR training requirements based on the minimum COR training requirements for COR certification recommended by the DoD Panel on Contracting Integrity, Subcommittee 6:

Type A – Low performance risk, firm-fixed-price requirements (e.g., non-complex, no identifiable risk factors, limited technical expertise required, low likelihood of modifications, follow-on contract vs. new effort). COR duties/responsibilities are generally limited to minimal technical and/or administrative monitoring of the contract.

Initial Training required:

CLC 106, Contracting Officer’s Representative with a Mission Focus, or equivalent

CLC 206, Contracting Officer’s Representatives in a Contingency Environment – when applicable

CLM 003, Ethics Training for the AT&L Workforce

CLM 049, Procurement Fraud Indicators

Any Additional training mandated by DLA [e.g., Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) RA]

Refresher training required:

A minimum of 8 hours of COR specific training every 2 years or prior to assuming COR responsibilities if the individual has not served as a COR within the last 2 years

CLM 003, Ethics Training for the AT&L Workforce, annually

Any additional training mandated by the Agency

Type B – Other than low risk requirements (e.g., nature of work is more complex, effort performed in multiple regions, in remote geographic locations; contract contains incentive arrangements, cost sharing provisions, or contingency effort; cost-type services acquisitions, T&M/LH contracts). COR duties/responsibilities are of increasing complexity.

Initial Training required:

CLC 206, Contracting Officer’s Representatives in a Contingency Environment – when applicable

CLC 222, Contracting Officers Representative (COR) Online Training

CLM 003, Ethics Training for the AT&L Workforce

CLM 049, Procurement Fraud Indicators

Any additional training mandated by the Agency (e.g., WAWF RA)

Refresher training required:

A minimum of 16 hours of COR specific training every 2 years or prior to assuming COR responsibilities if the individual has not served as a COR within the last 2 years.

CLM 003, Ethics Training for the AT&L Workforce, annually

Any additional training mandated by the Agency.

TYPE C – Unique contract requirements that necessitate specialized training [e.g., environmental, major weapons, Earned Value Management (EVM) requirements, Outside Contiguous United States (OONUS) contingency efforts]. COR duties/responsibilities are highly complex or specialized.

Initial Training required:

CLC 206, Contracting Officer’s Representatives in a Contingency Environment – when applicable

CLC 222, Contracting Officers Representative (COR) Online Training

CLM 003, Ethics Training for the AT&L Workforce

CLM 049, Procurement Fraud Indicators

Any additional training mandated by the Agency (e.g., WAWF)

Mandatory Specialized/Technical Training as determined by the Agency

Refresher training required:

A minimum of 16 hours of COR specific training every 2 years or prior to assuming COR responsibilities if the individual has not served as a COR within the last 2 years.

CLM 003, Ethics Training for the AT&L Workforce, annually

Any additional training mandated by the Agency

Local training coordinators should be consulted for sources of approved COR training courses. DAU approved COR training courses are available on the DAU course website at https://learn.dau.mil/html/clc/Clc1.jsp?cl. DAU equivalency courses from other DOD/federal agencies, civilian organizations and professional societies, and commercial vendors are available on the DAU website at http://www.dau.mil/learning/appg.aspx. Approved DLA Training Center (DTC) COR training courses are available on the DTC website at http://www.hr.dla.mil/resources/index.html under “Training.”

(b) Evaluation and Documentation. Supplementing the normal monitoring of the COR by the contracting officer, the contracting officer shall maintain an activity file on each COR as a part of the contract file. The purpose of this file is to record and maintain the results of reviews conducted annually by the contracting officer of the COR's contract related activities. If the COR appointment covers more than one contract, the contracting officer may elect to issue a blanket letter rather than separate letters for each contract file. Each contract number must be identified in the blanket letter and a copy placed in each contract file. The letter of appointment specifies the duties/responsibilities the COR is required to perform for each contract. The contracting officer shall annually evaluate and document the performance of the COR and provide a copy of this evaluation to the COR's organizational head. The contracting officer shall evaluate the COR’s success in performing all duties and responsibilities specified in their letter of appointment when completing the annual COR performance evaluation report. If the contract performance period is less than 1 year, this evaluation shall be conducted prior to contract closeout. The contents of the activity file shall include, but are not limited to:

(1) A copy of the COR's letter of appointment.

