B-235985.2, Mar 26, 1991, 91-1 CPD ***

B-235985.2: Mar 26, 1991

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

These are FAR case No. 90-54. FAR case No. 90-54 is a proposal to amend FAR section 15.804-7 to provide that in arriving at a price adjustment for defective cost or pricing data. "the amount by which the price was increased based upon all available information.". FAR case No. 90-56 is a proposal to amend FAR section 9.406-1 to provide examples of factors that should be considered when evaluating whether a contractor's debarment is warranted. We have no objection to either of these proposed changes.

B-235985.2, Mar 26, 1991, 91-1 CPD ***

PROCUREMENT - Competitive Negotiation - Federal procurement - regulations/laws - Amendments - Price adjustments DIGEST General Accounting Office has no objection to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) case No. 90-54, a proposal to amend FAR section 15.804 7 concerning factors to be considered in calculating price adjustments made as a result of defective cost or pricing data.

Laurie A. Frazier FAR Secretariat General Services Administration

Dear Ms. Frazier

This responds to your letter of December 27, 1990, requesting our comments on two proposed changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). These are FAR case No. 90-54, on defective pricing, and FAR case No. 90-56, on debarment, suspension, and ineligibility.

FAR case No. 90-54 is a proposal to amend FAR section 15.804-7 to provide that in arriving at a price adjustment for defective cost or pricing data, the contracting officer shall consider, in addition to other factors currently specified, "the amount by which the price was increased based upon all available information." FAR case No. 90-56 is a proposal to amend FAR section 9.406-1 to provide examples of factors that should be considered when evaluating whether a contractor's debarment is warranted. For example, the amended provision would provide that the debarring official should consider whether the contractor brought the wrongdoing to the government's attention in a timely manner.

We have no objection to either of these proposed changes.