# DLAD PART 90 – SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEDURES

- SUBPART 90.1 – PARTS PURCHASE OR BORROW PROGRAM
- SUBPART 90.2 – TRAINING

- 90.201 Granting credit for course requirements fulfilled by alternate methods.

- 90.201-1 Scope and delegations.
- 90.201-2 Procedures and documentation.

- 90.202 Waivers.

- 90.202-1 Definition.
- 90.202-2 Policy and procedures for requesting waivers.

- SUBPART 90.3 – SELECTION OF CONTRACTS TO BE TERMINATED FOR CONVENIENCE IN EVENT OF UNEXPECTED DECELERATION

- 90.301 Policy.
- 90.302 Responsibilities.
- 90.303 Procedures.

- 90.303-1 General procedures.
- 90.303-2 Operation procedures.

- SUBPART 90.5 – CONTRACT REVIEW PROCEDURES

- 90.501 Checklists - individual contract reviews.

- SUBPART 90.7 – DAR CASE FORMAT

- 90.700 Scope of subpart.
- 90.701 Purpose.
- 90.702 Case format.
- 90.703 Case statement.

- 90.703-1 Problem section.
- 90.703-2 Recommendation section.
- 90.703-3 Discussion section.

- 90.704 Deviations.

- SUBPART 90.13 – STREAMLINED SOLICITATIONS FOR ENERGY CONTRACTS (DEVIATION)

- 90.1300 Scope.
- 90.1301 FAR clauses and provisions.
- 90.1302 - DFARS clauses/provisions.
- 90.1303 DLA Energy clauses and provisions.

- SUBPART 90.14 – RECOUPMENT ACTIVITY REPORTING

- 90.1400 Sample reporting.

- SUBPART 90.15 – PERFORMANCE BASED LOGISTICS (PBL) ACQUISITION PROCESS

- 90.1501 Requirement.
- 90.1502 PBL contracting process and milestone review and approvals.
- 90.1503 Integrated acquisition review board.

- SUBPART 90.16 – STRATEGIC SUPPLIER ALLIANCE (SSA)

- 90.1600 Strategic Supplier Alliance Policy.
- 90.1601 Strategic supplier alliance process.
- 90.1602 SSA definitions.

- SUBPART 90.18 – “PRICE PENDING” ITEMS

- 90.1800 Background.
- 90.1901 Letter of obligation (LoO) issuance, acceptance, and key personnel roles and responsibilities.
- 90.1902 LoO change requests for MEOs and HPOs.
- 90.1903 A-76 standard competition milestones.
- 90.1904 Monitoring responsibilities.
- 90.1905 Department of Defense commercial activities management information system (DCAMIS).
- 90.1906 MEO Re-competes / Competing HPOs.

PART 90 – SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEDURES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Revised September 19, 2012 through PROCLTR 2012-49)

SUBPART 90.1 – SALE, LOAN, OR GIFT OF PROPERTY

90.101 Parts purchase or borrow program.

SUBPART 90.2 – TRAINING

90.201 Granting credit for course requirements fulfilled by alternate methods.

90.201-1 Scope and delegations.

90.201-2 Procedures and documentation.

90.202 Waivers.

90.202-1 Definition.

90.202-2 Policy and procedures for requesting waivers.

SUBPART 90.3 – SELECTION OF CONTRACTS TO BE TERMINATED FOR CONVENIENCE IN EVENT OF UNEXPECTED DECELERATION IN MILITARY REQUIREMENTS

90.301 Policy.

90.302 Responsibilities.

90.303 Procedures.

90.303-1 General procedures.

90.303-2 Operation procedures.

SUBPART 90.5 – CONTRACT REVIEW PROCEDURES

90.501 Checklists.

SUBPART 90.7 – DAR CASE FORMAT

90.700 Scope of subpart.

90.701 Purpose.

90.702 Case format.

90.703 Case statement.

90.703-1 Problem section.

90.703-2 Recommendation section.

90.703-3 Discussion section.

90.704 Deviations.

SUBPART 90.10 – ADMINISTRATION OF THE DLAD

90.1001 Administration and explanation.

SUBPART 90.12 – POSTAWARD PRICE REVIEWS

90.1201 Simplified acquisition price review program.

SUBPART 90.13 – STREAMLINED SOLICITATION FOR FUELS CONTRACTS (DEVIATION)

90.1300 Scope of subpart.

90.1301 FAR clauses/provisions.

90.1302 DFARS clauses/provisions.

90.1303 DLA Energy clauses/provisions.

SUBPART 90.14 – RECOUPMENT ACTIVITY REPORTING.

90.1400 Sample reporting.

SUBPART 90.15 – PERFORMANCE BASED LOGISTICS (PBL) ACQUISITION PROCESS

90.1501 Requirement.

90.1502 Acquisition process and milestone review and approvals.

90.1503 Integrated acquisition review board.

SUBPART 90.16 – STRATEGIC SUPPLIER ALLIANCE (SSA)

90.1600 Strategic Supplier Alliance Policy.

90.1601 Strategic Supplier Alliance Process.

90.1602 SSA Definitions.

SUBPART 90.18 – PRICE PENDING ITEMS

SUBPART 90.19 – COMPETITIVE SOURCING AND HIGH PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS (HPOs)

90.1901 Letter of Obligation (LoO) Issuance, Acceptance, and Key Personnel Roles and

Responsibilities.

90.1902 LoO Change Requests for MEOs and HPOs.

90.1903 A-76 Standard Competition Milestones.

90.1904 Monitoring Responsibilities.

90.1905 Department of Defense Commercial Activities Management Information System (DCAMIS).

90.1906 Most Efficient Organization (MEO) Re-competes / Competing HPOs.

SUBPART 90.1 – PARTS PURCHASE OR BORROW PROGRAM

See guidance in DLA Issuance (DLAI) 4140.67 DLA Replenishment Parts Purchase or Borrow (RPPOB) Program.

SUBPART 90.2 – TRAINING

90.201 Granting credit for course requirements fulfilled by alternate methods.

90.201-1 Scope and delegations.

These procedures apply to all acquisition work force members at DLA activities subject to the DLAD (see 1.103). The heads of contracting activities have the authority to evaluate experience, education, or alternate training completed and to determine if it fulfills the requirements of mandatory DoD contracting courses. This authority may be delegated, without power of redelegation to those officials authorized to select, appoint, and terminate the appointment of contracting officers by 1.603-1(90).

90.201-2 Procedures and documentation.

Applications for credit by alternate methods will be made on the DD Form 2518, Fulfillment of DoD mandatory training requirement, as outlined in DoD 5000.52-M. A copy of each DD Form 2518 along with a statement of the alternate method determined to be equivalent will be forwarded to J73 for reporting purposes.

90.202 Waivers.

90.202-1 Definition.

A waiver is defined as exempting someone from taking a course without certifying that the person has gained knowledge from experience, formal education or other training. Fulfillment of requirements by alternate methods shall not be considered or used as a "waiver" of requirements.

90.202-2 Policy and procedures for requesting waivers.

Acquisition personnel will normally fulfill mandatory training requirements by course completion or alternate methods, therefore, waivers are discouraged. Requests for waivers will be forwarded to J73 for evaluation and processing.

SUBPART 90.3 – SELECTION OF CONTRACTS TO BE TERMINATED FOR CONVENIENCE IN EVENT OF UNEXPECTED DECELERATION

90.301 Policy.

Terminations for convenience will be based on individual decisions resulting from a comparison of costs for termination and excess position of items versus the need for release of obligated funds for higher priority use.

90.302 Responsibilities.

The decision to terminate a contract for the convenience of the Government is the joint responsibility of the commodity manager and the contracting officer at the cognizant Defense supply center (DSC). In those cases where the contract resulted from a military interdepartmental purchase request (MIPR), the decision to terminate for convenience is the responsibility of the MIPR initiator; however, the contracting officer, upon request, must inform the initiator of all elements which have any bearing on the status of the contract.

90.303 Procedures.

90.303-1 General procedures.

Upon receipt of a request for a cutback in contract quantities from the cognizant commodity manager, the following information will be utilized in selecting the contract for termination:

(a) Ascertain all current contracts for items involved.

(1) Determine the undelivered portion of each contract.

(2) Consider supplies in transit (i.e., under a f.o.b. destination contract) as deliveries, unless the contractor is delinquent and a notice to terminate for default has been sent to the contractor.

(3) Determine what deliveries, if any, are delinquent.

(4) Determine whether the delinquency is excusable or inexcusable.

(5) Contract quantities scheduled for direct delivery to users are not subject to termination action unless specifically so designated.

(b) If delinquency is considered inexcusable, terminate for default where appropriate.

(c) Where termination for default is not appropriate or where additional quantities remain to be cut back after termination for default, proceed in the selection of contracts to be terminated for convenience.

(1) First choice should be where contractors are agreeable to total or partial termination (voluntary or no cost settlement).

(2) Consider the following factors.

(i) Contracts involving contractors' commercial item.

(ii) Contracts awarded as rated orders.

(iii) Contracts for mandatory acquisition.

(iv) Contracts most recently awarded and those providing for longest production lead time where production has not progressed to an appreciable degree.

(v) Contracts awarded at the highest price and work down pricewise.

(vi) Partial termination of all contracts where two or more contractors are involved in lieu of total termination of a few.

(d) The dollar amount of potential settlement claims should be estimated with the assistance of DCMA. Consider the following in estimating the claim:

(1) Unit price of undelivered items;

(2) Raw material on hand and/or on order;

(3) Components on hand or on order;

(4) Work in process;

(5) Unamortized startup costs;

(6) Percentage of completion;

(7) Current commercial value and saleability of the item involved; and/or

(8) Disposal actions required, taking into consideration recoupment through sales of items to be disposed.

90.303-2 Operation procedures.

(a) The supply function or the MIPR initiator will advise the contracting function to cancel an item by quantities and consignee. The supply function or the MIPR initiator will be required to indicate all open purchase requests and/or contracts when requesting information upon which to base a termination decision or when requesting cancellation by item and consignee.

(b) Contracting and production, using procedures in 90.303, will determine what portion of each open contract should be terminated.

(c) If the contracting function's decision indicates that the supply function's original request should be revised, the decision will be coordinated with the Supply function and elevated to the supply chain HCA. The final authority for deciding whether or not to terminate, when substantial claims are involved, is the center commander/director.

(d) Upon completion of above actions, the Contracting function will issue the termination notice with a copy to DCMA for termination settlement action.

SUBPART 90.5 – CONTRACT REVIEW PROCEDURES

90.501 Checklists - individual contract reviews.

The following contract review checklists have been developed for use as guides by DLA contracting officers and buyers in their individual contract reviews. The checklists may be modified to suit the needs of the contracting activity. Standard DLA-wide forms are not prescribed in order to permit development of local checklists.

(a) Contract review checklist – supplies and/or services.

