DARS

• SUBPART 1.1 -- PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, ISSUANCE
• 1.101 Purpose.
• 1.103 Authority.
• 201.104 Applicability.
• 1.105-3 Copies.
• 201.170 Peer Reviews
• SUBPART 1.2 — ADMINISTRATION
• 1.201 Maintenance of the DARS.
• 1.201-1 The two councils.
• SUBPART 1.3 — AGENCY ACQUISITION REGULATIONS
• 201.301 Policy.
• 201.303 Publication and codification.
• 201.304 Agency control and compliance procedures.
• SUBPART 1.4 -- DEVIATIONS FROM THE FAR
• 201.402 Policy.
• SUBPART 1.5 — AGENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• 1.501-2 Opportunity for public comments.
• SUBPART 1.6 — CONTRACTING AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES
• 201.602-2 Responsibilities
• 1.602-3 Ratification of unauthorized commitments.
• 1.603 Selection, appointment, and termination of appointment.
• 1.603-1 General.
• 1.603-2 Selection.
• 1.603-3 Appointment.
• SUBPART 1.90 — PROCUREMENT OVERSIGHT
• 1.9000 Review and Approval of Contract Actions.
• 1.9001 Procurement Management Reviews (PMRs) and Special Interest Reviews .
• 1.9002 Procurement Oversight for Classified

PART 1--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBPART 1.1 -- PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, ISSUANCE

1.101 Purpose.

1.103 Authority.

201.104 Applicability.

1.105-3 Copies.

201.170 Peer Reviews

SUBPART 1.2 — ADMINISTRATION

1.201 Maintenance of the DARS.

1.201-1 The two councils.

SUBPART 1.3 — AGENCY ACQUISITION REGULATIONS

201.301 Policy.

201.303 Publication and codification.

SUBPART 1.4 -- DEVIATIONS FROM THE FAR

SUBPART 1.5 — AGENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

1.501-2 Opportunity for public comments.

SUBPART 1.6 — CONTRACTING AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

201.602-2 Responsibilities

1.602-3 Ratification of unauthorized commitments.

1.603 Selection, appointment, and termination of appointment.

1.603-1 General.

1.603-2 Selection.

1.603-3 Appointment.

SUBPART 1.90 — PROCUREMENT OVERSIGHT

1.9000 Review and Approval of Contract Actions.

1.9001 Procurement Management Reviews (PMRs) and Special Interest Reviews .

1.9002 Procurement Oversight for Classified

PART 1--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

SUBPART 1.1 -- PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, ISSUANCE

1.101 Purpose.

The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS) establishes uniform DISA policies implementing and supplementing the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), Title 10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and other statutory authority, and applicable Department of Defense (DoD) directives and instructions. The DARS is not a “stand alone” document and must be read in conjunction with the preceding guidance.

1.103 Authority.

The Director for Procurement (PLD), issues the DARS by authority of the Director, DISA, (DISAI 260-5-1).

201.104 Applicability.

The DARS applies to all acquisitions processed or managed by DISA, except where expressly excluded.

Policies/procedures of non-DISA customers are acceptable as long as they comply with applicable laws and regulations. For example:

Requirements office generated documents (acquisition plans, justifications and approvals, etc.) need not be in the DISA format, contain DISA supplemental information, etc.

DARS policies requiring DISA requirements offices to report to the Director would not be enforced on external customers.

1.105-3 Copies.

Copies of the DARS and associated acquisition policies and procedures are available electronically via the DISA Acquisition Policy and Guidance web site: http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp.

201.170 Peer Reviews

(a/k/a Independent Management Reviews per DoDI 5000.2, 8 Dec 08).

(a) Acquisitions valued at $1 billion or more. Peer Review of DISA procurements valued at $1 billion or more (including optional contract periods and optional CLINs) shall be conducted in accordance with DFARS 201.170(a). See http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/peer_reviews.html for additional information on the OSD Peer Review program. Peer reviews and team members will be at the OSD level. All peer review documentation prepared for OSD-level reviews shall be coordinated with the cognizant Head of the Contracting Office (HCO), and forwarded to the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) for review/approval prior to submission to OSD.