(2) Examples of in depth reviews of the COR's performance with appropriate identification of the work performed, as well as the formal COR evaluation required by 1.602-2(c).

(c) Sample letter of appointment.

SUBJECT: Appointment as (Contracting Officer's Representative) for Contract Number ___________________.

TO: (Address to individual, indicating rank or grade, branch, division, activity, and location.)

1. Under the authority vested in me by my warrant dated __________, and pursuant to paragraph 1.602-2 of the Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive (DLAD 5025.30), you are hereby designated (contracting officer's representative) with authority conferred by the contracting officer.

2. Areas of responsibility of the COR during contract performance may include,(but are not limited to, the following:

a. Monitor the contractor's performance to assure compliance with technical requirements of the contract.

b. Review and approve progress and financial reports, and other items required for approval. Notify the contracting officer if required deliverables are not received within the designated timeframes or if reports or other items submitted are to be rejected.

c. Notify the contracting officer if performance is not proceeding satisfactorily or if problems are anticipated.

d. Advise the contractor to submit requests for changes in writing to the contracting officer, indicating the effect the change will have on the contract terms and conditions.

e. Assure that changes in work under a contract are not implemented before written authorization or a contract modification is issued by the contracting officer.

f. Keep the contracting officer informed of communication with the contractor in order to prevent possible misunderstandings or situations that could become a basis for future claims against the Government.

3. The scope of your authority is subject to the following limitations. You are not authorized to:

a. Alter the contract in any way, either directly or by implication.

b. Issue instructions to the contractor to stop or start work.

c. Order or accept goods or services not expressly required by the contract.

d. Render a decision under the Disputes clause.

e. Authorize delivery or disposition of Government property not authorized by the contract.

f. Discuss acquisition plans or provide any advance information that might give one contractor an advantage over another contractor in forthcoming procurements.

g. (Specify any other limitations on the COR's/COTR's authority.)

4. This letter of appointment shall be in full force and effect until revoked by me or my successor in the same manner as it is hereby granted, or upon your transfer from the (branch, division, activity, and location).

___________ ____________________

DATE /S/CONTRACTING OFFICER

(d) Sample letter for terminating appointment.

SUBJECT: Termination of Appointment as (Contracting Officer's Representative) (Contracting Officer's Technical Representative) for Contract Number _________________.

TO: (Address to individual, indicating rank or grade, branch, division, activity, and location.)

Your appointment as (Contracting Officer's Representative)/Contracting Officer's Technical Representative) contained in letter of appointment dated ____________ is hereby terminated effective ____________.

___________ ________________________

DATE /S/CONTRACTING OFFICER

PGI 1.602-3 Ratifications of Unauthorized Commitments.

(b)(4)(ii) Ratification Checklist. Follow the process detailed in this subparagraph.

Ratification of Unauthorized Commitments – Checklist of Actions to be Accomplished