Contractor: ________________________________________________________ Contract number: _______________________ Dollar value: $______________ Brief description of supplies or services with quantity, unit price, extension, and/or total price: 1. Does the center/activity have the authority to purchase this item? (DFARS 208.70) Tab number 1 Purchase Request (PR)/ Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request (MIPR). 2. Is the PR or MIPR in the file? (53.201-92(b)(3)(i)) 3. Are amendments approved by appropriate authority and are they attached? (53.201-92(b)(3)(i)) 4. Is an option quantity included? (FAR 17.202) Tab number 2 Specification/drawing. 5. Is the purchase description prepared in accordance with FAR 11.000? Tab number 3 Acquisition plan/amendments (FAR/DFARS/DLAD 7.1). 6. Is information sufficient to support proposed method of acquisition (Sealed Bid - Competitive Proposals)? (FAR 6.401) 7. Was the acquisition plan approved at a level above the buyer in accordance with 7.102(91)? 8. Were market surveys and market research performed in accordance with 7.102(90)? 9. Is the required delivery schedule realistic? 10. If option proposed, authorized/appropriate? (FAR 17.202) 11. Does the acquisition plan define S&S requirements (items, quantities, delivery terms), ensure S&S capability is developed, and include S&S testing in accordance with 7.104(b)(91) and 17.9303(c)? Does the acquisition plan provide all the information required in 90.1101(b)(18) regarding S&S? Tab number 4 Justification for other than full and open competition. 12. Was contracting without providing for full and open competition justified? (FAR 6.303-1) Tab number 5 Determination and findings. 13. Was a justification for use of option prepared? (FAR 17.205(a)) 14. If the option is not to be evaluated, was a determination approved at a level above the contracting officer? (FAR 17.206(b)) 15. If for full and open competition after exclusion of sources, was a D&F prepared? (FAR 6.202(b)(1)) Tab number 6 Nonpersonal services determination. 16. If nonpersonal services involved, was determination issued? (53.201-92(b)(3)(iv)) Tab number 7 Department of Labor (DOL) wage determination. 17. Was a wage determination requested? YES NO N/A (53.201-92 (b)(3)(v)) 18. If a wage determination was obtained, is it current or does file contain documentation authorizing extension? Tab number 8 Small business set-aside determination. 19. Does information provided support the determination? (FAR 19.501(c)/DLAD 53.201-92(b)(3)(vi)) 20. Is withdrawal/modification of the initial set-aside determination explained? (FAR 19.506(c)) Tab number 9 Buy American act. 21. If applicable, has a non-availability determination been prepared and approved pursuant to DFARS 225.102/DLAD 25.102? Tab number 11 Source list 22. List includes those initially solicited and those added as a result of requests, with dates for the latter? (53.201-92(b)(3)(vii)) 23. Is the list excessively long? (FAR 14.205-4(a)) 24. Is the list annotated as to "no bids" received? (FAR/DLAD 14.205-2) Tab number 12 Presolicitation notice. 25. Should a pre-invitation notice (FAR 14.205-4(c)) or pre-solicitation notice (FAR 15.201(c)(5)) have been used? 26. Should a draft RFP ((FAR/DLAD 15.201(c)(6)) have been used? Tab number 13 Synopsis. 27. Copy of transmittal in file? 28. In proper format? (FAR 5.207/DFARS 205.207) 29. No synopsis; justification adequate? (FAR 5.202) 30. Was adequate time allowed? (FAR 5.203) Tab number14 Solicitation and amendments. 31. Was the solicitation issued in a timely manner? 32. Do solicitation provisions reflect PR or MIPR requirements? 33. If an oral solicitation, does file contain justification for its use? (FAR 15.203(f)) 34. Bidding time/request for proposal (RFP) response time adequate? (FAR 5.203 and 14.202-1) 35. Format in accordance with FAR 14.201-1 (an invitation for bid (IFB)) or 15.204-1 (RFP)? 36. Were amendments sent to all originally solicited? (FAR 14.208/15.206) 37. Were amendments properly dated? yes no not applicable (N/A ) (53.201-92 (b)(3)(viii) 38. Are solicitation clauses and provisions current/complete? (FAR 14.201-6/15.209) 39. Does the solicitation include evaluation factors? (15.612-90(a)/15.304) 40. Does the solicitation address surge and sustainment (S&S) requirements, capability, and testing as outlined in the acquisition plan (90.501(a)12)? Tab number 18 Abstract of offers. 41. Abstract of bids/proposals: (FAR 14.403) (1) Signed and dated? (2) All bids/offers entered properly? (3) Exceptions noted? (53.201-92(b)(4)(i)) Tab number 19 Packaging/transportation/freight rate data 42. Packaging/transportation/freight rate data obtained and determined to be adequate? (53.201-92(b)(4)(ii)) Tab number 20 Cost/pricing data. 43. Were cost or pricing data requested in the solicitation? (FAR 15.403-5) 44. When cost or pricing data are required, has the contracting officer obtained the certificate of current cost or pricing data? (FAR 15.406-2) 45. If cost or pricing data are not required but the information other than cost or pricing needed to has to help establish price reasonableness or cost realism? (FAR 15.404-3) 46. If cost or pricing data submitted, is it in file? 47. If cost or pricing data were required, has the contracting officer indicated the extent to which he/she has relied on the data and recognized as inaccurate, incomplete or non-current any cost or pricing data submitted? (FAR 15.406-3(a)(6) 48. If cost or pricing data were or were not requested, does the file provide the exception used and basis for it? (FAR 15.406-3(a)(5)) Tab number 21 Audit report, waiver, or field pricing report. 49. Was field pricing support obtained (DCAA audit; DCAA pricing/technical report)? FAR 15.404-2 and DFARS 215.404-2)) 50. If so, does the file contain all pricing support information? FAR 15.406-2(b)(2)) 51. Was independent price analysis performed by the cost/price analysis element? (15.404-1(a)(90)) Tab number 22 Price/cost analysis. 52. If sole bid received, is the file documented to reflect actions taken and rationale used to determine the reasonableness of prices? (14.408-2(90)) 53. Was weighted guidelines analysis prepared? (FAR 15.404-4(c)(2)/ DFARS 215.404-71 54. If prior contracts were used in the price analysis, were the price reasonableness determinations of those contracts stated? yes no N/A (FAR/DLAD 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii)) 55. Were realistic negotiation objectives established? (15.406-1) Tab number 23 Prenegotiation briefing memorandum. 56. Was the prenegotiation briefing presented to appropriate authority prior to negotiations? (15.406-1(b)(91)) 57. Does the prenegotiation briefing memorandum clearly establish basis for negotiating position? 58. Does it include all of the required elements? (15.406-1(b)(92)) 59. Was basis for decision to negotiate, or decision to accept the initial offer without discussion, documented? (FAR 15.306(a)(3) and DLAD 15.406-1(b)(92) 60. Is the prenegotiation briefing memorandum signed and dated? 61. Was a comparative schedule (spread sheet) prepared as required by 15.406-1(b)(92)(4)? 62. If negotiation objectives were changed or exceeded, was prenegotiation briefing authority notified? (15.406-1(b)94) Tab number 24 Price negotiation memorandum. 63. Were negotiations conducted on an individual cost element basis? 64. Was the option quantity considered in negotiations? (15.403-4(a)(1)(i)(90) and 15.403-4(b)(90)(i)) 65. Was rent-free use of Government property considered in the negotiations? 66. Was authority obtained for rent-free use from cognizant administrative contracting officer? 67. Was appropriate contract type selected? 68. Was a common cutoff date for negotiations established with all offerors? (FAR 15.307(b)) 69. Does the price negotiation memorandum (PNM) format conform with FAR 15.406-3(a)/DFARS 215.406-3(a)/DLAD 15.406-3(a))? 70. Does the PNM clearly and conclusively support price reasonableness determination? (DLAD 15.406-3(a)(ii)) 71. Is the statement of same included in the PNM? 72. Is the PNM signed and dated? 73. Does the PNM document any negotiated changes to the S&S provisions (including those related to handling surge investments at the end of the contract), document (where it occurs) inability to obtain S&S capability and alternative plans as required in 17.9304(g)(3), and include a finding that any surge investments proposed are the most cost effective solutions? Tab number 25 Certificate of cost or pricing data. 74. Was a certificate of current cost or pricing data obtained? (FAR 15.406-2) 75. Were option requirements included? Tab number 27 Preaward survey or waiver. 76. Was a preaward survey conducted or a document executed by the contracting officer to not request PAS? (FAR 9.106 and DLAD 9.106-1) Tab number 28 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) clearance 77. If the preaward survey report recommendation is not followed, has the case been reviewed and concurred in by the Chief of the Contracting Office? (9.105-2(b)) 78. If $10 million or more, was the equal employment opportunity clearance report obtained? (FAR 22.805(a)) Tab number 29 Bid or offer evaluation. 79. Was evaluation conducted in accordance with solicitation criteria? (FAR 15.305(a)) 80. Was price considered where technical evaluation is required? (FAR 15.304(c)(i)) Tab number 30 Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) coverage. 81. Is this a CAS-covered contract? (FAR 30.201-1) 82. If a disclosure statement is required, did the contractor: (1) Submit the same? (2) Execute a certificate of monetary exemption? (3) Execute certificate of interim exemption? (4) Execute a certificate of previously submitted disclosure statement? Tab number 34 Unsuccessful bids or proposals. 83. Were nonresponsive determinations reviewed and concurred? (FAR 9.105-2) 84. Is there a non-responsibility determination in file? (FAR 9.105-2(a)) 85. Unsuccessful bids/proposals included in the file? 86. Were unsuccessful bidders/offerors notified promptly? (DLAD 14.409-1(b)/FAR 15.503) 87. If a small business determined to be non-responsible, was a certificate of competency obtained? If not, why not? (FAR 19.6) Tab number 35 Mistake in bid or mistake in proposal. 88. Does the file contain the administrative determination required by FAR 14.407-3(e)/DFARS 214.407-3(e)? 89. Concurrence by counsel obtained? (FAR 14.407-3(f)) Tab number 36 Determination of late bid/proposal. 90. Disposition of late bids/proposals adequately documented? (FAR 14.304-3 and FAR 15.208) Tab number 37 Contract announcement. 91. Was the contract announcement forwarded? (FAR 5.303 /DFARS 205.303/DLAD 5.303) Tab number 38 Individual contract action report. 92. Is the Individual Contracting Action Report, in the file? (DFARS 204.670-3) Tab number 39 Local contract review comments. 93. Have all local CRO comments been addressed prior to forwarding for DLA HQ review? (1.690-7(b)) Section C - Other support data. 94. Was a subcontracting plan for small and small disadvantaged business concerns obtained and approved, if required? (FAR 19.702) 95. If a plan was not obtained, was a determination made that subcontracting possibilities do not exist? (FAR 19.705-2(c)) 96. If royalty payments involved, did General Counsel, DLA HQ concur? (FAR 27.204-1(b)/DLAD 27.000-90) 97. Should this item be referred to the competition advocate? 98. Is the contractor on the "Parties Excluded from Procurement Programs?" (FAR 9.405(b)) 99. If a warranty provision contemplated, were the criteria of FAR 46.7 considered? 100. If provision for progress payments contemplated, is it appropriate? (FAR 32.501) 101. Were negotiations conducted with all responsible offerors within a competitive range? (FAR 15.306(d)) 102. Were offerors notified of any changes in the Government's requirements? (FAR 15.206) 103. Were acknowledgments of changed requirements confirmed in writing by offerors? (FAR 14.303 and 15.411) 104. Were proposals marked with the date and time of receipt? (FAR 15.207(a)) 105. Were requirements revalidated per 1.693? 106. Were the documentations required in DLAD 17.9307 included in the contract file? Tab number 43 Award/contract and correspondence. 107. If the contract authorizes use of Government supply sources, are mechanisms in place to monitor appropriate usage? (51.102(f)(1)) 108. Was the proper award document utilized (SF 26, SF 33, or SF 1449)? (FAR 15.414) 109. Does contract agree in all respects with contractor's bid/proposal? 109. If a single signature document, does it reflect contractor's letter/message amendments? YES NO N/A 110. Is arithmetic correct? (Extensions and totals) 111. Is contract being awarded within bid/proposal acceptance period? (FAR 14.408-1(a)/52.215-16(e)) 112. Does the contract file contain the approvals required in 17.9304(b)(7)(vi)(A) and 52. 217-9006 for any exceptions taken? 113. Adequately funded? (FAR 32.702) Remarks:____________________________________________________________

(b) Contract review checklist - construction.