(1)(ii) Acquisitions valued at $500 million or more (sole source). Peer Review of DISA sole source procurements valued at $500 million or more (including optional contract periods and optional CLINs) shall also be conducted in accordance with DFARS 201.170(a).

(2) The DISA HCA shall provide a rolling annual forecast of (pre and post-award) acquisitions with an anticipated value of $1 billion or more (including all options) at the end of each quarter (i.e., March 31; June 30; September 30; December 31), to the Deputy Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (Contract Policy and International Contracting), 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

(b) Acquisitions valued at less than $1 billion. The DISA Contracting Peer Review Program for Supplies and Services establishes policy and procedures for conducting Peer Reviews of all solicitations, contracts, and task orders/delivery orders with a total estimated contract value (including options) of $100 million or more, but less than $1 billion for competitive acquisition and $85.5 million or more, but less than $500 million for sole source acquisitions. Communication Service Authorizations (CSAs) issued using the DISA streamlined Inquiry/Quote/ Order (IQO) process or issued against an indefinite delivery contract are excluded.

(S-91) Peer Review Timelines/PALTs. During the development of an acquisition plan, contracting officers shall take into account the requirement for scheduling and conducting a Peer Review in accordance with this section. The additional time required for each DISA Peer Review is a minimum of 10 business days for each decision point (OSD timelines may be different), this time reflects the initial review and adjudication of findings/comments to the HCA.

(S-92) Objective. The objective of the DISA Peer Review Program is to (1) ensure that contracting officers across the Procurement Directorate (PLD) are implementing law, policy and regulations in a consistent and accurate manner; (2) improve the quality of acquisition and contracting processes across DISA; and (3) share best practices and lessons learned. The findings and recommendations of the peer reviews are advisory in nature, providing supplemental information to the contracting officer regarding acquisition strategy, contract structure, format, content and compliance. DISA Peer Review Program procedures are established in accordance with OSD Memorandum, Peer Reviews of Contracts for Supplies and Services, at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA000820-08-DPAP.pdf.

(1) Pre-award Peer Reviews of solicitations shall be conducted at the following decision points:

a. Competitive Supplies and Services ($100M or above, but less than $1 billion)

i. Prior to issuance of the solicitation (pre-solicitation);

ii. Prior to Request for Final Proposal revision (FPR) (pre-FPR); and*

iii. Prior to contract award (pre-award)*

* Note: if the contracting officer will make award without discussions, pre-FPR/pre-award peer reviews can be combined into one (1) single, ‘pre-award’ review.

b. Non-Competitive Supplies and Services ($85.5M and above, but less than $500 million)

i. Prior to negotiation (pre-negotiation); and

ii. Prior to contract award (pre-award)

* Note: if a procurement is solicited as competitive and only one (1) proposal is received, for peer reviews, the procurement moves to a single source environment, and shall follow subparagraph (b) above, peer reviews ‘prior to negotiations’ and ‘prior to contract award’.

(2) Post-award Peer Reviews of contracts for services only shall be conducted at the following decision points, and shall be focused on the adequacy of the competition, an assessment of actual contract performance, and the adequacy of Government surveillance of contract performance.

a. Mid-point of the initial performance period if in excess of one year and annually thereafter; and

b. Prior to exercising each option period.

(S-93) Requesting a Peer Review. The requirement for a Peer Review will be identified at the start of an acquisition (e.g., Acquisition Strategy meetings, preparation of acquisition package or Acquisition Plan (AP)). Peer Review requests shall be issued immediately after final approval of the Acquisition Strategy and/or Acquisition Plan. The use of collaborative communication tools, such as teleconferencing, email, and/or VTC are highly encouraged where practicable in support of peer reviews.