I. Responsibilities of the Office that made the Unauthorized Commitment. 1. [ ] The office that made the unauthorized commitment must provide a signed statement describing the circumstances that led to the unauthorized commitment. More than one statement may be necessary depending on the facts. The statement(s) must detail how the commitment occurred and should not be a generalized discussion about the requirement. Without a commitment, the action may not be a ratification. 2. The statement(s) must also address the following concerns. a. [ ] Who was the person who made the commitment, and on what date? b. [ ] What bona fide Government requirement necessitated the commitment? c. [ ] Why were normal procurement procedures not followed? d. [ ] Did the Government derive any benefit from the goods or services received? e. [ ] What is the cost of the goods or services? f. [ ] Any other pertinent facts. 3. [ ] Provide all orders, original invoices, and other documentary evidence of the transaction. 4. [ ] If evidence of a commitment cannot be obtained (e.g. employees have left or lack of recall), a letter should be written to the company asking them why they performed without a contract. The response they provide may help determine whether the action is a ratification (i.e., direction by the Government) or a Quantum Meruit (i.e., no direction by the Government). Provide the documented contractor’s response to the Contracting Officer for use in the D&F as outlined in subparagraph III.2. below.
II. Responsibilities of the Supervisor of the Employee who made the Unauthorized Commitment. 1. [ ] Provides to the Contracting Officer, an endorsement concurring that the commitment should be ratified. The endorsement includes the following information. a. [ ] Verifies the accuracy and completeness of the documentation. b. [ ] Describes the measures taken to prevent a recurrence of an unauthorized commitment within the command. 2. [ ] Provides a complete purchase request and appropriate funding for ratifying the contract. Funding generally must be from the Fiscal Year in which the Unauthorized Commitment took place if such funds are available. Otherwise, currently available funds may be used. Consult local Counsel for funding questions.
III. Responsibilities of the Contracting Officer. 1. [ ] Review the documentation and endorsement to ascertain whether there are any doubtful questions of fact. There should be an unambiguous understanding of how the unauthorized commitment occurred. 2. [ ] Prepare a Contracting Officer’s Determinations and Findings (D&F). Conclusory statements that repeat the FAR are not enough; the D&F must stand on its own and follow the format of Introductory/Summary paragraph, a Facts/Background paragraph (that is, explaining what happened), an Analysis paragraph explaining how the FAR 1.602-3 criteria have been met, and a Recommendation paragraph, concluding the D&F with a request for relief. 3. The D&F must address the following: a. [ ] The Unauthorized Commitment was not made to circumvent or evade procurement statutes and regulations. b. [ ] Supplies or services have been provided to and accepted by the Government, or the Government otherwise has obtained or will obtain a benefit resulting from performance of the Unauthorized Commitment. c. [ ] The Ratifying Official has the authority to enter into a contractual commitment. d. [ ] The resulting contract would otherwise have been proper if made by an appropriate Contracting Officer. The Government was not otherwise precluded by law from procuring the supplies/services. e. [ ] The Contracting Officer reviewing the Unauthorized Commitment determines the price to be fair and reasonable. f. [ ] Payment is not for unallowable costs. g. [ ] The Contracting Officer recommends payment. h. [ ] Proper type of funds are available and were available at the time the Unauthorized Commitment was made. (The obligation is chargeable to the fiscal year in which the need arose and the work was performed as a result of the Unauthorized Commitment. Funding must be from the fiscal year in which the Unauthorized Commitment took place if such funds are available. Otherwise, currently available funds may be utilized.) i. [ ] The ratification is in accordance with any other limitations prescribed under local/regional procedures. 4. [ ] Prepare a recommendation to the ratifying official and appropriate contractual documents citing funds available at the time the Unauthorized Commitment occurred. 5. [ ] Forward the package to local Office of Counsel for opinion and comment. 6. Ensure the ratification receives the required level of review and approval; further document the contract file.

(b)(4)(iii) Quantum Meruit Checklist. Follow the process detailed in this subparagraph.

