DoD Issues Final Rules on the Inapplicability of Certain Clauses to Commercial Items Contracts and Affiliate Companies of Small Businesses (11/15/2024)
The Department of Defense (DoD) issued three final rules amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) on Friday, November 15th, 2024. Two of these rules have positive material impacts on small business offerors on competitive DoD solicitations and subcontractors under DoD prime contracts. A synopsis of each is provided below.
DFARS Case 2024 - D016, Past Performance of Affiliate Companies of Small Business Concerns (Final Rule) -- This rule amends DFARS Subpart 215.305 (under the authority of 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR Chapter 1) to state under a new subparagraph (a)(2)(C) that for competitive solicitations, contracting officers shall consider relevant past performance provided for affiliates of offerors that are small business concerns.
This is great news for small businesses who can now use the past performance experience of their affiliates as part of their offer. However, caution should be taken and it is my personal suggestion that businesses disclose in their offer that the performance submitted is that of an affiliate and not claim it under their own name for full transparency and Contracting Officer info.
(Implements Section 865 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 (Pub. L. 118-31).)
Published: 11/15/2024 | Effective Date: 11/15/2024 (89 FR 90237)
----------------------------------------------
This rule modifies the list of provisions and clauses listed in DFARS Subpart 212.301 paragraph (f) which apply to DoD solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services to--
- Remove DFARS Clause 252.203-7003, Agency Office of the Inspector General
- Remove DFARS Provision 252.215-7007, Notice of Intent to Resolicit
This rule also modifies the list of provisions and clauses listed in DFARS Subpart 212.370 which are not applicable to contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products, commercial services, and commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items to ADD--
- DFARS Clause 252.203-7003, Agency Office of the Inspector General
- DFARS Provision 252.215-7007, Notice of Intent to Resolicit.
Similar clarifications are also made to the list of provisions and clauses in DFARS Subpart 212.371 which are not applicable to the acquisition of COTS items to ADD--
- DFARS Clause 252.205-7000, Provision of Information to Cooperative Agreement Holders
- DFARS Provision 252.204-7008, Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls
- DFARS clause 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting
- DFARS provision 252.204-7019, Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements
- DFARS clause 252.204-7020, NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements
- DFARS clause 252.204-7021, Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Requirements.
Since publication of the proposed rule for this case, other final rules have been issued and the changes below were necessary to this final rule as a result.
- DFARS Subpart 212.371 was revised to add the following clauses to the list of solicitation provisions and clauses that are inapplicable to contracts solely for the acquisition of COTS items:
- DFARS Clause 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting
- DFARS Clause 252.205-7000 Provision of Information to Cooperative Agreements Holders
- DFARS Subpart 212.301 was revised to add DFARS Provision 252.203-7005, Representation Related to Compensation of Former DoD Officials, back to the list of provisions and clauses that apply to contracts for commercial products and commercial services.
(Implements Section 849 paragraphs (b) and (c) of the NDAA for FY 2018 (Pub. L. 115-91) and Section 837 of the NDAA for FY 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232).)
Published: 11/15/2024 | Effective Date: 11/25/2024 (89 FR 90233)
-------------------------------------------------
DFARS Case 2024-D026, Updates to the Definition of Departments and Agencies (Final Rule) -- This direct rule amends the definition of "departments and agencies" at DFARS Subpart 202.101 to add recently established defense agencies. There is no contractor action as a result of this rule.
Published: 11/15/2024 | Effective Date: 11/15/2024 (89 FR 90238)
View related posts
FedSubK Feature: What is Buying In?
"Buying in". Do you know what that is? Let's illustrate it with a little story...
Once upon a time an agency leader🤴 was looking around at things to make 🌟efficient.🌟 They got the idea that every agency should have the same widgets🔅 their agency had.
The agency leader🤴 called up a widget company👩🔧 and said, "We are interested in your widgets. 🔅What kind of discount can you give us?"
The widget company👩🔧 offers a discount 📉 because they know this agency🤴 not only buys for themselves but may buy for other agencies🫅🤴👸 where a highly trusted widget competitor👨🔧 presently has the work.
The widget company👩🔧 was "buying in" -- offering unrealistic discounts📉 that made the price unrealistically low not only for the current effort but also to influence the purchasing decisions on future buys. Then prices usually up 📈 again over time.
Depending on when "buying in" happens there could also be questions related to compliance with the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and possible other violations.
This is why agency announcements that management has made a deal for "$1 a license" and other such management interference is of concern. 🚨 Management plays the numbers game. I'm not saying numbers aren't important, but let's just say... there is a real reason why management typically does not hold contract signature authority. 😬😉
The Government is supposed to keep things fair and do its due diligence. But it's falling for the oldest trick in the book.
