# 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.

- PGI 1.170-2 DPAP pre-award peer reviews.
- PGI 1.170-3 Post-award DPAP peer reviews of service contracts.
- PGI 1.170-4 Administration of DPAP peer reviews.
- PGI 1.170-90 Peer review.

- PGI SUBPART 1.3 – AGENCY ACQUISITION REGULATIONS

- PGI 1.301 Policy.

- PGI 1.301-90 Procurement letters (PROCLTRs).

- PGI 1.390 [Reserved.]

- PGI SUBPART 1.6 – CONTRACTING AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

- PGI 1.601-90 Critical acquisition responsibilities.
- PGI 1.601-90(b)(8)
- PGI 1.602-2-90 Requirements for the Contracting Officers' Representative (COR).
- PGI 1.602-2-91 [Reserved.]
- PGI 1.602-2(92) Contracting officer’s electronic signature on a procurement system utilizing automated solicitation, evaluation, and award processes to execute purchase orders.
- PGI 1.602-3 Ratifications of unauthorized commitments.

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

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

DLAD PGI PART 1 – FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

PGI SUBPART 1.1 – PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, ISSUANCE

PGI 1.170 Peer reviews.

(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 a competitive procurement, allow a minimum of 45 work days to cover the three 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 addition to the time required for the IARB 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 J73 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 and 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 and 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 and 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 IARB 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 IARB (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 IARB before the documents are provided to DPAP. There is no peer review requirement at milestone A. Phase 1 approval requires an additional IARB (this is a new requirement) and Phase 2 approvals will be accomplished at milestone B.

PGI 1.170-3 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 IARB is required prior to the DPAP peer review to obtain approval of J7. Contracting officers should ensure the IARB 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 DLA Land and Maritime, DLA Troop Support, and DLA Aviation.

(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 J73.

(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 J73 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, DLA Acquisition (J7) 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 J73. J73 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 J73 for processing. Approval by the Director, DLA Acquisition (J7) is required prior to approaching DPAP. Waivers can only be granted by the DPAP Director.

PGI 1.170-90 Peer review.

(a) Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) peer review policy.

(1) 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 IARB 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 IARB requirements (if possible), as an IARB review will be required. Use the format at Table 1 to provide information to J72 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 and 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 J72. 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 IARB will follow the DLA peer review. Contracting officers should ensure the IARB 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 and 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 J72 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 HQ 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 J72 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 the IARB 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 and 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; and

(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. (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; and

(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. (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; and

(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. The J72 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 to5 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? Consider the values of small business contributions and expected 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 point of contact for each issue identified for later contact to implement DLA policy and/or 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 and 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 there 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 in accordance with sections L and 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? (For example, there must be 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 discussions (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) If 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 in accordance with 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 PAR 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 point of contact 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 J72 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, DLA Acquisition (J7) 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 J72.

(g) An IARB is required following a DLA peer review to ensure J7 is updated on the peer review program progress (except for milestone A, where the Peer review can only take place after the milestone A IARB so documents can be prepared.) The Peer Review Team members will participate in the milestone B and C IARB 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 IARB. Pertinent comments and/or recommendations will be included in the IARB 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. The PROCLTRs provide any DLA-unique aspects to such policy or regulation. Revisions to the 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 [Reserved.]

PGI SUBPART 1.6 – CONTRACTING AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

(Revised December 27, 2011 through PROCLTR 2012-17)

PGI 1.601-90 Critical acquisition responsibilities.

(b)(3)(iv) DLA automated procurement systems internal controls (APSIC) process.

(A) Definition. “Automated procurement system” means a contract-writing system that uses automated solicitation, evaluation, and award processes to execute purchase orders and applies electronic contracting officer signatures to fully-automated awards.

(B) Purpose. The APSIC process standardizes the review of DLA automated procurement system functional outcomes, pricing parameters, and contracting officer training. Functional outcomes must comply with all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and other applicable procedures, consistent with procedures and outcomes that would have occurred if the award had been processed manually. The review also includes an assessment of pricing parameter settings to determine if adjustments have been made consistent with market changes. Contracting officer completion of mandatory training and consent to use of their electronic signature with the intent to bind the Government must be adequately documented (see 1.602-2(92)). The APSIC process complements the reviews of all proposed procurement policy changes conducted by DLA acquisition systems (J71) in accordance with PGI 1.301-90(d)(5) to determine anticipated impact on system logic and implement any needed system changes. It also complements the on-going technical updates of system logic conducted by DLA Information Operations, to include the systems change request (SCR) process and regression testing that follows any changes in system logic to ensure other system logic outcomes have not been adversely affected.