Quantum Meruit Checklist

I. The Contracting Officer shall ensure the action is a Quantum Meruit, specifically, there was no Government inducement for contractor performance; otherwise, the action could be an unauthorized commitment/ratification situation. The contractor’s performance should have been voluntary without Government direction to perform without a contract. 1. [ ] Obtain a written statement from the office that received the voluntary services without a contract. The statement(s) should detail the circumstances that led to contractor performance without a contract. There could be multiple statements depending on the facts and employees involved. 2. [ ] Obtain any correspondence or e-mail that pertain to how the services were provided without a contract and/or what led to a lapse in contract coverage. 3. [ ] Obtain a statement from the contractor that explains the company’s knowledge/understanding regarding a lack of contract, and why the contractor, especially if knowledgeable in Government contracting, performed/allowed performance without a contract. The contractor’s claim can suffice if it also answers these questions in full. (See also section IV. of this checklist for explanatory detail of the contractor’s claim.) 4. [ ] Consult local Office of Counsel after obtaining all information to help determine whether the circumstances warrant further processing as a Quantum Meruit.
II. Justification. The Contracting Officer shall ensure that the Quantum Meruit package contains a written justification, which should include the following information. 1. [ ] An introductory/summary paragraph, which provides a brief overview of the Quantum Meruit claim. 2. [ ] A facts/background paragraph, explaining in detail how the lapse in contract coverage occurred. Include factual information regarding the knowledge of the Government employees involved and also what led to the contractor performing without a contract. Include relevant dates of the various events as outlined in this section. Ensure the facts support that the criteria for Quantum Meruit been met. The justification must explain how the following criteria are met, and not simply re-state the criteria. a. [ ] The goods or services would have been a permissible procurement had correct procedures been followed; b. [ ] The Government received and accepted a benefit; c. [ ] The contractor acted in good faith; and d. [ ] The amount to be paid represents a reasonable value of the benefit received. 3. [ ] An analysis paragraph explaining how the Quantum Meruit criteria above have been met given the facts that have been outlined. 4. [ ] A recommendation paragraph, concluding the Justification with a request for relief. 5. [ ] Corrective action. The justification must address, with supporting documentation, the corrective action taken/proposed by supervisor/commander to prevent recurrence. Address both individual corrective action and systemic corrective action. No personnel disciplinary action should be detailed in the file as this is Privacy Act protected. 6. [ ] The Contracting Officer signs the justification, with the package being forwarded to DLA HQ Acquisition Operations Division (J72), after coordination through the contracting activity’s chain of command, including local Office of Counsel. Ensure that attachments cited in section I of this checklist (i.e. outlined above) are in the package.
IV. [ ] The Contracting Officer shall ensure that there is a claim from the contractor. This must be included as an attachment as well as summarized in the Justification. Invoices are not claims, but should be in the file. The contractor also needs to state why it performed without a contract, why and under what theory it believes it is entitled to relief, and why its performance without a contract meets the good faith test. Ensure the contractor’s and their counsel’s (if applicable) address and contact information are in the file, as a notice and determination is sent to them from the CAE.
V. [ ] Funding. The Contracting Officer shall ensure that funding is obtained. Funding generally must be from the Fiscal Year in which the quantum meruit took place if such funds are available. Otherwise, currently available funds may be used. Consult with local Counsel for funding questions.
VI. [ ] Package Routing. The Contracting Officer shall ensure that once the package is complete, local review and approvals are obtained and that the package is sent to DLA HQ Acquisition Operations Division (J72), for processing and review, then signature by the CAE.

PGI 1.603 Selection, appointment, and termination of appointment.

PGI 1.603-93(b)

It is anticipated that in most cases contracting personnel who are not contracting officers will still receive their first level performance appraisal by someone in the contracting career field, even though they are not required to do so. DoDI 5000.66, paragraph 5.3.11 applies to all DAWIA career fields. DLAD 1.603.93(b) implements that requirement for only the contracting career field. The intent is to provide those in the contracting career field, who do not receive their performance appraisal from a DAWIA certified contracting professional, an opportunity to have their performance appraisal reviewed by a designated individual in the contracting career field, who has achieved DAWIA certification at a level not lower than the individual being reviewed. The purpose for making this opportunity available is two-fold. First, it provides an avenue for feedback on performance issues related to technical competence and for advice on professional development. Second, it provides a safeguard against compliance with the technical competency requirements of the job being compromised toward some other end (e.g., expediency). The coverage is not intended to provide a routine venue through which individuals can have their performance appraisal “second-guessed.” If the reviewing official finds evidence that the professional development or technical competence of the individual being evaluated are being compromised, the reviewer should bring the matter to the attention of the evaluating official, and if necessary elevate it through contracting channels to the Chief of the Contracting Office.

PGI 1.690-4 Contract clearance standards. [CH7]

In accordance with 1.690-2 the following standards will be employed in the operation of a clearance and oversight process:

(a) Oversight is to focus on improvement in all phases of the contracting process. Oversight of pre-award and post award contract administration procedures are equal in importance and shall receive equal emphasis.

(b) Reviews will be random, based on risk, complexity, experience and quality considerations.

(c) Procedures are to be in place to identify the need for review at any critical stage of an acquisition, including using solicitation, prenegotiation, preaward, postaward, and contract administration reviews.