Contractor________________________ Dollar Value$__________________ Contract Number___________________ Project_______________________ Location___________________________ 1. Does the contract meet the criteria for a construction Yes No N/A contract? (FAR 36.102) 2. Have funds been approved under provisions of the annual Military Construction Appropriation Act? Is any other funding source appropriate? 3. Were sealed bidding procedures used? (FAR 36.103(a)) 4. Were specifications prepared in accordance with FAR Part 11? (FAR 36.202) 5. Was an independent Government estimate prepared? a. Was it prepared in as much detail as though the Government were competing for award? (FAR 36.203(a)) b. Was it marked FOUO prior to bid opening and was it filed with the other bids? Was the FOUO designation removed after bid opening? (DFARS 236.203(c)) c. Was the Government estimate recorded on the abstract of bids? 6. Did the advance notice and/or solicitation indicate the estimated price range of the procurement? (FAR 36.204) 7. Was a liquidated damages clause included in the contract? (DFARS 236.206) 8. Is a firm fixed-price contract anticipated? (FAR 36.207) 9. Were appropriate arrangements made for prospective offerors to inspect the work site and to have the opportunity to examine data? Was a record kept of the identities and affiliations of those who inspected the work site? Did the solicitation contain a site inspection provision? 10. Was a presolicitation notice issued? (FAR 36.302) 11. Was the presolicitation notice synopsized? (FAR 5.204) 12. Was a wage determination issued? Did the specifications include same? (FAR 36.303(c)(1)) 13. Was a SF 308, Request for Determination and Response to Request, used to request an installation or individual wage determination? Yes No N/A 14. Are modifications to the Department of Labor (DOL) wage determination time-date stamped? 15. If an amendment to the wage rate was issued, were procedures for amending the solicitation followed? 16. Was adequate time allowed between issuing and opening the solicitation? (FAR 36.303(a)) 17. Did the solicitation contain all the information required by FAR 36.303(c)(1) through (10), to include the following? a. wage determination; b. clause at FAR 52.236-1, Performance of Work by the Contractor; c. magnitude of the construction; d. period of performance; e. site inspection arrangements; f. information concerning facilities; g. information concerning prebid conference; h. special qualification or experience; and i. reporting requirements. 18. Were the clauses prescribed by FAR 36.501 through 36.521, and DFARS 236.570 included, as appropriate? 19. Did the solicitation specify the requirement for bonds, the penal sum for each bond, and the deadlines for submitting acceptable bonds? (FAR 28.102-2 and 28.102-3) 20. Was an adequate bid bond submitted with the bid? 21. Are the bid bonds signed by an agent of an approved corporate surety listed in the Treasury circular? 22. Was the original of the bonds submitted with the bid? 23. Are the penal amounts of performance and payment bonds correct? (FAR 28.102-2(a)(1) and (b)(1)) 24. Were bid bonds and performance and payment bonds considered in the determination of responsibility? 25. Were performance evaluation reports used in making the determination of responsibility? (DFARS 236.201(c)(2)) 26. If prequalification was used, was the approval of the HCA obtained? (DFARS 236.272) 27. If more than one item is subject to statutory cost limitation, is a separate schedule provided. Is the bid unbalanced? (FAR 36.205) 28. Does the notice of award include the information prescribed by FAR 36.304? YES NO N/A a. Identify the invitation for bids. b. Identify the contractor's bid. c. State the award price. d. Advise contractor that required payment and performance bonds must be promptly executed and returned to the contracting office. e. Specify the date of commencement of work, or advise that a notice to proceed will be issued. 29. Are the prescribed forms for construction contracts used? (FAR 53.236-1) (See also FAR 53.301-24, 53.301-25, and 53.301-25-A) a. SF 1417, Pre-Solicitation Notice (Construction Contract) b. SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer and Award (Construction, Alteration, or Repair) 30. If period of performance is more than one month, are progress payments authorized? 31. Was the clause at DFARS 252.232-5 included for progress payments? (FAR 32.111(a)(5)) 32. Is a construction warranty clause approved for usage? (FAR 46.710(e)(1)) 33. Does the small or small disadvantaged business concern meet the size standards of FAR 19.102? 34. Is the required insurance clause in the contract? (FAR 28.3, 52.228-5) 35. Are specific affirmative action goals for the geographical area established? If not known, have instructions been requested from the Director, DLA Acquisition (J7) or DCMA-O? (FAR 22.804) 36. Has all Government-furnished property been described in detail in the schedule? 37. Has the solicitation been totally set-aside for small business and appropriate clauses included for procurements estimated below $2 million? (DFARS 219.502-2) 38. Have the potential offerors been allowed enough time to submit bids? (i.e., 30 days minimum, or a justification to reduce the bidding time made by the contracting officer) (FAR 14.202-1) 39. If funds are contingent upon the availability of another fiscal year funding, does the solicitation contain the proper clauses pertaining to the Funds Availability? (FAR 32.705-1(a)) 40. Has a qualified COR been assigned?

SUBPART 90.7 – DAR CASE FORMAT

90.700 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes a uniform structure for all cases submitted to the DAR Council for formal consideration.

90.701 Purpose.

The case format serves two important functions.

(a) First, the prescribed structure for presenting the proposed case provides a very useful and clear exposition of the issues to assist the DAR Council in considering cases in a timely and efficient manner. By clearly setting out how the current regulations are perceived to be inadequate and the specific changes that will remedy the described situation, the case structure minimizes misunderstandings and helps avoid the delay that necessarily results when additional information or clarification is required from the party initiating a case.

(b) Second, the mandatory minimal information is necessary to comply with various Federal statutes, Executive Orders, or higher level regulations that require those who propose rules, either initially or by way of revision to existing regulations, to analyze and attempt to mitigate the burdens which the proposed rules may place on the public in general, and small businesses in particular. The case format appropriately places initial responsibility for identifying and considering those burdens on the party proposing that the FAR or DFARS be amended. For these reasons, cases that do not follow the prescribed format will be returned with appropriate guidance to the initiator.

90.702 Case format.

Every DAR case recommending an amendment to the FAR or the DFARS will consist of at least two parts: The statement of the case, and the two essential attachments discussed at 90.703-2. The initiator should provide any additional attachments or other documents which would be helpful to a more complete understanding of the issues.

90.703 Case statement.

The statement of the case shall be in the form of a memorandum, without signature block, to the Director, DAR Council; be in the format of: I. Problem; II. Recommendation; and III. Discussion, and be forwarded via a cover letter signed by the chief of the contracting office to DLA HQ, attention: J71.

90.703-1 Problem section.

The problem section should succinctly discuss an existing problem in the procurement process. A simple statement that some part of the FAR or DFARS should be changed, however, is not an adequate description of a problem upon which the DAR Council will act. As the foundation for every DAR case, the statement of the problem should convey as accurately and completely as possible the factual or legal reasons necessitating regulatory revision.

90.703-2 Recommendation section.

(a) The recommendation section consists of two elements: Citation of the specific language to be added, deleted, or revised in the FAR or DFARS (Tab A of the DAR case memorandum), and citation of certain documentation responsive to four collateral requirements mandated by Federal statutes, Executive Orders, and higher level regulations (Tab B of the DAR case memorandum).

(b) Tab A shall set forth as much of the pertinent section or paragraph of the FAR or the DFARS as is necessary to show the desired change in context. The language to be added should be enclosed in brackets and any deletions should be shown as lined through. Tab B shall contain the elements described as collateral requirements.

90.703-3 Discussion section.

(a) The discussion section should provide any background information, including prior DAR cases that are relevant to the current issues, which will assist the DAR Council in understanding the problem. This section should also demonstrate clearly how the recommended revisions to the FAR or DFARS will solve the problem identified.

(b) While the discussion should be succinct and to the point, if the initiator believes the recommendations may have side effects or disadvantages that are pertinent to the DAR Council's consideration, these should be addressed. Though the FAR and DFARS iterates the policy not "...to stifle the development of new techniques or methods of procurement," cases should not be proposed which cannot be justified in terms of administrative effort or expenditure of Government resources.

(c) Accordingly, the discussion section of the case shall include a justification that considers the full operations of the regulatory process, including DLA HQ review, committee analysis, DAR Council analysis, CAA Council analysis, publication for comment and review of comments, and other applicable steps.

90.704 Deviations.

(a) Requests for approval of a class deviation shall contain Problem, Recommendation and Discussion sections that adequately demonstrate a need for, and estimate the duration of, the deviation (see 90.703), and be forwarded to DLA HQ, attention: J71, via a cover letter signed by the Supply Chain HCA (unless delegated to the CCO) or the CCO for those DLA organizations with J7serving as the HCA. In addition, DFARS 201.402(3) prescribes certain specific types of information which must be supplied in support of any requested deviation.

(b) Deviation requests should be written as persuasively as possible. Initiators should address the regulation as it is currently written and specify what needs to be changed to institute or to continue their required practices; describe the peculiarities of their situation that make the deviation necessary; what alternatives have been tried or considered to avoid the deviations; and why the deviation is the best choice. In the case of extension requests, either propose a permanent change or describe efforts made to alleviate the need for the deviation.

SUBPART 90.13 – STREAMLINED SOLICITATIONS FOR ENERGY CONTRACTS (DEVIATION)

90.1300 Scope.

On 28 June 1990, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Procurement) approved as permanent DLAD coverage the DLA Energy deviation request to use streamlined solicitations for petroleum and coal acquisitions. Under the deviation, DLA Energy is permitted to omit a variety of clauses and substitute tailored clauses for other clauses normally required by FAR and DFARS.

90.1301 FAR clauses and provisions.

52.219-13 Utilization of Women-Owned Small Businesses.

The clause is not necessary to the acquisition of petroleum, petroleum-related services or coal because both subcontracting opportunities and the existence of woman-owned business in these commodities are minimal. DLA Energy has retained the certification clause to document those businesses that are women-owned.

52.222-28 Equal Opportunity Preaward Clearance of Subcontracts, and 52.244-1 and Alt. I Subcontracts (Fixed Price Contracts).

These clauses are not applicable to petroleum, petroleum-related services or coal because contracts are fixed price or fixed price with economic price adjustment and unpriced modifications are not issued.

52.227-1 Authorization and Consent, and 52.227-2 Notice and Assistance Regarding Patent and Copyright Infringement.

These clauses are not necessary to the acquisition of petroleum, petroleum-related services, or coal because patent considerations are not involved.

52.229-3 Federal, State, and Local Taxes, 52.229-4 Federal, State, and Local Taxes (Noncompetitive Contract), and 52.229-5 Taxes - Contracts Performed in U.S. Possessions or Puerto Rico.

A substitute DLA Energy clause was developed to simplify, consolidate and tailor the FAR clauses to petroleum, petroleum related services, and coal. The FAR clauses only address after imposed/after relieved Federal taxes and do not address such circumstances for state and local taxes applicable to DLA Energy procurement. The FAR clauses also require contract prices inclusive of all applicable Federal, State and local taxes. This is not acceptable to DLA Energy since some taxes at all levels are excluded from certain fuel products under Government use criteria in the Internal Revenue codes.

52.247-1 Commercial Bill of Lading Notations.

This clause is not necessary because the Government does not require prepayment of freight charges on petroleum or coal shipments.

52.247-54 Diversion of Shipment under Free on Board (f.o.b.) Destination Contracts.

This clause is not necessary to the acquisition of petroleum because this area is covered in other DLA Energy transportation clauses. The portions of this clause covering the use of paid freight bills to evidence delivery do not apply to petroleum shipments. Petroleum product deliveries are evidenced by delivery ticket copies and properly executed DD Forms 250. The portions of the clause limiting truck shipment reimbursement to 70 percent of the lowest published tariff is inappropriate for petroleum. Equitable adjustments for transportation are accomplished consistent with the methodology used to evaluate transportation.

Additional clauses are to be omitted:

52.214-6 Explanation to Prospective Bidders.

52.214-9 Failure to Submit Bid.

52.214-3 Amendments to Invitations for Bids.

52.214-12 Preparation of Bids.

52.227-3 Patent Indemnity.

52.246-23 Limitation of Liability.

These clauses are excluded from DLA Energy streamlined solicitations because they are superfluous to DLA Energy contracting or serve no useful purpose. Instructions for submitting amendments are sent with the amendments themselves. Fuel specifications require no explanation. Bid/offer preparations guidance is included in the schedule. Elaborate proposals are not a possibility. Patent and liability limitations are not applicable.

52.214-14 Place of Performance - Sealed Bid, and 52.215- 6 Place of Performance.

When a bidder or offeror submits a bid or offer, either the offeror tells us where the place of performance is located, or it is of no consequence. As a result, this clause serves no useful purpose in DLA Energy contracts.