(C) Team composition. The APSIC Team will be led by a pricing analyst from the DLA Acquisition Operations Division (J72) and be comprised of J72 pricing analysts located at the sites using automated acquisition systems. The team will be supplemented with subject matter experts (SMEs) from the automated procurement systems team, the Office of Small Business Programs, General Counsel, and the supply chains. Supply chain SMEs will include contracting officers whose electronic signatures are applied to fully-automated awards.

(E) Process. The APSIC process is under the cognizance of the Director, DLA Acquisition (J7). (APSIC reviews are separate from the monthly simplified acquisition reviews required at 1.601-90(b)(3).) J72 is responsible for the APSIC Process. The DLA procurement management review (PMR) and J72 pricing team review processes will overlay the APSIC Process. J72 will coordinate APSIC reviews with any concurrent PMR or J72 pricing team reviews. During biennial PMRs, the PMR teams will evaluate supply chain compliance with APSIC process requirements. Findings regarding automated procurement system compliance with the APSIC process will be included in PMR reports, and management plans of corrective action (MPCA) will be required in response to those findings.

(F) Frequency. APSIC reviews will occur semi-annually.

(G) Sampling. The APSIC team lead will select a statistically-valid sample from the total number of enterprise fully-automated awards processed during the semi-annual period prior to the review to achieve a 90% confidence level with a 10% error rate. A statistical program such as EZ-Quant will be used to compile the sample.

(H) Review and documentation. The APSIC team lead will review the sample of acquisitions solicited, evaluated, and awarded though DLA automated procurement systems to ensure that awards met all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and other applicable procedures, based on review of the specific information in the checklist below. An individual checklist will be completed for each award that is reviewed.

| Item | Comments
1 | Contract File PIIN |
2 | Small Business Set-Aside Decision Consistent w/Regulation |
3 | Award in ECF/Reflects All Quotes Received |
4 | Abstract Reflects All Quoters and their ABVS Scores |
5 | Awardee Vendor CAGE |
6 | Dollar Value |
7 | Award Date |
9 | NSN |
10 | Synopsis (over $25K) |
11 | DD 2579 (over $10K) |
12 | Request for Quote (RFQ) |
13 | All Quotes In ECF |
14 | Accurate Pricing Reasonableness Code (PRC) Assigned |
15 | PRC Complies w/Pricing Logic |
16 | Valid Basis for Price Comparison Used (FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii)) |
17 | Basis for Prior Award Documented on PRD |
18 | Representations and Certifications Complete |
19 | Notification of Award Included/Issued Timely |
20 | First time buy approved at level above contracting officer |
21 | Independent Dealer/OEM Pricing (As Applicable) |
21a | Evidence of Independent Pricing from Quote(s) |
21b | Contracting Officer Determination of Independent Pricing Documented |
21c | Contracting Officer Certification to HCA in accordance with DFARS 217.7505, Limitation on Price Increases for Replenishment Spare Parts |
22 | Basis for Determination of Responsibility Adequately Documented |
23 | Justification for Limited or Sole Source |
24 | Other |

(I) Reporting. Within 30 days of completion of the APSIC review, J7 will issue a final report to the respective supply chain HCAs and AEs. A copy of the report will also be forwarded to the DLA Land and Maritime HCA and AE for action if any changes in system logic are required. The report will cite systemic and/or significant issues and recommendations. The supply chain AE(s) will be required to submit a MPCA within 30 days from the date of the APSIC report. J72 will track APSIC corrective actions in the monthly J7 review and analysis metrics reports.

(J) Training. Any contracting officer whose electronic signature is applied to fully-automated awards generated by an automated procurement system must have completed mandatory annual training that provides a detailed review of the system logic. The LMS training module entitled “DLA Automated Procurement Systems” satisfies this training requirement. To document successful completion of the training, contracting officers must place a signed and dated certificate of completion in their contracting officer warrant records file.