Risk, intent, compliance with statutory requirements, misunderstanding of requirements, and comparable market pricing must be evaluated when the Contracting Officer has reason to believe a proposed price is unrealistically low price. But are they?
If a contract isn't in place, there there is still a need to follow appropriate competition rules before a handshake deal. If a contract is already in place, there are things to consider when new discounts appear to be unrealistic including the risk of continued performance, depending on the type of product or service being purchased.
The Government gets a quick win to lock in a low rate, saving some money now. That's called the short game. Government buyers getting blurry-eyed over unbelieveably low prices and don't do the long-term analysis.
But I'll bet you a dollar the company is playing the long game. They are watching and waiting, getting to know your needs and asking loads of questions. "When do you use my widget most?" "Who buys the most widgets?" "When do you typically buy widgets?" And then as fast as they dropped the price, they raise it again on you when you can't afford to make a change -- like at an end of fiscal year. That's how they get locked in and receive perpetual contracts.
BTW...the fairy tale above is a true story. I've had new politicals and new leadership / commanders trot companies into my office saying "Company ABC here says they want to sell us "widgets" at a huge discount compared to what we're paying or others are paying now."
Well...okay then.
As a Contracting Officer, whether I could even begin to entertain that idea depends on several things. It's not an automatic "yes". You could replace "widgets" with just about any product or service and it's probably happened to a Contracting Officer somewhere. Especially as new Administrations come into Government.
The stories in the news that made me think -- "Huh, are they buying in?" are the Axios story "Anthropic wants to sell Claude to the Government for $1". (https://www.axios.com/pro/tech-policy/2025/08/05/ai-anthropic-government-sale-dollar) and FedScoop story "Federal agencies can buy ChatGPT for $1 through GSA deal" (https://fedscoop.com/openai-chatgpt-enterprise-federal-government-gsa-deal-general-services-administration-anthropic/).
My husband (also a retired Contracting Officer) and I look at each other often during the news now and, based on the reported discount or price alone, we know that company is likely "buying in". That's based on our combined 72 years of Fed experience and our Contracting Officer "Spidey sense" from having been around the block a few times. But these deals just the most recent in a series of deals GSA is making with companies since the new Administration came to town. OneGov is the program GSA is, in my former Contracting Officer opinion, using to tout savings under for the press releases. But it may come back later to be a big mistake. I hope I'm wrong.
Program/Project Managers and Contracting Officers AND the competition to these companies...LEARN about it and WATCH for it. It's on the rise.
(And don't get me started on having to argue with new politicals, leadership, and commanders about why I can't terminate a current contract and then turn around and give the same work to another contractor at their unrealistic lower price.🙄😱 That's a topic for another time.)
The practice of "buying in" is becoming more common now. Learn about it and how to spot it.
DoD Reduction In Force (RIF) Guidance
Just when you thought it couldn't get any more confusing, some agencies also have their own RIF guidance separate from the OPM guidance that is what we've heard the most about. DoD is one of those agencies.
A copy of the current DoD RIF guidance, DoD Instruction 1400.25, Volume 351, is found at: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/140025/140025_V351.PDF?ver=DgEFMmb9dLDV7OV-PLb7VQ%3D%3D
This guide establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for reduction in force (RIF) actions taken under Part 351 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), as modified by Section 1597(f) of Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.).
This guidance does not, in full, apply to DoD employees covered by an alternative personnel system (e.g., the Acquisition Demonstration; Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories; and the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System). Those systems will develop their own policies and procedures for RIF that comply with the law, as approved by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)). This guide also does not apply to Senior Executive Service (SES) positions.
The policy statement in 1.2 states that, "For any RIF of civilians in the competitive and excepted services in the DoD, the determination as to which employees will be separated from employment must be made primarily on the basis of performance."
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1597, DoD must report to Congress 45 days prior to implementing an approved RIF.
DoD will comply with 5 CFR 351.402 and 351.403 when establishing competitive areas and competitive levels, respectively. Competitive service employees and excepted service employees are placed on separate retention registers established in accordance with 5 CFR 351.404 and 351.405.
For purposes of DoD RIF, employees are placed in one of two categories:
- employees with a period of assessed performance of less than 12 months, and
- employees with a period of assessed performance of 12 months or more.
An employee’s period of assessed performance for purposes of RIF will be the sum of the months of assessed performance associated with the employee’s performance appraisals within the most recent 4-year period preceding the cutoff date established for the RIF. However, periods of time in a rating cycle for which an employee’s performance was not assessed are not included in the employee’s period of assessed performance.
For example, if an employee receives a rating after serving 10 months of the 12-month cycle, the employee’s period of assessed performance is 10 months for that rating cycle.