(1) The functional peer review shall be conducted by an independent, contracting representative from PLD. The contracting field office receiving the acquisition (package) shall determine whether the procurement requires a peer review based on thresholds identified above. The Chief of the Contracting Office (COCO) will prepare a “Request for Peer Review” (https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=peer_review_memorandums_templates) memorandum, thru their HCO for the contracting field office to the PL2 Chief, which shall include a program overview and detailed description of services (identify mission partner, supply/service requested, acronyms being used), dollar value, estimated procurement timelines and the skill set(s) required to support the peer review. The request shall also include a statement if Legal (GC) or technical (CAE/mission partner) support is requested based on HCO assessment of the requirements and resulting contract. PLD approval is at the PL2 level. Upon PL2 concurrence of the request, the PL22 Peer Review Program Coordinator will send an email request to non-cognizant HCOs to request a contracting representative nominee, and if GC or CAE/mission partner support is requested, an email will also be sent to those respective offices, along with a copy of the signed peer review request memorandum.

The PLD contracting representative must be independent from the acquisition and contracting business process (DARS 1.9000), and outside the contracting office team conducting the procurement. Personnel directly involved in or with cognizant authority for the acquisition shall not be members of the peer review team.

(2) For contracting representative on peer review teams will serve as the Team Lead. This team member should have knowledge of requirements review, be able to clearly address and evaluate the quality of the requirements, be focused and committed to the peer review requirements, and provide a direct impact to the adequacy and completeness of the contracting documents, contracting issues, processes, and procedures. The Contracting peer review team member shall be DAWIA Level III certified in Contracting, hold a current DISA warrant equal to or exceeding the estimated value of the procurement and be at the COCO level or higher. Once nominees are identified by PLD (and OGC and CAE/mission partner, where appropriate), a Peer Review “Request for Appointment of Contracting (Primary and Alternate) Peer Review Representative” (https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=peer_review_memorandums_templates ) memorandum will be prepared by PL2, and staffed through the cognizant COCO/HCO chain of command for approval (no Form 9 needed). PLD approval is at the PL2 level. The appointed contracting representative, alternate contracting officer and contract specialist will receive courtesy copies of all PLD appointment documentation.

(3) For continuity, all representatives appointed at the inception of the peer review process are expected to serve on the team at all peer review decision points for the acquisition, unless otherwise stated in the appointment letter or replaced by the appointing authority. Immediate notification shall be provided via email to the PL22 Peer Review Program Coordinator should an appointee not be able to fulfill the requirements of his or her appointment. A subsequent notification will be issued by PL22 to the cognizant COCO/HCOs for a nomination of a contracting replacement team member with comparable qualifications to those of the persons being replaced. PL2 approval is required for a new contracting representative. Upon nomination of the replacement member, a replacement memorandum will be prepared by the cognizant HCO to the PL2 Chief, “Request for Replacement Appointment of Contracting Peer Review Representative” memorandum (https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=peer_review_memorandums_templates). If OGC and/or CAE support is being provided on a specific acquisition and the appointed OGC and/or CAE team member requires replacement, an email will be sent to the PL22 Peer Review Coordinator, along with a replacement appointee. Copies of all approved peer review documentation will be sent to the contracting replacement appointee, replaced contracting representative team member, contracting officer, contract specialist and respective COCO.

(S-94) Peer Review Training. After the contracting representative (to include any replacement member nominated during the peer review process) is appointed and approved by the PL2, peer review training for the specific acquisition will be prepared and conducted by the PL22 Peer Review Program Coordinator (if team members have not had peer review training prior to this assignment). Dates/times will be coordinated with the contracting officer, contracting representative, and any other team members requested, but shall occur prior to the first peer review decision point. The training will consist of a program overview, brief of peer review process, ethics and conduct of peer reviews discussion (prior to, during, and after peer reviews), overview of the signed acquisition strategy/plan, overview of required peer review documents, discussion on transmission of documentation for approval, and POC information for assistance during the peer review process. Due to possibility of receiving acquisition and contractor sensitive information, source selection and/or program information during the peer review training and peer review process; all participants will be requested to provide a copy of a completed and signed Blanket Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) form or validate (via email) that a DISA-level NDA is on file. The contracting officer will retain a copy of the NDAs in the contract file under the Peer Review tab.

(S-95) Peer Review Business Process.

(1) The peer review process begins with the initiation of the Peer Review Request memorandum from the cognizant HCO, and is the same for both internal and external customers/requirements. The cognizant COCO/contracting officer shall ensure all respective internal reviews/pre-planning/approvals of required procurement documentation are completed prior to requesting the start of a Peer Review (e.g., AP, J&A (if applicable), RFI, etc).