PGI 1.601-90(b)(8)

(a) 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 (CLPs) 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 and 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 and above) Focus on diverse concepts, high level management and oversight courses

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) 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 1.602-2-90 Requirements for the Contracting Officers' Representative (COR).

(a) Definition of COR. The COR is the individual appointed in writing by the contracting officer to act as the contracting officer's authorized representative to monitor specific aspects of the contract and take action as authorized in the letter of appointment. COR responsibilities and limitations are established by the contracting officer.

(b) Training prior to appointment.

(1) The following courses are the minimum training requirements for DLA COR certification in accordance with the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition Technology and Logistics memorandum dated March 29, 2010, Subject: DoD Standard for Certification of Contracting Officer's Representatives for Services Acquisitions. The coursework is required for all CORs, regardless of whether the acquisition is also for supplies and procurements other than services.

(i) 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, Overview of Acquisition Ethics; CLM 049, Procurement Fraud Indicators; and Any additional training either mandated by DLA, e.g., Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) and/or requested by the appointing Contracting Officer.
Refresher training required: A minimum of 8 hours of COR specific training every 3 years or prior to assuming COR responsibilities, if the individual has not served as a COR within the last 2 years; CLM 003, Overview of Acquisition Ethics, annually; and Any additional training either mandated by DLA and/or requested by the appointing Contracting Officer.

(ii) 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, Overview of Acquisition; and CLM 049, Procurement Fraud Indicators; and Any additional training either mandated by DLA, e.g., Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) and/or requested by the appointing Contracting Officer.
Refresher training required: A minimum of 16 hours of COR specific training every 3 years or prior to assuming COR responsibilities, if the individual has not served as a COR within the last 2 years; CLM 003, Overview of Acquisition, annually; and Any additional training either mandated by DLA and/or requested by the appointing Contracting Officer.

(iii) Type C.

Unique contract requirements that necessitate specialized training, e.g., environmental, major weapons, Earned Value Management (EVM) requirements, Outside Contiguous United States (OCONUS) 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, Overview of Acquisition; CLM 049, Procurement Fraud Indicators; Any additional training either mandated by DLA , e.g., Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) and/or requested by the appointing Contracting Officer; and Mandatory specialized/technical training as determined by the Agency.
Refresher training required: A minimum of 16 hours of COR specific training every 3 years or prior to assuming COR responsibilities, if the individual has not served as a COR within the last 2 years; CLM 003, Overview of Acquisition; and Any additional training either mandated by DLA and/or requested by the appointing Contracting Officer.

(2) Local training coordinators should be consulted for sources of approved COR training courses. Defense Acquisition University (DAU) approved COR training courses are available on the DAU course website at www.dau.mil. DAU equivalency courses from other DOD/federal agencies, civilian organizations and professional societies, and commercial vendors are available on the DAU website at http://icatalog.dau.mil/appg.aspx. Approved DLA Training Center (DTC) COR training courses are available on the DTC website at http://www.hr.dla.mil/ under “Training.”

(d) Appointment.

(1) The contracting officer may appoint any DoD member with internet access and an Army or Defense Knowledge Online (AKO/DKO) account who is a Government employee, military or civilian, to act as the contracting officer's authorized representative (COR) on a contract subject to the authority and limitations outlined in the letter of appointment. In appointing an individual as an authorized representative, the contracting officer shall ensure that the individual possesses qualifications, training and experience commensurate with the authority which the COR will exercise. The individual’s program management skills should also be considered when nominating and appointing a COR. The initial COR appointment shall be prior to contract award.

(2) The COR shall complete approved training prior to being issued a letter of appointment. See PGI 1.602-2-90(b) for required initial and refresher training. Based on contract administration requirements of the acquisition, the appointing contracting officer may add to the COR nominee’s training requirements. Local training coordinators should be consulted for sources of approved courses.

(3) A COR shall be appointed by the contracting officer both by formal written letter and using the DoD Contracting Officer Representative Tracking (CORT) Tool. (Note: The contracting officer is required to first register within the CORT Tool; see paragraph (d)(1) of this section for procedures.) In accordance with 1.602-2-90, the appointment of a COR shall be in writing and shall clearly define the scope and limitations of authority.