(d) The oversight process is to identify problems early in the acquisition cycle, as well as during contract performance.

(e) Oversight is to be increased/decreased based upon proficiency, quality, and business considerations.

(f) Line elements are to participate in developing initiatives/plans to assure contracting quality, accountability, and the integrity of the procurement system. The chief of the contracting office will determine the level of oversight required based on the soundness of the initiatives/plans, and shall monitor the contracting process through an established review process.

(g) The clearance and oversight process requires a feedback system which provides timely information to all organizational levels. Feedback should address strengths, weaknesses, and significant findings, and provide techniques to ensure overall process improvement and accountability. Management is to determine the adequacy of initiatives taken to resolve quality issues identified through the feedback system.

(h) All contracting officers shall have their procurements reviewed periodically under a system of process improvement and to enhance accountability.

PGI 1.690-7 Notification, review and approval procedures.

(a) Notification. Written notification of the actions which are within three days of being forwarded for review pursuant to 1.690-3(b) and (c), and 1.690-6 should be provided to J-73 by facsimile transmission or e-mail. The notification should provide the information listed in subparagraphs (1) through (15) below. J-73 will advise by telephone or e-mail within one workday which of the identified actions/documents are to be forwarded to J-73 for review. Prospective suppliers/contractors shall not be advised that potential awards are to be or have been forwarded to HQ DLA for contract clearance and oversight. Those actions not selected for review need not be forwarded, nor is the PNM required to be submitted unless called for on a post-award basis pursuant to 1.690-6(e).

(1) Activity name requesting review and approval.

(2) Type of document requiring review.

(3) Solicitation Number.

(4) Proposed Contract Number.

(5) Number of offerors solicited.

(6) Type of contract action proposed.

(7) Item or services to be performed.

(8) Estimated acquisition value.

(9) Competitive action or single source.

(10) Government estimate.

(11) Number or offers solicited or received.

(12) Requirement for and/or exception from the requirement for certified cost or pricing data or other than cost or pricing data.

(13) Name of contract specialist and contracting officer.

(14) Date when package may be sent to HQ DLA for review action.

(15) Date when the review and approval is required.

(16) Show whether the solicitation/contract contains the review of the local contract review board or chief of contracting office.

(b) Local review. A local review is required (clearance and oversight office/review board pursuant to 1.690-2(c)) prior to submitting any contract action to HQ DLA for review and approval. A copy of the review results and the contracting officer's disposition of issues shall be a part of the file package sent to J-73.

(c) Pre-solicitation. Actions requiring HQ DLA pre-solicitation review and approval under 1.690-3(c) and 1.690-6 shall be submitted to J-73 ten workdays prior to the solicitation release date. Documentation shall include, as a minimum, copies of the solicitation and all amendments, the source selection plan, evaluation factors, evaluation standards, and acquisition plan. Files are to be forwarded to J-73.

(d) Pre-negotiation, sole bid/offer and options.

(1) Review and approval of sole bids and options under 1.690-6 requires submission of a narrative synopsis and duplicate originals of documentation supporting the contracting officer's determination pursuant to 14.408-2 or 17.207 to J-73.

(2) Review and approval of pre-negotiation briefing memoranda (PBM) under 1.690-3(c) and 1.690-6 requires the documents (duplicate originals) to be sent to J-73.

(i) Copy of the complete solicitation and all amendments. These may be mailed in advance of the actual request for review, and should be identified to the review package to follow.

(ii) Copy of any cost/price element reports, including all field pricing support reports (FAR 15.404-2(b)) and supplements.

(iii) If cost or pricing data are submitted and cost/price realism or cost analysis is performed, a comparative schedule, by cost element, showing:

(A) The proposed costs and profit;

(B) Audit recommended costs;

(C) Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) pricing report recommended position;

(D) Activity cost/price element position;

(E) Weighted guidelines profit analysis calculations with cost of money calculations and form, if applicable;

(F) The contracting officer's established objectives;

(G) Reference notes to the PBM and/or pricing report sections which support elements of cost and profit/fee for each objective.

