Rule2022-08811
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Validation of Proprietary and Technical Data (DFARS Case 2018-D069)
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 28, 2022
Effective
April 28, 2022
Issuing agencies
Defense DepartmentDefense Acquisition Regulations System
Abstract
DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 that amended the statutory presumption of development exclusively at private expense for commercial items in the procedures governing the validation of asserted restrictions on technical data.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25148-25152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08811]
[[Page 25148]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
48 CFR Parts 227 and 252
[Docket DARS-2019-0048]
RIN 0750-AK71
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Validation of
Proprietary and Technical Data (DFARS Case 2018-D069)
AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense
(DoD).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a final rule amending the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement a section of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 that amended
the statutory presumption of development exclusively at private expense
for commercial items in the procedures governing the validation of
asserted restrictions on technical data.
DATES: Effective April 28, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David E. Johnson, telephone 202-
913-5764.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 85 FR
53755 on August 31, 2020, to implement section 865 of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (Pub. L.
115-232), which repeals several years of congressional adjustments to
the statutory presumption of development at private expense for
commercial items in the validation procedures at paragraph (f) of 10
U.S.C. 2321. The DFARS implementation of this mandatory presumption has
evolved accordingly to track the statutory changes, with the primary
coverage found at paragraph (c) of section 227.7103-13, and paragraph
(b) of the contract clause at 252.227-7037, Validation of Restrictive
Markings on Technical Data. One respondent submitted written public
comments in response to the proposed rule.
II. Discussion and Analysis
DoD reviewed the public comments submitted in writing and discussed
by the attendees at the virtual public meeting on November 19, 2020, in
the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the
changes made to the rule as a result of those comments is provided, as
follows:
A. Summary of Significant Changes From the Proposed Rule
Based on comments received, language was added to DFARS 227.7103-
13(c) and DFARS 252.227-7037(e) to indicate the information that
supports the challenge notice must be included in the challenge notice,
subject to handling procedures for classified information or controlled
unclassified information (CUI).
B. Analysis of Public Comments
1. DoD Must Provide Sufficient Information To Support the Challenge
Notice
Comment: The respondent requested elimination of the phrase ``to
the maximum extent practicable'' in the proposed revisions to DFARS
227.7103-13(c)(2) and DFARS 252.227-7037(e)(1)(i) and (f) because this
phrase does not appear in the underlying statute. The respondent
asserted that this language introduces uncertainty as to whether and
when the contracting officer must provide sufficient information to
overcome the presumption. The respondent asserted that the Government
should furnish CUI in the manner in which the Government conventionally
furnishes other CUI to contractors. If classified information cannot be
provided with the challenge notice in an unclassified communication,
then the classified information may be contemporaneously furnished via
alternate means that complies with the applicable security
requirements.
Response: DoD adopted the respondent's recommendation to remove the
phase ``to the maximum extent practicable.'' In view of the
respondent's comments, the rule has also been revised to indicate that
the challenge notice will include sufficient information to reasonably
demonstrate that a commercial item was not developed exclusively at
private expense, subject to the handling procedures for classified
information and controlled unclassified information. Such handling
procedures may include, but are not limited to, contemporaneous
communications (referenced in the challenge notice) that consist of
classified information transmitted via secured channels.
2. DoD Should Restore 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 to the DFARS List of
Statutes Which Are Inapplicable to Subcontracts for Commercial Items
and Eliminate Mandatory Flowdown Requirements
Comment: The respondent recommended that, because section 865
repealed several congressional amendments to the statutory presumption
of development exclusively at private expense, 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321
should be included in the DFARS 212.504 exclusionary list of statutes
that are inapplicable to contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition
of commercial items. The respondent also recommended removing the
mandatory flowdown requirements in the contract clauses at DFARS
252.227-7013, 252.227-7015, and 252.227-7037.
Response: This case implements specific amendments to 10 U.S.C.
2321(f), and the applicability of those implementing revisions to
contracts for the acquisition of commercial items is addressed in
Section III of this preamble. To the extent the respondent's
recommendations are directed to the applicability of the entirety of 10
U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 to commercial items contracts and subcontracts and
extend beyond the proposed implementation of 10 U.S.C. 2321(f), those
recommendations are beyond the scope of this case. DoD acknowledges
that the respondent's concerns and recommendations address broader
scope issues also raised in the Section 813 Government-Industry
Advisory Panel Report, and cognizant DoD policy stakeholders, including
the Intellectual Property (IP) Cadre, are considering such issues as
part of DoD's overarching efforts to review and improve its IP policies
and implementing procedures.