(i) The extent of the authority and limitations of the COR for each individual contract is determined by the contracting officer and stated within the letter.

(ii) Changes in the scope and limitation of authority may be made either by the contracting officer by issuing a new appointment or by amending the existing appointment.

(iii) When one COR is appointed for more than one contract, separate appointments shall be issued for each contract.

(iv) If the COR’s 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.

(4) A copy of each appointment letter shall be forwarded to the applicable payment office(s) when the COR is authorized to certify invoices for payment. This copy shall be annotated with the COR's address and telephone number, if this information is not readily apparent in the letter.

(5) A sample letter of appointment for a COR follows. The letter should be tailored as necessary, depending on duties delegated to the COR by the contracting officer.

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 1.602-2-90 of the Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive (DLAD), you are hereby appointed Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) with authority conferred by the contracting officer. Your authority as a COR shall not be delegated. 2. Duties will vary with the type of contract and complexity of the acquisition. In general, you are responsible for the following areas during contract performance: a. Monitoring the contractor's performance to assure compliance with technical requirements of the contract (see DLAD PGI 1.602-2-90(d)(2)(iii) for guidance). b. Reviewing 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. Notifying the contracting officer if performance is not proceeding satisfactorily or if problems are anticipated. d. Advising 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. Assuring that changes in work under a contract are not implemented before written authorization or a contract modification is issued by the contracting officer. f. Keeping 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. g. Recommending contract modifications and terminations, certifying receipt of supplies/services, and accomplishing other tasks required by the contract or contracting officer. h. Notifying the contracting officer if contractor appears to be performing an inherently Governmental function for a DLA contract. i. Controlling Government property and facilities. j. Specific areas of responsibility: (specify) 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. Sign any contract, including delivery orders, purchase orders, or communication service authorizations (CSAs), or to modify a contract, or in any way, obligate payment funds by the Government. h. Take any action which may have an impact on contract or delivery orders, schedules, funds, or scope of work. i. Additional limitations on the COR's authority: (specify) 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 Contracting officer’s signature

(6) Provide a copy of the COR appointment letter to the DST Commander when that COR is within the Commander’s area of responsibility (AOR). Clearly identify to the DST Commander the specific duties and responsibilities of the COR, such as periodic, daily, weekly, quarterly, and yearly inspections, reports, and other deliverables. CORs under the cognizance of a DST Command have dual reporting responsibilities, both to their contracting officer and to the DST Commander. The DST Command may provide security, transportation, and other assistance to the COR for performing oversight of contractors and investigating potential issues with a contract.

(7) The appointment of a COR shall remain in effect through the life of the contract unless revoked by the contracting officer, the contracting officer's successor, or in the event of reassignment or departure from the organization of the individual designated.

(8) The contracting officer shall be notified immediately in writing by the COR's supervisor, if the individual appointed as COR is transferred, reassigned, will be absent for an extended period, or is otherwise unable to fulfill the responsibilities of the position.

(d) Responsibilities of the COR.

(1) General responsibilities.

(i) Responsibilities will vary with the type of contract and complexity of the acquisition. For a contract of any complexity, the COR’s duties include monitoring of progress and performance by the contractor, controlling Government property and facilities, recommending contract modifications and terminations, certifying receipt of supplies/services, and accomplishing other tasks required by the contract or the contracting officer. The COR will be observant of contractors performing any close to inherently Governmental functions, such as inspecting or receiving goods or services, and will include this oversight as part of the general monitoring of contractor performance. The COR will notify their contracting officer and DST Commander immediately if contractors appear to be performing an inherently Governmental function for a DLA contract.

(ii) The COR is responsible for registering his/her common-access card (CAC) and creating an Army Knowledge On-line (AKO)/Defense Knowledge On-Line (DKO) account at https://us.army.mil. The COR will then create a profile in the DoD CORT Tool and complete the self-nomination process at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/eb/cor.html.

(iii) In fulfilling responsibilities, the contracting officer shall require the COR to:

(A) Read and maintain a copy of the contract provided by the contracting officer together with contract modifications which may be issued;

(B) Become thoroughly familiar with the terms and conditions of the contract to assure compliance with the provisions and clauses; and

(C) Promptly inform the contracting officer of any delay in the progress of work or any problem encountered that may require a contract modification or other administrative action.