52.246-1 Contractor Inspection Requirements.

This clause was streamlined out of non-petroleum contracts only (coal and services). The subject matter in this clause is covered by other DLA Energy clauses.

The subject matter of the following clauses is contained in DLA Energy special transportation clauses.

52.247-29 Free on Board (f.o.b.) Origin.

52.247-30 Free on Board (f.o.b.) Origin, Contractor's Facility.

52.247-31 Free on Board (f.o.b.) Origin, Freight Allowed.

52.247-32 Free on Board (f.o.b.) Freight Prepaid.

52.247-59 Free on Board (f.o.b.) Origin - Carload and Truckload Shipments.

52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting.

Domestic bulk petroleum requires small business manufacturers offering on set-aside requirements to refine at least 90% of the offered quantity. This is pursuant to 49 Federal Register 5037, February 9, 1984 (13 C.F.R. 121.2, fn. 4 (1989)). This clause is unnecessary in domestic bulk petroleum contracts.

52.219-15 Notice of Participation by Organizations for the Handicapped.

Handicapped organizations do not supply any products or services acquired by DLA Energy.

90.1302 - DFARS clauses/provisions.

252.243-7001 Pricing of Contract Modifications.

The price of petroleum is based on market-conditions, not cost, thus making this clause unnecessary for DLA Energy.

The following clauses are unnecessary in acquisitions for petroleum, petroleum related services, and coal. Domestic acquisitions rarely, if ever, involve supplies which have been transported from outside the United States by sea. Overseas bunkers, into-plane, and storage also do not involve ocean transportation. Nearly all shipments to overseas posts, camps, and stations take place by land; those few made by water are nearly all within foreign territorial waters and therefore subject to foreign cabotage laws, so that no U.S. flag vessels are available. Bulk fuels shipments are rarely on other than an f.o.b. origin basis, so that ocean shipment of end items is managed by the Military Sealift Command.

252.247-7022 Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea.

252.247-7023 Transportation of Supplies by Sea.

252.247-7024 Notification of Transportation of Supplies by Sea.

90.1303 DLA Energy clauses and provisions.

The following DLA Energy tailored clauses have been approved for use in streamlined solicitations.

52.229-9F15 Federal, State and Local Taxes (Deviation) (DLA Energy).

52.246-9FC3 Quality Provisions (Coal) (DLA Energy).

52.247-9FA1 Delivery Conditions for Tank Cars, Boxcars, Trucks, Transport Trucks, Trucks and

Trailers Tank Wagons, Pipeline or Lighters (DLA Energy).

52.247-9FH1 Shipment and Routing (DLA Energy).

SUBPART 90.14 – RECOUPMENT ACTIVITY REPORTING

90.1400 Sample reporting.

Illustrative recoupment activity reports are provided as follows:

15 April 1995 Report A. FY95, 1st Quarter 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between October and December 94 b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between October and December 94, for which the warranty period was still in effect b. $ _______ demanded against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 3. Recoupment breakdown (A1c + A2c) a. $ _______ part of (A1c + A2c) covered by monetary reimbursement b. $ _______ part of (A1c + A2c) covered by replacements

B. FY95, 2nd Quarter 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between January and March 95 b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between January and March 95, for which the warranty period was still in effect b. $ _______ demanded against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 3. Recoupment breakdown (B1c + B2c) a. $ _______ part of (B1c + B2c) covered by monetary reimbursement b. $ _______ part of (B1c + B2c) covered by replacements

Cumulative: 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ nonconformances reported/records established between Oct 94 and March 95 (A1a + B1a) b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount (A1b + B1b) c. $ _______ recouped against this amount (A1c + B1c) 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ nonconformances reported/records established between Oct 94 and March 95, for which the warranty period was still in effect (A2a + B2a) b. $ _______ demanded against this amount (A2b + B2b) c. $ _______ recouped against this amount (A2c + B2c) 3. Recoupment breakdown (A1c + B1c + A2c + B2c) a. $ _______ part of the overall total recoupment covered by monetary reimbursement (A3a + B3a) b. $ _______ part of the overall total recoupment covered by replacements (A3b + B3b)

A. FY95, 1st Quarter 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between October and December 94 b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between October and December 94, for which the warranty period was still in effect b. $ _______ demanded against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 3. Recoupment breakdown (A1c + A2c) a. $ _______ part of (A1c + A2c) covered by monetary reimbursement b. $ _______ part of (A1c + A2c) covered by replacements

B. FY95, 2nd Quarter 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between January and March 95 b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between January and March 95, for which the warranty period was still in effect b. $ _______ demanded against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 3. Recoupment breakdown (B1c + B2c) a. $ _______ part of (B1c + B2c) covered by monetary reimbursement b. $ _______ part of (B1c + B2c) covered by replacements

C. FY95, 3rd Quarter 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between April and June 95 b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between April and June 95, for which the warranty period was still in effect b. $ _______ demanded against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 3. Recoupment breakdown (C1c + C2c) a. $ _______ part of (C1c + C2c) covered by monetary reimbursement b. $ _______ part of (C1c + C2c) covered by replacements

Cumulative: 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between Oct 94 and June 95 (A1a + B1a + C1a) b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount (A1b + B1b + C1b) c. $ _______ recouped against this amount (A1c + B1c + C1c) 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between Oct 1994 and June 95, for which the warranty period was still in effect (A2a + B2a + C2a) b. $ _______ demanded against this amount (A2b + B2b + C2b) c. $ _______ recouped against this amount (A2c + B2c + C2c) 3. Recoupment breakdown (A1c + B1c + C1c + A2c + B2c + C2c) a. $ _______ part of the overall total recoupment covered by monetary reimbursement (A3a +B3a + C3a) b. $ _______ part of the overall total recoupment covered by replacements (A3b + B3b + C3b)

Continue in this manner according to the following schedule:

Report Date Period Covered Number of Quarters (plus cumulative) 31 Oct 95 Oct 94 - Sep 95 4 31 Jan 96 Oct 94 - Dec 95 5 30 Apr 96 Oct 94 - Mar 96 6 31 Jul 96 Oct 94 - Jun 96 7 31 Oct 96 Oct 94 - Sep 96 8 31 Jan 97 Oct 94 - Dec 96 9 30 Apr 97 Oct 94 - Mar 97 10 31 Jul 97 Oct 94 - Jun 97 11 31 Oct 97 Oct 94 - Sep 97 12 31 Jan 98 Jan 95 - Dec 97 12 30 Apr 98 Apr 95 - Mar 98 12

The following are examples:

A. FY95, 1st Quarter 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between October and December 94 b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between October and December 94, for which the warranty period was still in effect b. $ _______ demanded against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 3. Recoupment breakdown (A1c + A2c) a. $ _______ part of (A1c + A2c) covered by monetary reimbursement b. $ _______ part of (A1c + A2c) covered by replacements

B. FY95, 2nd Quarter 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between January and March 95 b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between January and March 95, for which the warranty period was still in effect b. $ _______ demanded against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 3. Recoupment breakdown (B1c + B2c) a. $ _______ part of (B1c + B2c) covered by monetary reimbursement b. $ _______ part of (B1c + B2c) covered by replacements

C. FY95, 3rd Quarter 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ nonconformances reported/records established between April and June 95 b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ nonconformances reported/records established between April and June 95, for which the warranty period was still in effect b. $ _______ demanded against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 3. Recoupment breakdown (B1c + B2c) a. $ _______ part of (B1c + B2c) covered by monetary reimbursement b. $ _______ part of (B1c + B2c) covered by replacements

D. FY95, 4th Quarter (Report the same categories of information)

E. FY96, 1st Quarter (Report the same categories of information)

*** (The asterisks represent all quarters from FY96, 2nd quarter *** } through FY97, 3rd quarter.)

L. FY97, 4th Quarter 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between July and Sep 97 b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between July and Sep 97, for which the warranty period was still in effect b. $ _______ demanded against this amount c. $ _______ recouped against this amount 3. Recoupment breakdown (L1c + L2c) a. $ _______ part of (L1c + L2c) covered by monetary reimbursement b. $ _______ part of (L1c + L2c) covered by replacements

Cumulative: 1. Recoupments a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between Oct 94 and Sep 97 (A1a + B1a + C1a + D1a + E1a + F1a + G1a + H1a + I1a + J1a + K1a +L1a) b. $ _______ demanded/requested against this amount (A1b + B1b + C1b + D1b + E1b + F1b ...L1b) c. $ _______ recouped against this amount (A1c + B1c + C1c + D1c + E1c + F1c ... L1c) 2. Express warranties a. $ _______ non-conformances reported/records established between Oct 94 and Sep 97, for which the warranty period was still in effect (A2a + B2a + C2a + D2a + E2a + F2a + G2a + H2a + I2a + J2a + K2a + L2a) b. $ _______ demanded against this amount (A2b + B2b + C2b + D2b + E2b + F2b ... L2b) c. $ _______ recouped against this amount (A2c + B2c + C2c + D2c + E2c + F2c ... L2c) 3. Recoupment breakdown (A1c + B1c + C1c + D1c + E1c + F1c + G1c +H1c + I1c + J1c + K1c + L1c + A2c + B2c + C2c + D2c + E2c + F2c +G2c + H2c + I2c + J2c + K2c + L2c) a. $ _______ part of the overall total recoupment covered by monetary reimbursement (A3a + B3a + C3a + D3a + E3a + F3a ... L3a) b. $ _______ part of the overall total recoupment covered by replacements (A3b + B3b + C3b + D3b + E3b + F3b ... L3b) Note: Three dots ( ... ) represent the intervening fiscal quarters, all of which should be reported.

SUBPART 90.15 – PERFORMANCE BASED LOGISTICS (PBL) ACQUISITION PROCESS

(Revised July 1, 2013 through PROCLTR 2013-54)

90.1501 Requirement.

(a) Performance based logistics (PBL) acquisitions are a major contributor to ensure the Agency continues to improve combat support to the warfighter while reducing investment costs in inventory and infrastructure. PBLs support program managers’ and military services’ goals of improving weapon system support through contractual performance metrics that support increased availability, increased reliability, reduced mean down time, and reduced ownership/lifecycle costs. Contracting officers shall consider use of PBLs in all supply procurements in support of a weapon system or systems and other supply or services procurements where use of an outcome-based approach is appropriate, and include a statement in the acquisition plan to address the rationale for determining whether a PBL is or is not appropriate.

(b) The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has established a structured approach to serve as a model for managing and executing PBL contracts. This process will be implemented by each primary level field activity (PLFA) for all contracts which meet the definition of a PBL contract. (See Part 2.)

(c) The purpose of this guidance is to outline the procurement role in the PBL acquisition process and to ensure participants involved are aware of and understand all aspects of the PBL contracting process. Given the dollar value, complexity, and importance of these types of contractual arrangements, there is a need to implement a program management approach that integrates business strategies with the acquisition process and enhances the Agency’s ability to provide the best support available to its customers. It is also imperative that DLA align its PBL approach fully with both the customer’s requirements and financial posture and that the PBL arrangement remains consistent with the acquisition strategies established and owned by the service program manager.

(d) PBL acquisitions may support a full weapon system, sub-system(s), commodities or components, a maintenance process, or a supply sub-process. Requirements originate from an identified need to enhance support in any of these areas through a contracting vehicle that produces measurable performance outcomes, rather than simply providing parts or technical services. The need for a PBL support arrangement may originate from many sources, including the weapon system Program Manager, DLA demand or supply chain, industry, or service industrial sites. The Program Manager/Program Executive Office must approve PBL arrangements that support full systems or major sub-systems and extensive service coordination and concurrence must be obtained for PBL support procurements. It is also helpful to have senior level “Champions” identified on both the Government and Industry side. PBL procurements often are difficult and require strong advocates to steer the team through legacy and transactional support mindsets.