3. Mandatory Flowdown Requirements for Supplier Agreements Are
Inconsistent With the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act
Comment: The respondent recommended elimination of mandatory
flowdown language in the clauses at DFARS 252.227-7037(l), 252.227-
7013(k)(2), and 252.227-7015(e), which require contractors to use the
clauses in other contractual instruments for commercial items with
suppliers at any tier if the other contractual instruments require the
delivery of technical data. The respondent asserted that this mandatory
flowdown is both inconsistent with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining
Act of 1994 (FASA) and undermines DoD's efforts to acquire commercial
items.
[[Page 25149]]
Response: This case implements specific amendments to 10 U.S.C.
2321(f), and the applicability of those implementing revisions to
contracts for the acquisition of commercial items is addressed in
Section III of this preamble. To the extent the respondent's
recommendations are directed to the application of the mandatory
flowdown requirements for the entirety of multiple clauses to suppliers
at any tier and ``other contractual instruments'' for commercial items
and extend beyond implementation of 10 U.S.C. 2321(f), those
recommendations are beyond the scope of this case. DoD acknowledges
that the respondent's concerns and recommendations address broader
scope issues also raised in the Section 813 Government-Industry
Advisory Panel Report, and cognizant DoD policy stakeholders, including
the IP Cadre, are considering such issues as part of DoD's overarching
efforts to review and improve its IP policies and implementing
procedures.
4. DFARS 252.227-7013 Should Not Apply to Commercial Items With ``Of a
Type'' or ``Minor'' Modifications
Comment: The respondent noted that the current DFARS policy permits
use of both DFARS clauses at 252.227-7013 (for technical data related
to noncommercial and commercial technology developed with Government
funds) and 252.227-7015 (for technical data related to commercial
technology developed at private expense). The respondent expressed
concern that this paradigm creates a complicated mix of commercial and
noncommercial terms along with potentially costly portion-marking. The
respondent also asserted that these rules may discourage companies from
selling modified commercial items to the Government. The respondent
recommended that the noncommercial technical data rights clause at
DFARS 252.227-7013 should not apply to commercial items with ``of a
type'' or ``minor'' modifications. The respondent stated that DFARS
252.227-7037 and the associated prescriptive guidance should be revised
to clarify that Government funds used to modify a commercial item shall
not be used as the basis for rebutting the presumption of development
exclusively at private expense so long as the modified item continues
to meet the commercial item definition at Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) 2.101. The respondent also suggested revising DFARS
252.227-7013, 252.227-7015, and the associated guidance for contracting
officers to clarify that 252.227-7013 shall not apply to commercial
items modified at Government expense so long as the modified item
continues to meet the commercial item definition at FAR 2.101.
Response: This case implements specific amendments to 10 U.S.C.
2321(f), and the applicability of those implementing revisions to
contracts for the acquisition of commercial items is addressed in
Section III of this preamble. To the extent that the respondent's
recommendations are directed to the applicability of DFARS 252.227-7013
to commercial items with ``of a type'' or ``minor'' modifications and
extend beyond implementation of 10 U.S.C. 2321(f), those
recommendations are beyond the scope of this case. DoD acknowledges
that the respondent's concerns and recommendations address broader
scope issues also raised in the Section 813 Government-Industry
Advisory Panel Report, and cognizant DoD policy stakeholders, including
the IP Cadre, are considering such issues as part of DoD's overarching
efforts to review and improve its IP policies and implementing
procedures.
C. Other Changes
Minor editorial changes are made in DFARS clause 252.227-7037 to
the expressed time periods to conform to standard rule drafting
conventions.
III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition
Threshold, for Commercial Products (Including Commercially Available
Off-the-Shelf Items), and for Commercial Services
This rule amends the contract clause at 252.227-7037 and the
prescription at DFARS 227.7103-13. However, this rule does not impose
any new requirements on contracts at or below the simplified
acquisition threshold (SAT), for commercial products (including
commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items), or for commercial
services. The prescription and clause will continue to apply to
acquisitions at or below the SAT and to acquisitions of commercial
products (including COTS items).
A. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition
Threshold
41 U.S.C. 1905 governs the applicability of laws to contracts or
subcontracts in amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition
threshold. It is intended to limit the applicability of laws to such
contracts or subcontracts. 41 U.S.C. 1905 provides that if a provision
of law contains criminal or civil penalties, or if the Federal
Acquisition Regulatory Council makes a written determination that it is
not in the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt contracts
or subcontracts at or below the SAT, the law will apply to them. The
Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC), is the
appropriate authority to make comparable determinations for regulations
to be published in the DFARS, which is part of the FAR system of
regulations. DoD has made that determination. Therefore, this rule does
apply to contracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold.
B. Applicability to Contracts for the Acquisition of Commercial
Products (Including COTS Items) and Commercial Services
10 U.S.C. 2375 governs the applicability of laws to contracts and
subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products (including COTS
items) and commercial services and is intended to limit the
applicability of laws to contracts for the acquisition of commercial
products (including COTS items) and commercial services. 10 U.S.C. 2375
provides that if a provision of law contains criminal or civil
penalties, or if the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment (USD(A&S)) makes a written determination that it is not in
the best interest of the Federal Government to exempt commercial
product or commercial service contracts, the provision of law will
apply to contracts for the acquisition of commercial products or
commercial services.
Due to delegations of authority from USD(A&S), the Principal
Director, DPC, is the appropriate authority to make this determination.
DoD has made that determination to apply this rule to the acquisition
of commercial products (including COTS items), if otherwise applicable.
C. Determination
This rule implements statutory requirements regarding the
presumption of development at private expense for commercial products
(including COTS items) in validations of asserted restrictions. Not
applying the rule to contracts at or below the SAT would exclude
contracts at low dollar values for commercial products intended to be
covered by this rule. An exclusion for contracts at or below the SAT
would therefore undermine the overarching purpose of the rule.
Therefore, DoD has determined that it is in the best interest of the
Federal Government to apply the rule to contracts valued at or below
the SAT.
[[Page 25150]]
Given that the requirements of section 865 of the NDAA for FY 2019
were enacted to return to a presumption of development exclusively at
private expense for commercial products, DoD has determined that it is
in the best interest of the Federal Government to apply the rule to
contracts for the acquisition of commercial products, including COTS
items, as those terms are defined at FAR 2.101. An exception for
contracts for the acquisition of commercial products, including COTS
items, would exclude contracts intended to be covered by the law,
thereby undermining the overarching public policy purpose of the law.
IV. Expected Impact of the Rule
The final rule applies the statutory requirements regarding the
presumption of development at private expense for commercial items in
validations of asserted restrictions. Specifically, the rule returns
the coverage at DFARS 227.7103-13 and 252.227-7037 substantially back
to the original Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act-implementing
language with regard to the presumption of development exclusively at
private expense for commercial items. This statutory change places the
burden of proof on DoD, not on the contractor or subcontractor, for
commercial items.
Under the new rule, DoD is required to presume that the contractor
or subcontractor has justified the asserted restriction on the basis
that the item was developed exclusively at private expense for
commercial items, regardless of whether the contractor or subcontractor
submits a justification in response to the Government's challenge
notice. In such a case, the challenge to the use or release restriction
may be sustained only if information provided by DoD demonstrates that
the item was not developed exclusively at private expense. Within the
validation procedures, the presumption of development at private
expense for commercial items is primarily designed to protect the
contractors' interests.
The impact of these changes may be positive, for both the public
and the Government, because the Government will not initiate challenges
when it does not have sufficient information to support the initiation
of a challenge. Contractors will not be required to respond to
challenges or pre-challenge requests for information regarding
commercial items. Therefore, if DoD does not have information
demonstrating that a commercial item was not developed exclusively at
private expense, a contracting officer may reasonably decide not to
initiate a challenge. DoD does not have data on the number of
challenges that may be avoided.
If DoD does not have sufficient information to successfully
initiate a challenge to a contractor's restrictive markings on
technical data for commercial items, DoD will have to comply with those
restrictive markings. Such information may exist but be in the custody
and control of the contractor. For contractors, the impact may be
positive, as it would limit how DoD could use technical data related to
a contractor's commercial item. For the Government, the markings may
impact DoD's ability to use the technical data to obtain competitive
procurement of an item and thus result in higher costs. DoD does not
have data on the number of times this situation is likely to occur.
V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O.