(D) Maintain files related to the contract. Refer to paragraph (f) within this section for detail on contents of the COR files.

(2) Specific responsibilities.

(i) Each contract must be treated on an individual basis, since the COR may have responsibilities unique to that contract.

(ii) The COR should note specific responsibilities outlined in the letter of appointment and pay particular attention to limitations on authority.

(iii) Specific responsibilities that the COR performs on nearly every contract include monitoring technical compliance. The COR must ensure that the contractor complies with all technical requirements of the contract, including the submission of required reports or other documentation. In this function, the COR shall:

(A) Notify the contracting officer of potential or actual performance problems and recommend remedial action. If verbal notification is given to the contractor, the COR shall follow this up in writing to the contracting officer.

(B) Assist in meeting the Government's contractual obligations to the contractor, which includes arranging to supply Government-furnished equipment, facilities, and services called for in the contract and providing timely Government comment on, or inspection/acceptance of, draft/final contract deliverables if required by the contracting officer or contract. Section E of the contract provides information on inspections and acceptance. In the case of purchase orders, the body of the order contains this information.

(C) Report any instance of suspected conflict of interest or fraud, waste, and abuse to the local Office of General Counsel.

(D) Inform the contracting officer in writing of any needed change in the scope of work in the contract so that a modification may be issued, as appropriate.

(E) Report unacceptable deliverables. If the work is deemed unsatisfactory, the COR shall report all deficiencies in writing to the contracting officer, who will determine what further actions are required.

(F) Report all acceptable deliverables. The COR shall provide written notification to the contracting officer when the contractual requirements have been fulfilled and are technically acceptable. The evaluation of contractor performance and verification of receipt may be documented on a DD Form 250, a letter of acceptance, or a commercial invoice. (These documents also serve as instruments in making payment. The disbursing office, which pays the contractor, will be identified in the contract. A copy of the contract and records of any payment made on the contract will be on file at that disbursing office. Although contractors send invoices directly to the disbursing office, the disbursing office will not make payment without the signature of an individual authorized to certify that the invoice is proper.) It is the COR's responsibility to certify that the services/supplies have been received and are acceptable.

(G) Provide technical interpretation of the requirements. The COR is authorized to provide the assistance to the contractor on technical matters within the scope of the contract. Any technical assistance given to the contractor by the COR should be documented in the contract file. For significant matters, the information shall be provided to the contractor in writing. The COR shall notify the contracting officer immediately whenever the contractor disagrees with or refuses to comply with any technical aspects of the contract as interpreted by the COR. The contracting officer shall provide final resolution in cases of disagreement between the COR and the contractor.

(H) Request deobligation of excess funds. The COR who is certifying receipt of supplies and/or services will compare expenditures with funds obligated on the contract. The procedure for requesting the deobligation of funds is to notify the contracting officer by letter that there are excess funds on the contract. Funds can be deobligated from a contract only by a contract modification signed by the contracting officer.

(I) If performing in-theater, be familiar with and utilize the reference for CORs who work in the contingency contracting area: the Defense Contingency Contracting Handbook found at OSD's website: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/ccap/cc/jcchb/index.html. This website is designed to provide essential information, tools, and training for DoD Contingency Contracting Officers and their CORs to meet challenges due to their mission or environment.

(e) Limitations on the authority of the COR.

(1) The authority vested in a COR is subject to the following limitations, since all contractual agreements, commitments or modifications which involve prices, quantities, quality, or delivery schedules shall be made only by the contracting officer.

(i) The COR is not empowered to sign any contract, including delivery orders, purchase orders, or communication service authorizations (CSAs), or to modify a contract, or in any way, obligate payment of funds by the Government.

(ii) The COR may not take any action which may have an impact on contract or delivery order schedules, funds, or scope of work.

(2) The COR is not authorized to:

(i) Alter the contract in any way, either directly or by implication;

(ii) Issue instructions to the contractor to start or stop work;

(iii) Order or accept goods or services not expressly required by the contract;

(iv) Authorize delivery or disposition of Government property not authorized by the contract;

(v) Render a decision under the Disputes clause; or

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

(3) While the COR limitations can be stated, assuring that the COR does not exceed the authority granted is complex. In the course of performing COR responsibilities, situations may result in an implied change to the contract which may impact the delivery schedule, funds, or other areas outside the authority of the COR. Through inaction or improper action, the COR may exceed the scope of their authority; in that case, the contracting officer may decide to suspend or terminate the COR’s appointment.