(1) The scope of a PBL contract will be based upon one or more of the following Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) elements. The scope of the ILS elements included will be determined by the Service customer, in most cases the Service PM or ICP Weapons Manager. Performance outcomes must be outlined based upon the individual elements to be supported by the PBL contract. ILS elements include the following elements: 1) maintenance planning, 2) supply support, 3) support and test equipment/equipment support, 4) manpower and personnel, 5) training and training support, 6) technical data, 7) computer resources support, 8) facilities, 9) packaging, handling, storage, and transportation (PHS&T), and 10) design interface.

(e) In order to ensure successful PBL contracting implementation and to ensure that the appropriate level of buy-in is obtained from all responsible parties, PBL acquisitions will be developed in an integrated product team (IPT) environment. For PBL procurements that include both consumable and DLRs, the IPT should be co-chaired by DLA and the managing Service(s). The team will be efficiently comprised of representatives from both within and outside the organization – Government and Industry (Industry for consultation, when appropriate, but not as formal members of the IPT). With a structured and integrated process in place, DLA can achieve even greater benefits through the sharing of information, lessons learned, best practices, and a multi-functional approach to acquiring PBL support.

90.1502 PBL contracting process and milestone review and approvals.

(a) The PBL acquisition process will consist of four phases: Phase I – Strategic Sourcing; Phase II - Acquisition Planning; Phase III – Solicitation Phase; and Phase IV – Contract Award/Implementation. This section will discuss each aspect of the overall acquisition process.

(1) Phase I. Strategic Sourcing – Requirements Development Process.

(i) The program manager or service ICP or DLA customer operations personnel have the lead in identifying PBL support candidates and developing requirements. A Performance Based Agreement (PBA) with the customer is the foundation for the overall PBL support strategy, including the objectives and metrics. It is critical that the PBA be re-evaluated to ensure alignment with customer requirements during the lengthy administrative leadtime for PBL procurements.

(ii) The following actions take place during this phase:

Development of PBL objectives

Development of a metrics plan

Identification of candidate NSNs

Analysis of historical information

Completion of market research

Development of small business profile

Identification of core compliancy issues

(2) Phase II. Acquisition Planning

(i) In this phase, the cross functional IPT team is formed, the acquisition strategy is developed, economic feasibility analyzed, and procurement documents are drafted. The acquisition planning phase is characterized by a large amount of collaboration and refinement of documents. The appropriate Supply Chain is responsible for developing a detailed contract schedule or milestone schedule and assigning a lead for tracking actions and progress.

(ii) The IPT is comprised of appropriate process owners with stakeholder coordination and in some cases participation, depending upon the size and complexity of the acquisition. The IPT should function as an integrated team throughout the entire acquisition process to ensure all issues, concerns, and needs are appropriately addressed when pursuing the best value solution. IPT members may include, but should not be limited to technical specialists, engineers, demand planners and supply planners, item managers, quality assurance specialists, contract specialists, legal counsel, contract review and/or pricing analysts, financial analysts, weapon system support managers, supplier relationship managers, customer representatives, industry representatives (for consultation, when appropriate, but not as formal members of the IPT; appropriate measures will be taken to preserve procurement integrity and protect procurement information from improper disclosure to industry representatives), and the Program Manager (or designee). The procurement professional is a key member of the IPT during this phase as they are responsible for drafting procurement documents and communicating with the contractor if the PBL procurement is being developed using the Alpha contracting process.

(iii) When developing the acquisition plan, the integrated team should develop an approach that is appropriate to satisfying the requirement, consistent with sound business practices and based on the degree of risk involved. The team should also establish the managerial approach that will be used to direct and monitor all elements of the acquisition to achieve the goals and objectives of the Program Manager.

(iv) The IPT will develop a performance work statement (PWS), statement of objectives (SOO) or statement of work (SOW), as appropriate, to satisfy the requirements, goals and objectives of the Program Manager. The IPT will analyze additional requirements to determine which contract performance requirements, if any, should be subject to award, incentive fees, or disincentives.

(v) For PBLs that include support of DLRs, the PBL may include a contractual requirement for the Contractor to partner with a military service maintenance/repair depot for the repair of material. The depot acts as a “sub” to the Contractor, and their relationship is captured in a Commercial Services Agreement. This approach is used to satisfy statutory and DoD requirements for use of maintenance/repair depots. It is the responsibility of the contracting officer to determine the status of items covered by the PBL acquisition and ensure that contract terms and conditions ensure compliance with statutory and DoD requirements (see DoDI 4151.20, Depot Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process, and DoDI 4151.21, Public-Private Partnerships for Depot-Level Maintenance, for further information).

(vi) Planned contract type. Contract types (e.g. firm fixed price (FFP), fixed price incentive, fixed price with economic price adjustment) most likely to motivate contractors to perform at optimal levels shall be chosen, with consideration given to risk assessment and reasonable risk-sharing by the Government and the contractor(s). If acquiring commercial items under FAR Part 12, use of incentives is permitted as long as the incentive is based on factors other than costs, e.g. performance or delivery. From a contract type perspective, the goal is to award fixed price contracts. This arrangement is most compatible with the affordability objectives of PBL support arrangements, i.e., they should cost the same as traditional support, or less. The fixed price structure also is most compatible with the desire to shift risk and ownership to the contractor. Finally, FFP contracts create inherent incentives for the contractor to reduce costs, reduce transactions and touch-times; all of which are key to the objective of reducing cost. The inherent risk of entering into fixed price contracts early in a program when firm requirements are relatively unknown may necessitate the use of cost type contracts. As a general rule, legacy systems or components should be supported under firm fixed price PBL contracts. For early lifecycle programs cost type contracts may be considered, until risk factors associated with a fixed price contract type are minimized. Along those lines, PBL strategies will generally have a phased contract approach over the life cycle of the system and its support functions. Cost reimbursement contracts will graduate to fixed price contracts over time. When incentive contracts are used they should include tailored cost reporting to enable appropriate contract management and to facilitate future cost estimating and price analysis.

(vii) Solicitations and contracts targeted to large business should consider impacts on small business and should use creative subcontracting strategies for mitigating any impacts on small businesses. Bundling and consolidation requirements must be considered and addressed.

(viii) The PCO must determine whether the PBL is a supply or services contract. While both may be possible determinations, the DLA preference is for the use of supply contracts for its PBLs. The determination should be based on a thorough review of the statement of work and CLIN structure.

(ix) PBL contracts may be priced in a variety of ways depending on the contractual arrangement, item being supported, performance required by the Government, and a number of other factors. Some simple PBL type arrangements may be priced on an individual item basis (i.e., the contractor is paid by the number of items delivered). As the arrangement moves closer to a full-PBL type contract, unit pricing becomes less preferred. One form of performance based pricing is “power by the hour” where a contractor is paid a set price for each hour that a system operates at or above a specific performance level. PCOs must ensure that a correlation exists between flying hours or other applicable metric and usage in order to use this technique. A second form of performance based pricing is where the contractor is paid a set price for a period of support. DLA’s preference is for the pricing strategy for PBL contracts to be at the program level, i.e. based upon the overall savings. This allows the maximum level of flexibility to the contractor in supporting the outcomes required by the metrics.

(x) Also important to note, is that in any pricing scenario unit pricing will likely still be needed to support customer billing requirements, especially important in the working capital environment. The negotiated bill of materials for the PBL would be the likely source for this type information and may be required to be provided to the financial community prior to award and periodically during contract performance. It is important to remember that in these full-PBL type contracts, individual item level pricing must still be included in order to provide for non-PBL support (e.g. for FMS customers or operational needs). Additionally, an evaluation should also be conducted based upon the cost of each segment of the PBL (for example, each ILS element being supported) and in some cases for each item being support (for example, a PBL contract for Repairables and consumables). Use of different lines of accounting may be appropriate, and diligence must be paid to ensure the appropriate use of funds. The PCO will provide guidance in development of a CLIN structure to support multiple lines of accounting.

(xi) Exit strategy. A PBL procurement should have an exit strategy that ensures seamless customer support at the end of the PBL contract or the discontinuation of the PBL contract before its final expiration date (for example, due to funding constraints or contractor performance issues). This exit strategy should also be scalable, i.e., outlined in a progressive systematic manner whereby the supplier returns material and data back to Government management considering ongoing performance requirements.

(xii) It is important to note that there is no “one size fits all” PBL support strategy. The PM and IPT team will tailor the metrics and scope of the PBL model to the operational requirements of the system or component and ensure that a business model that allows for a win/win relationship with industry is developed.

(xiii) During the acquisition planning process phase the initiative must be evaluated in terms of economic feasibility. The Acquisition Business Case Analysis (BCA) is a document that identifies viable functional alternatives and presents economic and technical arguments for carrying out alternatives over an acquisition life cycle to achieve stated business objectives. The Acquisition BCA is designed to identify costs and benefits that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) will realize through the initiation of supply and services acquisition strategies. This analysis will help determine the alternative that is in the Government's best interest. The BCA process compares DLA's current "as-is" (status quo) benefits and costs of doing business to the benefit and costs of viable acquisition alternatives. (Reference DLA Instruction “Acquisition Business Case Analysis”).

(3) Phase III. Solicitation Phase

(i) The third phase of PBL development is the solicitation phase. In this phase, acquisition documents are signed, the acquisition is solicited, proposals are developed and audited, negotiations occur, and a final BCA is completed. It is in this phase where the procurement professional plays the largest role – although the other IPT members are also directly involved.

(ii) The Contracting Officer is the Government official authorized to legally negotiate and sign Government contracts. It is the duty of the CO to solicit, evaluate, negotiate, award, and administer the PBL. That said, a successful contract requires ongoing interaction between the contracting officer and the requirements office. The PCO should anticipate difficult and protracted negotiations. In the event that proposals and negotiations indicate that meeting all solicitation requirements may result in a cost higher than the requiring activity anticipates, the issue must be fully coordinated with the customer to ensure that requirements can be met within available or anticipated funding, and for a determination by the requiring activity of whether to decrease or revise requirements. Although the PCO is responsible for the “fair and reasonable” price determination related to PBL cost, the program must be affordable in the eyes of the customer to proceed to award. The financial sponsor may also require a final validation of the cash impact to the working capital funds.

(4) Phase IV. Contract award/implementation.

(i) In this phase, the contract is awarded and implementation begins. It is critical that prior to award the contract has a contract performance management plan. There is a need to provide enhanced monitoring of contractor performance and to ensure satisfactory administration of PBL acquisitions. Therefore, the contracting officer, in conjunction with the IPT, shall develop a contract performance management plan to delineate responsibilities for specific administration functions. The plan requires coordination within the IPT to include the Customer Support Representatives, the customer, and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), where appropriate. The plan shall describe the method of managing performance (measuring/tracking metrics and incentives) after award, identify specific roles and functions (include specific responsibilities for the contracting officer, COR (if applicable), ordering officer, DCMA, and program manager).

(ii) Performance review board. Consider establishing a performance review board. The board should be comprised of appropriate representatives within the PLFAs as well as customer representatives such as operational command, Service program managers, DCMA, and Service ICP weapon system managers. The purpose of the board is to oversee contract performance. This can be done on a periodic basis such as monthly, quarterly, etc., and may also serve as the review/approval forum for award fees, incentives, and disincentives in accordance with the associated plan. Responsibilities of the board include:

(A) Assessment of contractor performance against established, measurable standards incorporated into the contract.

(B) Re-assessment of logistical benefits and costs based on measured/tracked data and analyzed against the documented baseline decision analysis.

(C) Validating and updating the BCA prior to exercise of each option, upon significant changes during contract performance, and at completion of contract performance.

90.1503 Integrated acquisition review board.

(a) The IARB is the decision authority to be executed at the decision review points for major acquisitions. The reviews associated with each decision point will typically address business and acquisition strategies, risks, trade-offs, and the assessment of exit criteria as the acquisition progresses through the phases. (See 1.690.)

(b) The SPE retains the authority to review any high-visibility, special interest acquisition.

(c) Waiver of IARB review and approval requirements may be requested by the chief of the contracting office, under exceptional circumstances. The request for waiver shall be submitted to the DLA Acquisition Operations Division (J72), must include the rationale and justification for the waiver, and should address the minimum requirements under each milestone, to the extent practicable. Waivers are granted by the SPE on a case-by-case basis.