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not
subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning
and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
VI. Congressional Review Act
As required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808)
before an interim or final rule takes effect, DoD will submit a copy of
the interim or final rule with the form, Submission of Federal Rules
under the Congressional Review Act, to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States. A
major rule under the Congressional Review Act cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not
a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) has been prepared
consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.
The FRFA is summarized as follows:
DoD is proposing to implement section 865 of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232),
which revised 10 U.S.C. 2321. Section 865 of the NDAA for FY 2019
repeals amendments to 10 U.S.C. 2321(f) made by the NDAAs for FY 2007
through FY 2016. The impact is to return the DFARS coverage at section
227.7103-13 and the contract clause at 252.227-7037, Validation of
Restrictive Markings on Technical Data, substantially back to its
original language implementing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act
of 1994. Section 865 also codifies and revises DoD challenges to
contractor-asserted restrictions on technical data pertaining to a
commercial item, i.e., DoD is required to presume that the contractor
or subcontractor has justified the asserted restriction on the basis
that the item was developed exclusively at private expense, regardless
of whether the contractor or subcontractor submits a justification in
response to the Government's challenge notice. In such a case, the
challenge to the use or release restriction may be sustained only if
information provided by DoD demonstrates that the item was not
developed exclusively at private expense.
There were no public comments received in response to the initial
regulatory flexibility analysis.
This final rule will apply to small entities that have contracts
with DoD requiring delivery of technical data. Based on data from
Electronic Data Access for FY 2018 through FY 2020, DoD estimates that
an average of 814 contractors may be impacted by the changes in this
final rule. Of those entities, approximately 507 (62 percent) are small
entities.
This final rule does not impose any new reporting, recordkeeping,
or other compliance requirements for small entities.
There are no known alternatives which would accomplish the stated
objectives of the applicable statute.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) applies to this
rule. However, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional
information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously
approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0369, entitled ``DFARS Subparts
227.71, Rights in Technical Data; and Subpart 227.72, Rights in
Computer Software and Computer Software Documentation, and related
provisions and clauses.''
[[Page 25151]]
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 227 and 252
Government procurement.
Jennifer D. Johnson,
Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
Therefore, 48 CFR parts 227 and 252 are amended as follows:
0
1. The authority citation for parts 227 and 252 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.
PART 227--PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS
0
2. Amend section 227.7103-13 by--
0
a. Revising paragraph (c);
0
b. In paragraph (d)(2)(i) removing ``subsection'' and adding
``section'' in its place; and
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(4).
The revisions read as follows:
227.7103-13 Government right to review, verify, challenge, and
validate asserted restrictions.
* * * * *
(c) Challenge considerations and presumption--(1) Requirements to
initiate a challenge. Contracting officers shall have reasonable
grounds to challenge the validity of an asserted restriction. Before
issuing a challenge to an asserted restriction, carefully consider all
available information pertaining to the assertion.
(2) Commercial items--presumption regarding development exclusively
at private expense. 10 U.S.C. 2320(b)(1) and 2321(f) establish a
presumption and procedures regarding validation of asserted
restrictions for technical data related to commercial items on the
basis of development exclusively at private expense. Contracting
officers shall presume that a commercial item was developed exclusively
at private expense whether or not a contractor or subcontractor submits
a justification in response to a challenge notice. The contracting
officer shall not challenge a contractor's assertion that a commercial
item was developed exclusively at private expense unless the Government
can specifically state the reasonable grounds to question the validity
of the assertion. The challenge notice shall include sufficient
information to reasonably demonstrate that the commercial item was not
developed exclusively at private expense. In order to sustain the
challenge, the contracting officer shall provide information
demonstrating that the commercial item was not developed exclusively at
private expense. The challenge notice and all related correspondence
shall be subject to handling procedures for classified information and
controlled unclassified information. A contractor's or subcontractor's
failure to respond to the challenge notice cannot be the sole basis for
issuing a final decision denying the validity of an asserted
restriction.
(d) * * *
(4) Challenge notice. The contracting officer shall not issue a
challenge notice unless there are reasonable grounds to question the
validity of an assertion. For commercial items, also see paragraph
(c)(2) of this section. The contracting officer may challenge an
assertion whether or not supporting documentation was requested under
paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Challenge notices shall be in writing
and issued to the contractor or, after consideration of the situations
described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, the person asserting the
restriction. The challenge notice shall include the information in
paragraph (e) of the clause at 252.227-7037.