(f) Contents of the COR file.

(1) The COR is required to document all actions taken in regard to the contract in the DoD Contracting Officer Representative Tracking (CORT) Tool, which can be found at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pdi/eb/cor.html. To the extent that contractual documents do not explain all actions taken, suitable records must be prepared promptly and placed in the official COR file, which is now within the CORT Tool. The importance of maintaining complete and orderly files is critical to transfer of responsibility if the COR is changed during the term of the contract.

(2) Required documents. The following documents are required for the effective performance of COR functions and to establish the official COR file. The COR shall keep a separate electronic file for each award using the DoD CORT Tool.

(i) Contract and any modifications;

(ii) Letter of appointment and any correspondence from the contracting officer which amends the letter of appointment;

(iii) The names, locations, phone numbers and/or e-mail addresses of technical and administrative personnel (e.g., COTRs);

(iv) Documentation indicating that the COR has attended a briefing by the local Office of Counsel on the applicable conflict of interest information included in DoD Directive 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation and has filed an OGE 450 report annually, as required, as well as having completed ethics training annually;

(v) Records of inspections and all receiving and acceptance documents;

(vi) Correspondence to and from the contracting officer and the contractor;

(vii) Memoranda of phone conversations, meetings, and discussions relating to the contract (see (3) and (4) below);

(viii) Progress reports;

(ix) Inspection and evaluation reports; and

(x) Any other document pertaining to the contract.

(3) When holding discussions or conducting business with contractors, the COR shall prepare a Memorandum for Record (MFR) of any meeting, trip, and/or telephone conversation relating to the contract, then upload the MFR into the DoD Contracting Officer Representative Tracking (CORT) Tool.

(4) Each MFR, other similar record, and correspondence relating to the contract shall cite the contract number. A copy of all actions or correspondence shall be furnished to the contracting officer and all other interested parties having a need to know. Documents that may contain contractor proprietary data or other business-sensitive information should not be released outside the Government without approval of the contracting officer.

(g) Evaluation.

(1) The contracting officer shall monitor the COR by completing the annual COR file inspection checklist with the CORT Tool. The purpose is to record and maintain the results of review conducted annually by the contracting officer of the COR's contract related activities. Consult with the relevant DST Commander for input into the annual evaluation of a COR located in a contingency area.

(2) 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 and to the DST Commander who has that COR within the Commander’s AOR.

(i) 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 evaluation.

(ii) For CORs located in contingency areas, consult with the relevant DST Commander for input into the annual evaluation.

(iii) If the contract performance period is less than 1 year, this evaluation shall be conducted prior to contract closeout.

(h) Termination. A sample letter for terminating the appointment of a COR follows.

SUBJECT: Termination of Appointment as Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) for Contract Number ______________. TO: (Address to individual, indicating rank or grade, branch, division, activity, and location.) Your appointment as a Contracting Officer's Representative contained in letter of appointment dated ____________ is hereby terminated effective ____________. ___________ _________________________________ DATE CONTRACTING OFFICER’s signature

(i) Disposition of completed COR files.

(1) DoD maintains responsibility for disposition of electronic records contained within the CORT Tool database.

(2) Since the COR is an authorized representative of the contracting officer, any hard-copy records which duplicate records maintained in the CORT Tool and maintained by the COR are a part of the official postaward contract files and shall be forwarded to the contracting officer for retirement with the official contract file upon completion of the contract. Documents which pertain to the contract shall be clearly identified when forwarded to the contracting officer.

(3) Any hard-copy file documents which duplicate documents contained within the CORT Tool shall be destroyed as soon as they have served their purpose, but in no event shall such documents be retained for longer than required record retention rules.

(4) Records pertinent to unsettled claims for or against the United States, open investigations, cases under litigation, or similar matters shall be preserved until final clearance or settlement of the matters even though retention of these records may exceed a period longer than 6 years and 3 months after final payment.