SUBPART 90.16 – STRATEGIC SUPPLIER ALLIANCE (SSA)

90.1600 Strategic Supplier Alliance Policy.

(a) Each DLA supply chain will continually review the supplier base for potential strategic supplier alliance candidates. At a minimum, each supply chain will review the supplier business base and nominate new SSA candidates annually. A mandatory review will be conducted in conjunction with the end of the fiscal year and the strategic materiel sourcing program review. Supply chain leadership may conduct additional reviews and propose SSA candidates at any time.

(b) Each SSA supplier will be assigned a supplier relationship manager (SRM). The SRM resides physically at the DLA location most appropriate to the supplier and is a permanent member of the Joint Steering Group (JSG). The SRM will manage DLA’s overall relationship with the SSA supplier. A single SRM may be assigned more than one SSA to manage.

(c) Each SSA will identify associated CAGE codes. Once an SSA is established, DLA contracting officers, regardless of supply chain, shall obtain coordination on all non-competitive contracting actions associated with SSA CAGE codes with the responsible SRM before award.

(d) DLA supply chains may use agreements, contracts, and alliances created and managed by non-DLA activities in SSA efforts.

(e) DLA supply chains may pursue participation in non-DLA sponsored SSAs.

(f) See DLA HQ J72 management website http://www.dla.mil/Acquisition. for additional program information.

(g) All SSA charters will include the following paragraph:

"The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), ______, and _______ have initiated efforts to identify opportunities across the spectrum of the Supplier and Government organizations to improve customer support, procurement, quality, program management, engineering, and program integration in order to further improve support to the warfighter. In all matters that arise under the Alliance, the parties commit to a broad-based, cooperative approach."

90.1601 Strategic supplier alliance process.

The strategic supplier alliance (SSA) process consists of four phases: Need determination, infrastructure development, implementation, and monitoring and measurement.

(a) Need determination.

(1) Identify alliance candidates.

(i) All SSA candidates must be suppliers that conduct single-source business with DLA over an extended and defined period. DLA suppliers with competitive and single-source business may be examined for SSA improvements in accordance with this policy. However, competitively procured items may only become part of the SSA under a separate contract with the supplier after a competitive award.

(b) DLA supply chains nominate SSA candidates to DLA HQ. The nominating supply chain creates the SSA nomination package. This information will be used to determine if an SSA presents a value-added opportunity to DLA and as a source document to assign the responsible supply chain. (Projected end state - supply chain assignments will not experience significance change until business systems modernization reaches full operational capability.) SSA nominating packages include the following information:

(i) Identification of all potential DoD stakeholders in the SSA.

(ii) Nomination of the supplier candidate identified by corporate name and potential CAGE code (include all associated CAGE codes).

(iii) Identification of the industry segmentation of the CAGE(s) and the federal supply class(es) of the single -source NSNs.

(iv) Obligations and annual demand values of single-source business with candidate supplier. The package will use a 3-year business base.

(v) A list of the single-source NSNs and contract count of the single-source business. The package will use a 3-year business base.

(vi) A brief description of the business rationale for a SSA with the candidate supplier.

(vii) Additional information as needed.

(c) The nominating supply chain shall disseminate the SSA nominating package to all DLA center SSA POCs for review and comment. The DLA center SSA POCs are DLA Troop Support– P, DLA Land and Maritime – P, DLA Aviation– KI.

(d) The nominating supply chain submits the SSA nomination package to DLA HQ J72. DLA HQ J72 reviews all SSA nomination packages. A determination of approval-to-proceed or disapproval will be made within 5 business days. DLA HQ J72 will provide rationale for any disapproval. Disagreements between supply chains and their detachments shall be adjudicated by the DLA HQ J72.

Supply Chain Assignments by Location (detachments may be located at multiple locations) | Supply Chain
DLA Aviation | Aviation
DLA Land and Maritime | Land, Maritime
DLA Troop Support | Medical, subsistence, clothing and textiles, construction and equipment

(e) Once DLA HQ grants approval-to-proceed to the SSA effort, all supply chains will be notified by DLA HQ J72. The responsible supply chain officially initiates contact with the supplier candidate for interest in establishing an SSA. The responsible supply chain determines the best strategy to approach a supplier candidate. Format of the approach is at the discretion of the responsible supply chain. DLA HQ level contact or support with efforts to communicate with the supplier candidate will be made available to the responsible supply chain, if requested. Contact with nominated SSA suppliers may be delayed to accommodate stakeholders. SSA initiatives will be added to the DLA SSA Strategic Execution plan when the nominated supplier accepts the invitation to begin establishment of an SSA.

(f) Once a supplier candidate agrees to begin SSA discussions, the responsible supply chain arranges the initial meeting with the supplier to introduce the SSA concept, if necessary. Initial meetings with the supplier candidate should include SSA education, fact-finding, discovery, and benefit discussions. The initial meeting may include DoD stakeholder representatives and others as determined by the responsible supply chain.

(g) Identification of stakeholders. The term “stakeholder” refers to DoD government activities only. The SSA candidate is known as the “supplier.”

(1) The responsible supply chain will identify and make contact with all stakeholders to determine potential interest in participation. All DLA supply chains will be contacted to review inter-agency stakeholder status. DLA customer relationship managers (CRMs) are potential stakeholders. Non-DLA stakeholders may include, but are not limited to, the Military Services, multiple activities within a Military Service, DCMA, and other Federal Agencies. Non-DLA stakeholder point(s) of contact (POCs) are pursued on a case-by-case (individual SSA) basis by the responsible supply chain.

(2) When planning any meeting with the Military Services to discuss strategic issues regarding a specific supplier or DLA’s general SSA program, the responsible supply chain must coordinate with DLA HQ J72 by providing the purpose of meeting, proposed date/time/location/duration, and attendee listing. E-mail is acceptable.

(3) Additional stakeholders may be added to the SSA effort at any point.

(4) Each stakeholder identifies desired benefits. When notified that an SSA effort has been approved-to-proceed and stakeholders have been identified, the responsible supply chain will request and coordinate benefit analysis from all stakeholders. Each stakeholder must articulate desired benefits and planning assumptions. The responsible supply chain will consolidate stakeholder input.

(5) Stakeholders meet to determine SSA focus/common strategic goals and establish plan of action and milestones (POA&M) for the SSA. Once benefit analysis has begun among the stakeholders, the responsible supply chain conducts an SSA focus meeting. Ideally, the focus meeting should occur prior to contact with the candidate supplier. Stakeholder participation in SSAs is a go/no-go decision. A go decision indicates a stakeholder will join DLA in the SSA process. A no-go decision indicates the stakeholder will not take part in DLA SSA efforts.

(i) The focus meeting must discuss and document the basic goals and objectives of the SSA.

(ii) The focus meeting must document an overall plan of action and milestones (POA&M).

(iii) The focus meeting must negotiate and document a go/no-go decision schedule. An affirmative decision (GO) to participate is required by an established decision date.

(iv) The responsible supply chain shall invite DLA HQ J72 to attend SSA focus meetings. If DLA HQ J72 is unable to attend, the responsible supply chain shall provide minutes.

(6) SSA “go/no go” decision by all stakeholders.

(i) After the focus meeting, all DoD stakeholders will conduct internal coordination concerning the proposed SSA. If no focus meeting is held, stakeholders need only respond to the responsible supply chain to register their intentions (go/no-go). DoD stakeholders must respond affirmatively (go) to the responsible supply chain in accordance with the established schedule to participate in the SSA. If a DoD stakeholder expresses a no-go decision, its status as a stakeholder is removed from the SSA effort. A “no-go” activity may continue unilaterally with the candidate supplier or rejoin the effort at a later time.

(ii) Once all stakeholders have made a go/no-go decision, the responsible supply chain shall develop the overall SSA strategy based upon the benefit analysis and focus meetings. In coordination with stakeholders, the responsible supply chain drafts the SSA charter to formalize the relationship. Each individual SSA charter is tailored to the supplier as negotiated.

(7) SSA charter routed for signature by senior leadership

(i) The responsible supply chain shall submit the SSA charter to DLA HQ J72 when the final version has been negotiated with the supplier and DoD stakeholders. DLA HQ J72 will coordinate the charter for signature by DLA-D. The responsible supply chain will determine what other stakeholder signature(s) are to be included on the charter. The responsible supply chain will obtain these DoD stakeholder signature(s), and the supplier signature in the order cited in paragraph b below. The responsible supply chain will sponsor any signature ceremonies. SSA supplier signatory level must be at a level equal to or greater than the Director of DLA. The responsible supply chain will ensure enough SSA charter copies are available for each signatory to have a charter with original signatures.

(ii) Sequence of charter signatures:

(Signatories: only DLA-D and supplier) – DLA-D, then the supplier

(Signatories: Multiple DoD Stakeholders, DLA-D, and supplier) – Various DoD stakeholders, then DLA-D, then the supplier

(iii) There may be cases when DLA joins a SSA alliance initiated by a military service. The DLA Director’s signature on a Military Service-initiated charter signifies DLA’s SSA participation with the supplier.

(iv) Once signed by all parties, the responsible supply chain will distribute charter originals and copies as needed. An SSA charter will remain on file at DLA HQ J72. When additional DoD stakeholders join the SSA after the charter has been signed, use an addendum to the SSA charter if no significant changes to the charter are anticipated. Minimum DLA signatory level on SSA charter addendums is a DLA center Commander/Director/Administrator. Create a new charter for significant changes advanced by a new DoD stakeholder and approved at the executive committee level. The responsible supply chain is responsible for the creation, coordination, and execution of any modifications or addendums to the existing charter. DLA HQ J72 must be notified prior to changes in any SSA charter.

(h) Infrastructure development. The responsible supply chain will formally establish the following SSA team structures with the supplier and stakeholders: executive committee, joint steering group, and improvement teams.

(1) Establish Executive Committee. The Executive Committee should be established at the SES/Flag or GS-15/O-6 level. Industry partner (supplier) committee members must be at a commensurate level. For DLA, the executive committee includes Center Commanders/Directors and/or Deputies, the Supply Chain HCA, and responsible supply chain Directorate Level. DLA HQ, Director, DLA Acquisition (J7) and J72 are standing members of the executive committee. DLA HQ J72 will be notified of all executive committee meetings and may be the only representative for Director, DLA Acquisition (J7). Under routine participation, the executive committee meets as deemed appropriate by the Commander/Director or Deputy Commander of the Supply Chain.

(2) Establish Joint Steering Group (JSG). The Joint Steering Group (JSG) will be established initially with stakeholders at the GS-14 level or above. Industry partner (supplier) committee members will be at a commensurate level. For DLA, the JSG includes the cognizant Supplier Relationship Manager (SRM), Supplier Team Leads, and Business Unit Leader. Agency customer relationship managers (CRMs) identified as stakeholders will be invited to become core members of the JSG. Face-to-face meetings are expected quarterly. Video teleconferences may be utilized as needed throughout the year.

(3) JSG develops objectives for each SSA goal and the roles and responsibilities.

(4) Once the JSG is established, the JSG meets to evaluate and refine the pre-charter focus goals, objectives, and plan of action and milestones (POA&Ms). The JSG will identify initial SSA improvement opportunities and outcomes. As part of the JSG, the responsible supply chain details the SSA execution strategy:

(i) The JSG will develop the SSA execution strategy to a specific plan of action.

(ii) The JSG will determine targets of opportunity, for example, high priority NSNs, pricing methodologies, etc..

(iii) The JSG will establish improvement teams for each improvement opportunity as required, and prioritize improvement opportunities.

(iv) The JSG will establish POA&Ms for each improvement opportunity.

(v) The JSG will create and attach metrics to assess performance of the SSA.

(5) Based upon the aforementioned JSG items, the responsible supply chain will document and update the SSA execution strategy.