For employees absent for military service, periods of time during the rating period may be treated as periods of assessed performance if they meet the requirements of Paragraph 3.3.c.(1) under Paragraph 3.3.b.(2) of the DoD guide.
Retention Factors
Competing employees are listed on a retention register based on--
- Rating of Record. See Section 3.3.c. for rating of record examples based on cutoff dates, military service, time frames for ratings to be used, and ratings from a system other and the Defense Performance Management Program (DPMAP).
- Tenure Group. This follows the definitions found in 5 CFR 351.501(b) for competitive service and 5 CFR 351.502(b) for excepted service.
- Average Score. In general, an employee’s average score for one performance appraisal is derived by dividing the sum of the employee’s performance element ratings by the number of performance elements. The average of the average scores drawn from the two most recent performance appraisals received by the employee, except when the performance appraisal reflects an “unacceptable” rating of record will be reviewed. When the most recent performance appraisal reflects an “unacceptable” rating of record, only that performance appraisal will be considered for purposes of the employee’s average score.
- Veterans’ Preference. This follows the procedures in 5 CFR 351.501(c) with three veterans' preference subgroups:
- AD - 30% or more disabled veteran
- A - eligible for veterans' preference for the purpose of RIF but not for placement in the AD category (i.e., less than 30% disabled veteran determination)
- B - not eligible for veterans' preference for purpose of RIF
- DoD Service Computation Date-Reduction in Force (DoD SCD-RIF). Follows rules of credible service as found in 5 CFR 351.503(a) and (b). DoD does not follow 5 CFR 351.504, which grants additional retention service credit in RIF based on an employee's ratings of record.
Rounds in Reduction in Force (RIF)
Two rounds of RIF will be conducted. Round One, Release from Competitive Level, and Round Two, Assignment Rights, are explained in the document in detail related to types of appointments, order of release from the competitive level, and exceptions that may apply. They are found in sections 3.5 and 3.6, respectively.
Displacement may occur during Round Two. Displacement is the assignment of an employee to a continuing position in a different competitive level that is held by another employee with a lower retention standing (i.e., “bumping” another employee). Displacement may be at the same grade or at a grade up to three grades or grade intervals (or equivalent) below the position of the released employee.
Right of Only One Offer
Employees released from a retention register are only eligible for one offer of assignment (similar to OPM rules), with some exceptions. If the employee accepts and offer, rejects an offer, or fails to reply to an offer in a timely manner, they are not entitled to further offers. However, the DoD Component must make a better offer of assignment to a released employee (i.e., to a position with a higher representative rate) if a position becomes available before, or on, the RIF effective date.
Sample retention registers and scenarios are found in the guide in Appendix 3A. Employees have the right to request a review of retention registers and have representation also be allowed to review the registers, as requested by the employee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Info is provided for awareness. I am NOT an HR professional but an HR enthusiast having started in HR and being a Federal supervisor and hiring manager. Before taking any action that changes your status, please seek the advice of an attorney knowledgeable in Federal employment law.
Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP)
Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) allows agencies that are downsizing or restructuring to offer employees lump-sum payments up to $25,000 as an incentive to voluntarily separate. The amount received is reduced by Fed and state taxes, social security, and Medicare, as applicable.
The full guide on the program is found at the OPM website https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforce-restructuring/voluntary-separation-incentive-payments/guide.pdf
Eligibility for VSIP requires an employee be employed by an Executive Branch agency for at least three (3) continous years without a time limit and not be--
▶️ a reemployed annuitant;
▶️ otherwise be eligible for disability retirement;
▶️ recipient of a notice of involuntary separation for misconduct or poor performance;
▶️ recipient of any previous VSIP from the Federal Government;
▶️ on a service agreement for which--
➡️ a student loan repayment benefit was paid, or is to be paid, during the 36-months preceding the date of separation;
➡️ a recruitment or relocation incentive was paid, or is to be paid, during the 24-months preceding the date of separation; and
➡️ a retention incentive was paid, or is to be paid, during the 12-months preceding the date of separation.
If you receive a VSIP and later come back to Federal Service within 5 years of the date of the separation on which the VSIP is based, you must repay the entire amount before your first day of reemployment. This includes working under a personal services contract or other direct contract with the Government.
The top 10 questions related to VSIP can be found at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforce-restructuring/voluntary-early-retirement-authority/top-10-frequently-asked-questions-about-vera-and-vsip.pdf
OPM's page on VSIP is at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/workforce-restructuring/voluntary-separation-incentive-payments/
DISCLAIMER: Information is provided for situational awareness. I am not an HR professional but an HR enthusiast having been a Chief of Contracting and Federal supervisor. Please consult with an attorney knowledgeable in Federal employment law before making any decisions that impact your Federal employment status.