PGI 1.602-2-91 [Reserved.]

PGI 1.602-2(92) Contracting officer’s electronic signature on a procurement system utilizing automated solicitation, evaluation, and award processes to execute purchase orders.

(a) Any contracting officer whose electronic signature is applied to fully-automated awards generated by a procurement system that uses automated solicitation, evaluation, and award processes to execute purchase orders shall submit a memorandum to the CCO affirming that he/she has met the requirements in 1.602-2(92) (see format at PGI 1.602-2(92)(b)). This memorandum shall be updated annually to reflect compliance with the annual training requirement.

(b) Format for memorandum from the contracting officer to the CCO.

TO: (Insert Name of the CCO) SUBJECT: Responsibilities as Designated Contracting Officer for Procurement System Utilizing Automated Solicitation, Evaluation, and Award Processes to Execute Purchase Orders I hereby affirm the following: (1) I have successfully completed the mandatory training requirements in DLAD PGI 1.601-90(b)(3)(iv) and placed the signed and dated certificate of completion in my contracting officer warrant records file; (2) I have an understanding of the automated procurement system logic requirements associated with solicitation, evaluation and award, and I agree that the system logic, to the best of my knowledge, satisfies the requirements that are applicable to me as contracting officer; (3) I hereby designate the automated procurement system as my electronic agent for the purposes of soliciting, evaluating, and awarding purchase orders, and I consent to the application of my electronic signature on fully-automated awards generated by that system; (4) I am aware of the operations of the automated procurement system and that it will process fully-automated solicitations, evaluations, and awards without my direct intervention but with my general knowledge and intention to be bound; (5) [I recognize that fully-automated awards will be legally binding on the Government to the same extent that they would be if I had manually processed and signed the awards. The automated placement of my electronic signature on fully-automated awards is made with my knowledge and consent [and with the intention that all such awards will be legally binding on the Government; and (6) I will [review my authorized awards monthly and] elevate any problems I identify with automated procurement system logic or operations to you for referral to the Head of the Contracting Activity in accordance with 1.601-90(b)(3)(iii). This memorandum will be placed in my contracting officer warrant records file. ___________ _____________________ Date Contracting Officer signature

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 or 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) Appraisals.

In most cases contracting personnel who are not contracting officers will still receive their first level performance appraisal by a Government individual in the contracting career field, even though not required to do so. DoDI 5000.66, paragraph 5.3.11 applies to all DAWIA career fields. 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.

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 or 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 J73 by facsimile transmission or e-mail. The notification should provide the information listed in subparagraphs (1) through (15) below. J73 will advise by telephone or e-mail within one workday which of the identified actions/documents are to be forwarded to J73 for review. Prospective suppliers/contractors shall not be advised that potential awards are to be or have been forwarded to DLA HQ 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 DLA HQ 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 DLA HQ 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 J73.

(c) Pre-solicitation. Actions requiring DLA HQ pre-solicitation review and approval under 1.690-3(c) and 1.690-6 shall be submitted to J73 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 J73.

(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 J73.

(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 J73.

(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 J73 to complete the review.

(e) Previous reviews. If an action was previously reviewed by J73 pursuant to 1.690-3 or 1.690-6(b) or other DLA HQ 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 DLA HQ. However, significant changes to all other approved objectives will require price negotiation memorandum (PNM) pre-award approval by DLA HQ. Significant changes are defined as those which exceed the maximum price objective reviewed by DLA HQ 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 DLA HQ approval in accordance with 1.690-6(c) a copy of the PNM and all addenda shall be submitted to J3313 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 DLA HQ 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(d) and (e). Files shall be tabbed, assembled, and listed in accordance with DLA Form 678, Contract File Content List. A DLA HQ 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 DLA HQ 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 DLA HQ 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 DLA HQ 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 DLA HQ 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 DLA HQ, J73 for review and approval prior to being released to the contractor. Submit with the task order or service order, all documentation pertaining to funding, competition, price analysis, legal review and internal review via e-mail.

PGI 1.690-8 Waiver of DLA HQ 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 DLA HQ 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 DLA HQ Review is requested. Provide a brief description of why the waiver is required and shall be transmitted to J73. Granting a waiver does not constitute approval of the action or any deviations from applicable laws and regulations.