(2) Independent Peer Reviews shall be conducted prior to the Legal (GC) and Policy Compliance (PL22) reviews identified in DARS 1.9000 (S-93), Approval Authority Review and Approval. In preparation of the peer review, the Contracting Officer/Contract Specialist shall provide soft copy read-aheads of all required acquisition documentation to each peer review team member at least 3-5 working days in advance of the scheduled peer review (or in conjunction with the peer review training for urgent efforts). Documents should be coordination-ready, and not in draft form. Documents will be filed in the Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) and posted on DISA SharePoint for shared access by all team members (link to be provided to team members via email by Contracting Officer/Contract Specialist). If using DISA’s Source Selection Tool, Contracting Officer/Contract Specialist shall set up permissions for all team members for access to documents generated/stored in that tool. This will facilitate an efficient peer review, improve the quality of the Peer Review reports, and avoid adding unnecessary procurement administrative lead time. Some of the key acquisition and procurement documents, although not all inclusive, are listed below:

a. Competitive Pre-Award Reviews:

i. Solicitation – Acquisition Strategy, Acquisition Plan (AP), Funding document, Market Research Report (MRR), approved DD2579, Small Business Coordination Record, Source Selection Plan (SSP) or Technical Evaluation Plan (TEP), Solicitation (including final PWS/SOO/QASP, SOW).

ii. FPR – Proposals, evaluation documentation, Evaluation Notices (ENs), Price or Cost Analysis, Procurement Analysis Reports (PARs)/Consensus Reports (if using DISA Source Selection Tool).

iii. Award – Source Recommendation Document (SRD) (if using Fair Opportunity process), Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM), Source Selection Decision Documents (SSDD)(if using formal source selection process), Source Selection Advisory Council (SAAC)/Source Selection Authority (SSA) briefings, Contract.

b. Non-competitive Pre-Award Peer Reviews:

i. Prior to Negotiations – Pre-solicitation documentation, Acquisition Strategy, Acquisition Plan (AP), Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competitive (J&A), Funding document, Technical Evaluation Plan (TEP), Solicitation (including final PWS/SOO/QASP, SOW), pre-negotiation memorandum/documentation.

ii. Award - Source Recommendation Document (SRD) (if using Fair Opportunity process), Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM), Source Selection Decision Documents (SSDD) (if using formal source selection process), Source Selection Advisory Council (SAAC)/Source Selection Authority (SSA) briefings, Contract.

c. Post-Award Peer Reviews (for Acquisition of Services only) – Contract, any subsequent modifications, task orders, QASP, fee/payment plans (if applicable), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) documentation, contract performance documentation.

Note: For all Peer Reviews above, reviews also include a complete review of the solicitation/contract file by the contracting representative/team lead.

For additional detail/guidance on documentation, the Contracting Officer shall refer to DFARS PGI 201.170-4 Administration of Peer Reviews (Page 3 and 4), and the DPAP Peer Review memorandum to determine the required documents for pre- and post-award peer reviews, http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/peer_reviews.html (Page 4 & 5).

(3) Peer Reviews shall be conducted using approved Checklists identified for each decision point (https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=peer_review_memorandums_templates):

a. Checklist for Review Prior to Issuance of Solicitation.

b. Checklist for Review Prior to Issuance of Request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR).

c. Checklist for Review Prior to Award .

d. Checklist for Review Post Award Review of Service Contracts – Option Years (OYs) and Mid-Point Base Year.

(4) Peer Review Report/Findings. The peer review team members are provided tentative peer review dates by the PL22 Peer Review Program Coordinator via email for advanced planning. The peer review team members, unless under urgent situations identified by the HCA, will be given five (5) business days notice or more prior to commencing peer review. The contracting peer review representative has 5 business days to complete their individual and/or group peer review discussions. The PLD contracting representative/team lead shall submit the team’s findings via email, using a Peer Review Report, Cover letter and applicable Checklist (spreadsheet) (https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=peer_review_memorandums_templates). The preliminary report shall be submitted to the HCA via email (no Form 9 needed), with copies to the PL2 Chief, PL22 Peer Review Program Coordinator, cognizant COCO/HCO, contracting representative, other appointed peer review team members, and the contracting specialist for tracking/management of report. All peer review documentation shall be marked as “Source Selection Information – FAR Parts 2.101 and 3.104”.