(6) Executive committee approves goals, objectives, and improvement opportunities. Once the SSA execution strategy has been developed, the JSG will return to the executive committee for approval. The JSG obtains Executive Committee “buy-in” for each improvement opportunity. Each improvement opportunity with executive committee approval is immediately available for implementation.

(i) Implementation. The responsible supply chain will monitor all contract actions related to the SSA.

(1) Two criteria must be met to brief the DLA Director that a SSA has been formally implemented:

(i) A signed and completed SSA charter.

(ii) A new contract or a modification to an existing contract has been awarded to the SSA supplier. The new contract or modification must include performance criteria and improved business practices identified by the alliance members. The award shall include DLA items. Use of a non-DLA contractual instrument is acceptable. In cases where improvements do not result in an immediate contractual action, a decision will be made by DLA HQ, J72, that significant result(s) from SSA process improvement(s) have been accomplished.

(2) For SSAs that have already been implemented, a “refocusing” meeting may be necessary when new stakeholders join the effort. The responsible supply chain will arrange and host any “refocusing” meetings with existing stakeholders to examine new targets of opportunity brought by the new stakeholder. “Refocusing” meetings will be completed within 30 days of a new stakeholder’s declaration of intent to join the SSA. The responsible supply chain will determine if a “refocusing” meeting is required and whether the addition of a stakeholder will necessitate change(s) to the SSA charter.

(j) JSG assigns champion and creates an improvement team for each improvement opportunity if required. Improvement teams are established (by the JSG) as necessary at the appropriate expertise level. Skill sets of members must be sufficient to work through identified improvement opportunities. Improvement teams may also include CRMs. Improvement team meetings are held as required. Improvement opportunities shall be prioritized by the JSG.

(1) JSG assigns adequate resources to each improvement team. If resources are insufficient for all improvement opportunities, the Executive Committee/JSG will dedicate available resources according to the established priority.

(2) Each improvement team develops POA&M and metrics.

(3) JSG approves improvement team’s POA&M and metrics.

(4) Improvement teams are empowered to work the issues and recommend solutions.

(5) JSG oversees implementation of improvement opportunities.

(k) Monitoring and measurement.

(1) The responsible supply chain will continually ensure the SSA is reviewed and reassessed to determine if changes need to be made to the alliance focus or if additional stakeholders need to be included.

(2) The JSG shall manage (monitor and measure) the performance of the SSA through Supplier Readiness Review metrics. Each DLA SSA corporate contract shall be measured using the following Supplier Readiness Review Metrics:

- Growth: adding items to the contracts within the SSAs - Delivery based on the requirements of the individual contracts. Metrics should cover stock and DVD as appropriate. - Quality - Cost reductions and/or price controls through the partnership - Back order performance - PLT reduction - ALT reduction - Percent of annual demand for a given supplier covered by the items placed on contract

(3) As business systems modernization and Agency practices mature, measurements are expected to refine and align with the Key Performance Indicators.

(4) Each improvement team briefs progress and results to the JSG. The Executive Committee will manage all Milestones/POA&Ms set by the JSG and the improvement teams. If at any time, the supplier disengages from SSA efforts, the SRM will immediately inform DLA HQ and all stakeholders of the supplier’s position. A stakeholder’s focus meeting may be reconvened, as necessary, to terminate the effort or adjust strategy.

(5) JSG provides periodic status to the Executive Committee. Executive Committee meetings are held at the request of the JSG or as requested by the Executive Committee.

(6) Executive committee and JSG reassess goals, objectives and improvement opportunities.

(7) JSG reviews measurements and takes action as needed.

90.1602 SSA definitions.

Executive Committee. Senior management committee comprised of a member from each stakeholder organization and the supplier. Responsibilities include SSA oversight and review and approval of all SSA activities. This committee exists for the life of the Alliance.

Charter. Document stating the commitment of each organization to partner in a Strategic Supplier Alliance and signed by the senior government and corporate executive of each alliance organization.

Improvement Opportunities. Targeted problem issues or identified Best Practices that need to be investigated, analyzed and resolved by the Improvement Teams.

Improvement Team. A team established by the SSA Joint Steering Group to address a specifically identified improvement opportunity. Membership is from all stakeholder organizations and the supplier and is cross-functional to represent areas which the specific improvement can affect. This team exists for a specific period of time, which is dependent on the scope and resolution of the identified improvement opportunity.

Goals. An agreed upon set of outcomes which the SSA works toward achieving.

Joint Steering Group (JSG). Day-to-day SSA management committee comprised of members from all stakeholder organizations and the supplier. Responsibilities include focusing the SSA on goals, objectives and improvement opportunities; establishing and managing improvement teams and monitoring overall SSA progress. This committee exists for the life of the Alliance.

Responsible supply chain. The DLA supply chain managing the SSA.

Objectives. Tasks to be accomplished in order to achieve goals.

Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M). The roadmap developed to chart the course from SSA determination, via development and implementation, through monitoring and measurement.

Stakeholder. Those government activities with a declared interest in the SSA business relationship with the supplier; includes all DLA centers, DLA HQ, DoD activities (Military Services, DCMA, etc.). For purposes of these instructions, those activities that decline participation in the SSA are not stakeholders. The SSA supplier is identified as the “supplier” to differentiate government-internal activities from all-participant activities.

Strategic Supplier Alliance (SSA). A DLA/customer/supplier partnership that transcends purchasing transactions to develop strategies and improvement opportunities that facilitate the sharing of information and which combines the purchasing power and knowledge of the customer and fully engages the supplier’s capabilities to deliver superior value.

Supplier. For the purposes of SSAs, suppliers are industry partners identified as critical to meeting customer expectations and mission readiness subsequent to a DLA business profile analysis.

Supplier Relationship Manager (SRM). A position designated by DLA that manages partnerships with key suppliers and seeks to deliver significant return on investment to the enterprise. This individual serves as the single point of contact and subject matter expert for assigned supplier(s). Additionally, the SRM collaborates across the DLA enterprise to meet customer and supplier expectations.

SUBPART 90.18 – “PRICE PENDING” ITEMS

90.1800 Background.

(a) This part describes the policy and procedures for adding “price pending” items to long-term contracts (LTCs).

(b) Definition: As used in this part, ‘price pending” items represent supplies or services that are included in LTCs when pricing and the price reasonableness determination has been deferred pending the identification of an actual demand and the implementation of a pre-established pricing methodology or mechanism that has been agreed upon by the Government and vendor providing the supplies or service.

(c) Under limited circumstances “price pending” items may be included in LTCs. This may be appropriate for strategic material sourcing (SMS) items and/or items that do not have a reliable price history and the future demands are not definite.

(d) The chief of the contracting office must approve, in writing, the inclusion of “price pending” items prior to the issuance of the solicitation. The inclusion of “price pending” items may be considered only if all the following circumstances are present:

(1) Candidate items are SMS readiness items (weapon system indicator codes (WSIC) F, L, T, G, M, W, H, P and X), as well as other items, having very low or no anticipated projected demands for the next three years (from the date of the award) making it impractical to obtain pricing or pricing information;

(2) A determination of whether the item is commercial or non-commercial should be documented;

(3) A determination has been made that the items are only available on a sole source basis from the contractor;

(4) The item must be included in a group of items considered for a LTC;

(5) A not-to-exceed delivery schedule must be established for the items;

(6) The contractor must agree to supply the items once a demand is identified; and,

(7) A pre-established agreed upon pricing methodology items consistent with the applicable policies and guidelines of the FAR and DLAD must be incorporated into a strategic supplier alliance or contract. This should be accomplished during negotiations of the SSA agreement or the contract. The chief of the contracting office should consider amending established SSA agreements to include the agreed upon pricing methodology. The price must be determined reasonable before the item(s) is purchased.

(e) The contract must include appropriate language providing for the addition of NSNs as the price is definitized, within the scope of the contract.

(f) Additionally, contracting officers should consider if surplus is available to meet the requirement before considering price pending items.

SUBPART 90.19 – COMPETITIVE SOURCING AND HIGH PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONS (HPOs)

90.1901 Letter of obligation (LoO) issuance, acceptance, and key personnel roles and responsibilities.

(a) This guidance establishes agency-wide policy for LoO issuance, acceptance, and roles and responsibilities of key personnel associated with the LoO. It is applicable to LoOs resulting from competitive sourcing competitions under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 and the establishment of high performing organizations (HPOs). The LoO is a formal agreement between the government and the in-house service provider that incorporates the cost and performance obligations that the most efficient organization (MEO) or HPO shall meet throughout the performance period.

(b) LoOs will be issued upon completion of the contest period for competitive sourcing competitions or prior to nominating an activity for HPO designation by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment). Subject to J-75 concurrence, the procuring contracting officer (PCO) will issue a LoO to either the agency tender official (ATO) or the official responsible for the performance of the MEO for competitive sourcing competitions, or to the official responsible for the performance of the HPO when HPOs are established. The agency tender official and the official responsible for the performance of the MEO/HPO will hereafter be called the LoO designee.

(c) The administrative contracting officer (ACO) will administer the LoO, including monitoring and enforcing adherence to performance requirements and standards, negotiating and executing modifications, resolving disputes, exercising options, assessing quality of performance and accepting services and work, and terminating performance when appropriate. The ACO will appoint a contracting officer’s representative (COR) in the continuing Government activity (CGA) to monitor and accept services provided by the MEO/HPO. The COR will monitor the MEO/HPO performance in accordance with the quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) to ensure compliance with the acceptable performance levels specified in the LoO.

(d) The LoO designee is responsible for the success of the MEO/HPO and has oversight responsibility for controlling quality and cost of the MEO/HPO in its execution of and adherence to the LoO overall performance periods. The LoO designee’s signature on the LoO signifies acceptance of its requirements, and the LoO designee thereby commits that the MEO/HPO shall meet the LoO’s cost and performance goals for all performance periods. The LoO designee may delegate authority over the MEO/HPO to a designee, but cannot delegate responsibility. The LoO designee’s responsibilities shall be reflected in the performance plan for the individual appointed as the LoO designee. The LoO designee shall not be in the same rating chain as the ACO.

90.1902 LoO change requests for MEOs and HPOs.

(a) This guidance establishes Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) policy for requesting review and approval of LoO change requests. Proper processing and documentation of changes to LoO requirements, cost changes, and resulting modifications is necessary to comply with recent policy on post-competition and HPO accountability and reporting; see OMB Memorandum for the President’s Management Council, April 13, 2007, subject: Validating the Results of Public-Private Competition; and, OMB Circular A-76, Attachment B, Paragraph E.4, “Monitoring Performance.”

(b) LoO change requests must be submitted using the mandatory template at PGI 90.1902(b) and shall be fully documented in writing. This documentation shall include a detailed explanation that justifies why the change is needed, if the MEO/HPO initiated the change, how the specific dollar amount requested is calculated, and an analysis of its cost impact. Each LoO change request that impacts the Agency cost estimate (ACE) shall be inputted by the MEO/HPO into COMPARE (or equivalent OSD-approved costing methodology or system) and have cost details on COMPARE adjustments to Lines 1 thru 6 on the standard competition form across performance periods attached.

(c) LoO change requests resulting in a modification package must be coordinated with the COR prior to submittal to the appropriate approving official (see 90.1902(g)). The COR or designated representative will update the adjusted baseline cost to reflect the change, compare it to the updated LoO ACE to measure the cost impact of the change request to projected gross savings across performance periods, and provide a summary of this analysis in the request package when it is forwarded to the appropriate approving official. The Requiring Activity (RA) Commander, Director, or Senior Executive Service (SES) member (if not also the approving authority) will review any change request that exceeds $1 million and provide appropriate recommendations and comments to the approving official. LoO changes will be documented in accordance with OMB Circular A-76, Attachment B, Subparagraph E.4.(4), “maintain the currency of the contract file, consistent with FAR Subpart 4.8, for contracts, MEO letters of obligation, and fee-for-service agreements.”

(d) Procurements or acquisition actions that typically justify LoO change requests include the following:

(1) Expanded requirements or increase in workload in excess of that designated in the request for proposal (RFP).