(iv) If offers are received from two or more offerors and award is to be effected as a result of receipt of adequate price competition the PBM shall contain:

(A) The contracting officer's determination and supporting information as to why acceptance of the initial offer is in the best interest of the Government, considering the potential for price reduction, or other considerations, if discussions were conducted,

or;

(B) If discussions are to be conducted, the contracting officer's rationale for establishing the competitive range, the offered prices, and the expected benefits and objectives to be achieved at the conclusion of discussions.

(v) If the offered price is based on established catalog or market prices of commercial items sold in substantial quantities to the general public, provide:

(A) The offeror's documentation (request for exemption from submission of cost or pricing data, copies of catalog pages, price lists or posted prices, etc.) supporting exemption.

(B) A statement in the PBM regarding the contracting officer's verification of the data, and rationale for granting the exemption.

(C) The contracting officer's price analysis documentation supporting price reasonableness, including any field pricing reports, as cited in subparagraph (d)(2)(ii) above.

(vi) Other documentation as may be necessary and called for by J-73 to complete the review.

(e) Previous reviews. If an action was previously reviewed by J-73 pursuant to 1.690-3 or 1.690-6(b) or other HQ DLA element such as that required by 7.104-90, Acquisition Planning Executive Council (APEC), the PBM shall document compliance with any review comments or conditions issued as part of the previous review.

(f) Significant changes.

(1) Significant changes to the Government objectives submitted in accordance with 1.690-6(c)(4) (receipt of more than one offer) will not require further approval by HQ DLA. However, significant changes to all other approved objectives will require price negotiation memorandum (PNM) pre-award approval by HQ DLA. Significant changes are defined as those which exceed the maximum price objective reviewed by HQ DLA by 10 percent or $50,000, whichever is less, or those which meet the provisions of FAR 15.606(b)(4) and (c)(changed requirements). A significant change also includes the situation where competition was initially received, but a sole offer ultimately resulted. For all other actions subject to HQ DLA approval in accordance with 1.690-6(c) a copy of the PNM and all addenda shall be submitted to J-3313 within 30 calendar days after completion of discussions. The contracting officer's compliance with previous headquarters conditions shall accompany or be documented in the PNM.

(2) Contract actions meeting the approved PBM objectives do not require further HQ DLA review or approval prior to award, unless otherwise directed on a specific action, or as required by subparagraph (f)(1) above.

(g) Pre-award and post-award review. Unless otherwise directed, a complete contract file (including item/service specification or description) may be requested for those contract actions subject to review and approval in accordance with 1.690-6(d) and (e). Files shall be tabbed, assembled, and listed in accordance with DLA Form 678, Contract File Content List. A HQ DLA retain file shall be forwarded to include copies of all documentation contained at tabs: 3, 4, 5, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 39, and 43 of the DLA Form 678, Contract Contents File Checklist.

(h) After HQ DLA review, the requesting activity will receive one of the following:

(1) Approval of the action with corrective comments which will not require the resubmission to HQ DLA of the reviewed document, except the corrective action must comply with all comments noted.

(2) Conditional approval of the action with comments which require a response to HQ DLA prior to proceeding to the next step in the contract action.

(3) Disapproval of the action where comment must be resolved and full resubmission of the contract action is required.

(i) All documentation pertaining to the request for HQ DLA clearance and approval must be filed with the official contract file either by hard copy, email attachment or scanned with the electronic contract file.

(j) Defense Media Activity shall forward all Task Orders or Service Orders exceeding $100,000 to HQ DLA, J-73 for review and approval prior to being released to the contractor. Submit via email with the Task Order or Service order all documentation pertaining to funding, competition, price analysis, legal review and internal review. [F8]

PGI 1.690-8 Waiver of HQ DLA Review.

(a) If extraordinary circumstances require immediate award of any contract action under this PART, the chief of the contracting office may request a waiver of HQ DLA review and approval subsequent to selection under 1.690-7(a). Submit any waiver request in the same format as the notification, review and approval procedure PGI 1.690-7 adding to the bottom of the notification that a waiver of HQ DLA Review is requested. Provide a brief description of why the waiver is required and shall be transmitted to J-73. Granting a waiver does not constitute approval of the action or any deviations from applicable laws and regulations.