(5) Adjudication Process. Upon email submission of the initial Peer Review Report to the HCA, the Contracting Officer/Contract Specialist shall begin the adjudication process. The Contracting Officer has 5 business days to complete the adjudication, using the Disposition of Findings spreadsheet to document their response to the findings and resolution. This Disposition of Findings, all email transmissions and any other associated documentation shall be filed in the applicable contract file in EDMS. The final adjudicated responses shall be emailed to the HCA, with copies to the PL2 Chief, PL22 Peer Review Program Coordinator, cognizant COCO/HCO, contracting representative, other appointed peer review team members, and the contracting specialist for tracking/management of report.

(S-96) Peer Review Reports. A Peer Review Report (https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=peer_review_memorandums_templates) shall be completed and distributed immediately after the conclusion of the review and is required to address the following areas at a minimum:

(1) The checklists must be completed and any area that is assessed to be deficient or not applicable will require a written supporting rationale.

(2) Critical deficiencies which violate policy, regulation, or statute.

(3) Recommendations for improvements that if enacted would improve management and oversight of the contract, improve efficiency or reduce cost, or yield other benefits for the instant or similar future requirements.

(4) Best practices which if enacted across DISA contracts would improve the execution, management, or oversight of contracts; improve efficiency or reduce cost, or yield other benefits.

(5) Lessons learned regarding the peer review process, which when shared across DISA contracts, would improve the efficiency of the review process.

When the report includes a recommendation that is identified as “significant” and the contracting officer does not intend to follow that recommendation, the HCA and cognizant COCO/HCO shall be made aware of this fact, by the contracting officer, before action is taken (or inaction as applicable) that is contrary to the recommendation.

(S-97) Distribution of Peer Review Reports. Peer Review Reports shall be distributed to the following parties:

(1) Contracting Officer/Contract Specialist - For disposition and inclusion in the contract file. Contracting officers shall ensure that the Peer Review Report(s) and disposition of all peer review recommendations are documented in a memorandum executed by the contacting officer, in the contract file prior to proceeding to the next phase of the procurement.

(2) Cognizant Head of the Contracting Office (HCO)

(3) Chief of Contracting Office (COCO)

(4) Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA)

(5) PL22 Quality Assurance Branch, Peer Review program coordinator, to compile findings and recommendations from Peer Review Reports, analyze trends, and make recommendations on repetitive deficiencies or recommendations/observations to improve the quality of future requirements documents and acquisitions.

(6) Legal Representative (when legal support is requested)

(7) Technical Representative (when technical support is requested)

(S-98) Waivers.

(1) If critical mission performance circumstances necessitate the request of a waiver from the entire acquisition or one or more of the peer review decision points, a “Request for Peer Review Waiver” (https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=peer_review_memorandums_templates) memorandum shall be forwarded to the HCA by the cognizant HCO, with copies to PL2 Chief, the PL22 Peer Review Program Coordinator, cognizant COCO, Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. Waivers shall be in the same format as the Request for Peer Review, with subject line modified to read, “Request for Waiver of Peer Review for (name of program/project/service)”, and shall include a brief explanation of why a waiver is necessary. Waiver requests shall be approved prior to proceeding with a procurement action without a peer review. Waivers may only be requested to the PLD HCA for competitive procurements valued under $1 billion and sole source procurements valued under $500 million. For actions over those dollar thresholds, waivers must be approved by the PLD HCA, and forwarded to OSD for approval.

SUBPART 1.2 — ADMINISTRATION

1.201 Maintenance of the DARS.

All revisions to the DARS will be implemented by a DISA Acquisition Circular (DISA AC) and numbered consecutively beginning with the fiscal year of the latest edition of the DARS and number “01” (e.g., DISA AC 09-01).

1.201-1 The two councils.