* * * * *
PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
0
3. Amend section 252.227-7037 by--
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. In the introductory text, removing ``27.7104(e)(5)'' and adding
``227.7104(e)(5)'' in its place;
0
c. Revising the clause date;
0
d. Revising paragraph (b);
0
e. In paragraph (c) removing ``paragraph (b)(1)'' and adding
``paragraph (b)'' in its place;
0
f. In paragraph (d)(2) removing ``Contracting Officer shall'' and
adding ``Contracting Officer will'' in its place;
0
g. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) introductory text and (e)(1)(i);
0
h. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii) removing ``sixty (60) days'' and adding ``60
days'' in its place;
0
i. In paragraph (e)(2) removing ``shall'' and adding ``will'' in its
place;
0
j. In paragraph (e)(3) removing ``Contract Disputes'' and adding
``Contract Disputes,'' in its place;
0
k. In paragraph (e)(4) removing ``shall formulate'' and ``shall
afford'' and adding ``will formulate'' and ``will afford'' in their
places, respectively;
0
l. Revising paragraph (f);
0
m. In paragraph (g)(1) removing ``shall'' and ``sixty (60) days''
wherever they appear and adding ``will'' and ``60 days'' in their
places, respectively;
0
n. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(i);
0
o. In paragraph (g)(2)(ii) removing ``ninety (90) days'' wherever it
appears and ``ninety (90)-day period'' and adding ``90 days'' and ``90-
day period'' in their places, respectively;
0
p. In paragraph (g)(2)(iii) removing ``ninety (90) days'' and ``one (1)
year'' and adding ``90 days'' and ``1 year'' in their places,
respectively;
0
q. In paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii) removing ``Government shall'' and
adding ``Government will'' in its place; and
0
r. In paragraph (i) introductory text--
0
i. Removing ``three (3) years'' wherever it appears and adding ``3
years'' in its place; and
0
ii. Removing ``disclosure or use'' and adding ``disclosure, or use'' in
its place.
The revisions read as follows:
252.227-7037 Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data.
* * * * *
Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data (APR 2022)
* * * * *
(b) Commercial items--presumption regarding development exclusively
at private expense. The Contracting Officer will presume that the
Contractor's or a subcontractor's asserted use or release restrictions
with respect to a commercial item are justified on the basis that the
item was developed exclusively at private expense. The Contracting
Officer will not issue a challenge unless there are reasonable grounds
to question the validity of the assertion that the commercial item was
developed exclusively at private expense.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of this contract concerning
inspection and acceptance, if the Contracting Officer determines that a
challenge to the restrictive marking is warranted, the Contracting
Officer will send a written challenge notice to the Contractor or
subcontractor asserting the restrictive markings. The challenge notice
and all related correspondence shall be subject to handling procedures
for classified information and controlled unclassified information.
Such challenge will--
(i) State the specific grounds for challenging the asserted
restriction including, for commercial items, sufficient information to
reasonably demonstrate that the commercial item was not developed
exclusively at private expense;
* * * * *
(f) Final decision when Contractor or subcontractor fails to
respond. Upon a failure of a Contractor or subcontractor to submit any
response to the challenge notice the Contracting Officer will issue a
final decision to the Contractor or
[[Page 25152]]
subcontractor in accordance with the Disputes clause of this contract.
In order to sustain the challenge for commercial items, the Contracting
Officer will provide information demonstrating that the commercial item
was not developed exclusively at private expense. This final decision
will be issued as soon as possible after the expiration of the time
period of paragraph (e)(1)(ii) or (e)(2) of this clause. Following
issuance of the final decision, the Contracting Officer will comply
with the procedures in paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this
clause.
(g) * * *
(2)(i) If the Contracting Officer determines that the validity of
the restrictive marking is not justified, the Contracting Officer will
issue a final decision to the Contractor or subcontractor in accordance
with the Disputes clause of this contract. In order to sustain the
challenge for commercial items, the Contracting Officer will provide
information demonstrating that the commercial item was not developed
exclusively at private expense. Notwithstanding paragraph (e) of the
Disputes clause, the final decision will be issued within 60 days after
receipt of the Contractor's or subcontractor's response to the
challenge notice, or within such longer period that the Contracting
Officer has notified the Contractor or subcontractor that the
Government will require. The notification of a longer period for
issuance of a final decision will be made within 60 days after receipt
of the response to the challenge notice.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-08811 Filed 4-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 28, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.