(2) Changes to performance requirements such as acceptable performance levels, or establishing/ changing the significance levels of nonconforming performance (e.g., critical, major, minor).

(3) Clarification of requirements; the need for these is often identified by the CGA during QASP implementation or while performing assessments.

(4) Policy changes initiated by statute, executive order, regulation, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Headquarters DLA, or the requiring activity.

(5) Conditions beyond the MEO/HPO’s control, such as requiring activity-imposed hiring freezes and/or manpower reductions, Office of Personnel Management directed pay rate and benefits adjustments, or new collective bargaining agreements.

(e) Situations that are not appropriate as the basis for LoO change requests are given in paragraphs (1) and (2) below. These types of changes will be documented by the initiator and reported to the ACO in order to assess actual MEO/HPO cost and performance against the Agency Tender/HPO. The documentation will become part of the LoO file.

(1) RA decision, when none of the above justifiable factors are present, to allow an MEO/HPO to adjust its current year “spending plans” in order to prevent mission failure.

(2) Conditions such as high civilian personnel turnover and/or inability to hire at the proposed grade/skill/hours available (e.g., part-time vs. full-time; temporary vs. permanent; upgrading positions for retention purposes) within the MEO/HPO.

(f) If the change would result in an increase of 30 percent or more in the MEO’s operating costs or total capital investment, a new competition will be conducted before an agency source can be used to perform the work. (See OMB Circular A-76, paragraph 5.d. and Attachment D, Definitions, regarding expansions.)

(g) Approval authority for LoO change requests is determined by calculating the value of change requests using the impact over the entire performance period, including option periods. Approval authority thresholds are as follows:

(1) The ACO will approve or disapprove change requests up to $1 million in value.

(2) The chief of contracting office will approve or disapprove all change requests that exceed $1 million in value, but are less than or equal to $10 million.

(3) The head of contracting activity (HCA) will approve or disapprove change requests that exceed $10 million.

(h) For requests equal to or under $10 million, coordination and approval/disapproval of the change request decision will occur within four work weeks after the change request package is received by the RA CGA. For change requests that exceed $10 million, the request will be submitted to the HCA for approval with a copy furnished to J7. The ACO will report all newly-approved change requests to J7 no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter.

(i) The LoO change request submitter may request review by the next higher approval authority when a change request up to $10 million is disapproved. The request must be submitted within 10 working days from date of disapproval to be considered. The next higher approval authority has 10 working days after the request is received to resolve the matter.

(j) If the approving authority determines that urgent and compelling circumstances require that a change be implemented before a change request can be approved through the normal process, the approving authority may authorize the LoO designee to proceed with the change on an interim basis not to exceed 4 weeks. This interim approval does not eliminate the requirement to process a change request in accordance with this policy. The approval authority’s action, including supporting rationale, will be fully documented in the contract file and will be included in the change request submitted in accordance with this policy.

90.1903 A-76 standard competition milestones.

(a) This guidance establishes policy regarding major acquisition milestones for competitive sourcing competitions under OMB Circular A-76. Competitive sourcing acquisitions will consist of three major acquisition milestones, hereafter called Milestones A, B, and C. These milestones occur at key decision points in the acquisition life cycle for standard competitions conducted under OMB Circular A-76.

(b) Milestone A – Announcement and release of solicitation decisions. Milestone A has two decision points: the decision to announce the competition; and, the decision to release the solicitation for proposals. The two decision points are described below.

(1) Milestone A1 – Competition announcement decision: The Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) will make the decision to proceed with formal announcement of the competition. The RA’s preliminary planning team will provide a decision briefing and preliminary planning report to the Senior Procurement Executive. General Counsel (DLA General Counsel), J74, the A-76 Contracting Office (DLA Land and Maritime), the Acquisition Operations Division (J72), and the servicing DLA Human Resources Center will advise the SPE on the requiring activity’s readiness to proceed with announcement. The Senior Procurement Executive will decide at the briefing, in consultation with the requiring activity’s Commander or Director, if a competition announcement should be made, if additional information is needed before making an announcement, or if an alternative course of action should be pursued in lieu of a competition.

(2) Milestone A2 – Decision to release the solicitation for proposals: The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make the decision to release the RFP. The SSA is responsible for the review and approval of the solicitation’s performance work statement, instructions, conditions, and notices to offerors or respondents, and evaluation factors for award; as well as reviewing and approving the acquisition plan and the source selection plan. The SSA will appoint a Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) to review the acquisition plan, source selection plan, and RFP in order to advise the SSA on the solicitation’s readiness for release. The SSAC will be comprised of senior-level representatives from the DLA General Counsel, the A-76 Contracting Office (DLA Land and Maritime), Human Resources Directorate (J1), the appropriate Headquarters DLA business office that has oversight of the RA, J72, Financial Operations Directorate (J8), and the RA. The SSA will appoint an individual from the SES to chair the SSAC. The A-76 Program Manager will serve as the acting chairman in the absence of the SSAC chairman.

(c) Milestone B – SSA performance decision. The SSA will make the performance decision, which per OMB Circular A-76 marks the formal completion of the A-76 competition. The SSA’s performance decision is formalized by certifying the Standard Competition Form and is based on the recommendation from the SSAC, which reviews the source selection evaluations from the Source Selection Evaluation Board, the Price Evaluation Board, and the Contracting Officer’s evaluation of socioeconomic programs proposals from commercial offerors. While the SSA may use reports and analyzes prepared by others, the performance decision must represent the SSA’s independent judgment. The performance decision serves as the basis for awarding the competition to the agency tender, commercial offeror, or public-reimbursable tender.

(d) Competitive sourcing post-award accountability review. A special Integrated Acquisition Review Board (IARB) chaired by the DLA SPE will meet to conduct a post-award accountability review within 90 days after one year of full operations by the service provider (SP). IARB membership will be in accordance with 1.690. The ACO will review and report on the SP’s performance and cost of operations, as applicable, and on any approved changes to the contract or letter of obligation to the IARB. The ACO will make a recommendation to the IARB regarding continued performance by the SP. The IARB will take the ACO’s report and recommendations under consideration and issue a determination on corrective actions to be taken, if any.

90.1904 Monitoring responsibilities.

(a) This section includes policy regarding the activities and responsibilities that occur following a performance decision under Office of Management and Budget Circular (OMB) A-76, Performance of Commercial Activities, or the designation of an activity as a High Performing Organization (HPO), and establishes agency-wide policy for implementing post-award performance monitoring of Service Providers (SP). A service provider may be a most efficient organization (MEO), private contractor, or public reimbursable source resulting from a competitive sourcing competition, or an activity designated as an HPO by the Department of Defense (DOD) Competitive Sourcing Official (CSO) or by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) CSO. All performance monitoring of the service provider will be performed by the requiring activity’s continuing Government activity (CGA) in support of the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).

(b) A post-award conference will be held after contract award for a private offeror, issuance of a letter of obligation (LoO) to an MEO or HPO, or issuance of an inter-service support agreement (ISSA) for a public reimbursable tender. The purpose of the conference is to review the contract/Letter of Obligation (LoO)/ISSA requirements and phase-in/transition to ensure all parties have a clear understanding of the performance requirements, transition/phase-in plan of action and milestones, reports/submittals, change request procedures, and roles and responsibilities. Key participants will include the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and the ACO issuing and administering the contract/LoO/ ISSA, the CGA’s Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), the RA’s transition team leader (if one has been appointed), and the LoO designee for MEOs/HPOs or the contractor, as appropriate.

(c) The CGA is responsible for monitoring the service provider’s performance in accordance with the RA’s quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) to assure that the SP is performing to the acceptable performance levels (APLs) in the performance work statement (PWS). The CGA will monitor the service provider throughout all authorized performance periods and report results through the COR to the ACO. The monitoring will include assuring service provider compliance with the terms of the PWS, inspecting and evaluating the service provider’s quality control program, and transition during contract or LoO startup and closeout.

(d) The ACO will submit monthly reports to J7 thru J72 during transition and quarterly reports for the first twelve months of full performance for a post-award competition service provider. Following the Milestone C review by a special Integrated Acquisition Review Board (IARB), the ACO will continue to submit quarterly reports to J7thru J72 or as otherwise directed by the IARB. The ACO will submit quarterly reports to J7 thru J72 for HPOs beginning with the first full quarter of performance. ACO reports will focus on actual costs, performance against APLs, modifications, change requests/requests for equitable adjustments currently under review, and, if service provider performance is unsatisfactory, steps being taken to address this, including status of the service provider’s corrective action improvement plan and current surveillance results of those activities rated unsatisfactory.

90.1905 Department of Defense commercial activities management information system (DCAMIS).

(a) This section establishes agency-wide policy for the administration and use of DCAMIS. DCAMIS is the DOD database of record established to meet official reporting requirements on the conduct of A-76 competitions and the results from implementing A-76 decisions and HPOs. It is a web-based execution tracking system for the DOD Competitive Sourcing Program, which provides competition/HPO-specific data for a myriad of high-level government users (e.g., program managers, DOD components, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), OMB, Government Accountability Office, Congress). Requiring activity commercial activities program offices (CAPOs) will use DCAMIS as the source for the data described in the DCAMIS A-76 Users Guide, October 1, 2007.

(b) The acquisition programs and business operations division (J74) is responsible for administering DCAMIS for DLA and for reviewing all cost and performance data input into DCAMIS.

(c) The requiring activity commercial activities program offices are responsible for inputting and validating all cost and performance data into DCAMIS for competitive sourcing MEOs/contractors and HPOs. Requiring activity commercial activities program offices may delegate responsibility for inputting cost and performance data down to the CGA level. Access to DCAMIS will be limited on a “need to know” basis; no access will be provided to service provider personnel. J74 will review and approve all DLA requests for access to DCAMIS.

90.1906 MEO Re-competes / Competing HPOs.

(a) This section establishes agency-wide policy for deciding, during the final year of performance in the LoO, whether an MEO should be re-competed or an HPO competed (see Pub. L 110-187, section 323, amending 10 U.S.C. 2461(a)(4)). Under the program budget review process, all MEOs and HPOs will be programmed for competition announcement to take place six months after the completion of their final performance period. Six to nine months prior to the end of the final performance period as established in the LoO, MEOs and HPOs will be reviewed by a special IARB. The IARB will review performance for all periods completed up to but not including the final year of performance specified in the LoO, and may also consider performance during the final year to the extent information is available . The review will be based on assessments provided by the RA and ACO, as well as any supplemental independent assessments that have been conducted. The Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) may convene a special IARB at any time based on ACO reports of unacceptable or declining performance by an MEO/HPO.

(b) The assessment will consider at least the following factors, and may also consider other relevant factors:

(1) LoO cost compliance: actual cost against adjusted LoO cost (including approved modifications);

(2) LoO performance compliance: quality of performance as measured against LoO requirements, to include acceptable performance levels;

(3) Overall change in authorized LoO cost from original LoO cost;

(4) Overall change in requirements (nature/extent; present/anticipated); and,

(5) Market assessment (contracting officer only).

(c) The ACO/RA will brief the review/assessment to the IARB. Following the briefing the IARB will recommend to the DLA CSO the most advantageous course of action to the Agency from the following options:

(1) Initiate preliminary planning to compete the requirement covered by the existing LoO;

(2) Extend the MEO/HPO for up to five more years as an Agency-recognized MEO/HPO; or,

(3) Take an alternative course of action (e.g., managed reduction, business process re-engineering, organizational realignment, etc.)

(d) If the DLA CSO decision is to compete the requirement covered by the existing LoO, the existing LoO will be allowed to expire at the end of the final performance period in order to allow the RA to use MEO/HPO resources to prepare for the competition.

(e) If the DLA CSO decision is to extend performance under the LoO for up to five additional years, the PCO will issue a new LoO effective the day following the previous LoO’s expiration. The RA, ACO, and extended MEO/HPO must comply with DLAD LoO policy with the following exceptions:

(1) DCAMIS will not be used unless the MEO/HPO is recognized by OSD.

(2) No Phase 4 IARB is required for an extended MEO, unless otherwise directed by the SPE.