(S-90) Submit proposed revisions to the FAR, DFARS, and DARS to DISA PL2 via the “DISA Ft Meade PLD Mailbox PL21 Policy Branch” Outlook mailbox. The format for providing proposed revisions is located at Appendix C.

(S-91) Submit notification of errors in the DARS such as misspelled words, omitted words, or lines, or errors in format to PL21 via email to the DISA “DISA Ft Meade PLD Mailbox PL21 Policy Branch” Outlook mailbox. The notice may be informal in format but must identify the DARS page, citation, and nature of error.

SUBPART 1.3 — AGENCY ACQUISITION REGULATIONS

201.301 Policy.

The DISA Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS) will be numbered in accordance with the method prescribed in DFARS Subpart 201.3-Agency Acquisition Regulations (Revised November 1, 2004).

201.303 Publication and codification.

(a)(i) In accordance with FAR 1.301 and DFARS 201.304, the DARS is not required to be codified in Title 48, Code of Federal Regulations nor approved by USD (AT&L) DPAP. Any revisions to the DARS that would require codification shall comply with aforementioned FAR and DFARS cites.

(ii) To the extent practical all DARS text (whether implemental or supplemental) will be numbered as if it were implemented in accordance with DFARS Subpart 201.303-Publication and Codification. Supplemental numbering will only be used when the text cannot be integrated intelligibly with its FAR or DFARS counterpart. DARS supplements must parallel the FAR and DFARS, with the exception that supplemental sections are numbered using 90 or (S-90). Parts, subparts, sections, or subsections are supplemented by the addition of a number of 90 and up. Lower divisions are supplemented by the addition of a number of (S-90) and up. DARS provisions or clauses use a four digit sequential number in the 9000 series, e.g., -9000, -9001, -9002.

(iii) The table shown in DFARS Subpart 201.303(D), DFARS Numbering provides an example of the numbering system. Sample Table with DARS Numbering below

(S-90) Subparts will be enumerated using the numbering convention used by the FAR. Sections under subparts will be enumerated using FAR or DFAR numbering conventions, depending on whether the FAR or DFAR is being implemented or supplemented.

201.304 Agency control and compliance procedures.

(S-90) DISA PL2 shall review all DISA acquisition-related procedures (both mandatory/non-mandatory) that impact the Agency prior to implementation.

(S-91) These procedures are generally implemented as DISA Acquisition Templates, Samples, Guides, and Deskbooks and referenced in the appropriate part in the DARS. Appendix A contains a listing of all current deskbooks. DISA PL2 facilitates implementation of all DISA Acquisition Documents.

(S-92) All DISA acquisition deskbooks are available electronically at http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp.

SUBPART 1.4 -- DEVIATIONS FROM THE FAR

201.402 Policy.

(1) The HCA is the approval authority for individual deviations from FAR, DFARS, or DARS except those listed in DFARS 201.402(1)(i-vi). If the deviation is for a classified program, the Senior Procurement Executive is the approval authority for individual deviations.

(2)(i) Except as provided in DFARS 201.402(2)(ii), individual deviations, other than those in DFARS 201.402(1)(i-vi), must be approved in accordance with the approved DISA Plan for Control of Clauses (Appendix B).

(iii) For deviations that require USD (AT&L)DPAP approval (DFARS 201.402(1)), use the format in DFARS 201.402(2). Submit requests for deviation approval through DISA PL2.

(S-90) Requests for deviations that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the agency or have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors must be published for public comment in the Federal Register.

(1) Allow sufficient time for the 60-day public comment period, resolution of public comments, review of public comments by the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council and approval by USD (AT&L) DPAP.

(2) The originator of the deviation is responsible for preparing the support package and proposed deviation language.

(3) The originator of the deviation shall prepare the documentation to support any required analysis.

(S-91) Appendix B contains the approved DISA Clause Control Plan and shall be followed for approval of clauses other than those prescribed in the FAR and DFARS.

SUBPART 1.5 — AGENCY AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

1.501-2 Opportunity for public comments.

(S-90) DISA comments on proposed or interim rules published for public comment in the Federal Register shall be submitted through DISA PL2.

SUBPART 1.6 — CONTRACTING AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

201.602-2 Responsibilities

(S-90) Policy

(l) The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is an authorized representative of the DISA KO who assists with the technical monitoring and/or administration of a contract. The COR is the technical/administrative liaison between the contractor and the KO.

(a) COR is the only approved functional title for individuals performing the designated duties and responsibilities under this subpart in support of DISA contract management. Regardless of previous titles used, if an individual is performing the functions of a COR in support of a DISA or non-DISA contract, their appropriate functional title is DISA COR (primary or alternate). Contracting Officers shall only use the title COR in their designation letters.

(b) All prospective DISA and non-DISA CORs shall be identified in writing along with their appropriate training, qualifications, experience and other considerations through Contracting Officer’s Representative Tracking (CORT) Tool.. All CORs shall possess the training and technical skills required to monitor and administer the specific, assigned duties.

Supervisors of personnel nominated or designated as CORs shall ensure, as part of their annual performance plan review and IDP preparation and approval, that all initial and annual refresher training, mandatory, optional, alternative, and supplemental, requirements are discussed with the COR and the appropriate DISA Contracting Officer. CORs shall be registered in the CORT Tool in conjunction with development of their IDPs

(c) Before designation and subsequently as required, the Contracting Officer must review nominations and all certifications of completed training. No individual should assume or commence COR functional responsibilities in support of any DISA or non-DISA contract unless they have completed the required training, provided the required certifications, and received and acknowledged in writing their COR designation letter from the DISA KO.

The Contracting Officer shall designate a COR in writing upon review of the nominee’s completeness and acceptance of all required initial and refresher training and certification requirements. The authority to designate CORs shall not be further delegated.

(d) DISA Requirements Office shall use the DoD CORT Tool to initiate the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) nomination. At the time of award, the Contracting Officer shall use the DISA COR Designation Letter located at: https://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/deskbooks.asp or in the CORT Tool located at: https://arc.army.mil/DODCOR/CORHandbooks_SelfServe.aspx

(e) EDMS Tab 52 shall the following documents: screen shot of completed CORT Tool Nomination Process, and the CORT Tool Designation Letter.

(i) The title Task Monitor (TM) is no longer valid because the title conflicts with policies and instructions within DFARS 201.602 and PGI 201.602-2. Therefore, the new task order technical monitor will be called Task or Site COR.

NOTE: Task Monitor Designations issued prior to October 1, 2011 will remain in effect until the task order expires or until the Task Monitor is terminated. No new Task Monitor Designations will be issued after October 1, 2011.

(ii) A Technical Representative (TR) is distinctly different from a COR. A TR is not authorized to perform contract administration functions and is generally located at a contractor’s facility to provide program technical oversight. The acquisition manager (see DARS Part 7 for definition) appoints the TR. See DFARS 242.74 for TR procedures.

(iii) The KO shall check the administration and performance of the COR on a continual basis. Negative results shall be documented in the contract file and a copy sent to the COR’s supervisor. If the KO determines that a COR is not performing in a satisfactory manner regarding contract administration, contract management or task order management, the KO may remove the COR, revoke their designation in writing, and request that the requirements office nominate a suitable replacement COR.

(iv) All COR questions, issues, and concerns should be sent to the COR email address CORTM@disa.mil.

(S-91) CORT Tool and DISA and DoD Handbook

(1) All candidates and active CORs shall refer to the approved Department of Defense (DoD) Contracting Officer Representative Tracking Tool (CORT Tool) available at https://arc.army.mil/DODCOR/.

(2) DISA COR Handbook is located at https://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/deskbooks.asp or https://arc.army.mil/DODCOR/CORHandbooks_SelfServe.aspx

(3) DoD COR Handbook is currently located at https://arc.army.mil/DODCOR/Default.aspx?menu=1.

1.602-3 Ratification of unauthorized commitments.

(a) Definitions.

“Ratifying Official,” as used herein means the individual who has the authority to enter into a contractual commitment on behalf of the Agency, or the KO.

“Ratification Approving Official,” as used here means the Senior Procurement Executive, (SPE) or the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA), as specified in (b) (2) below.

(b)(2) The ratification approving official for all unauthorized commitments valued at or above $1M is the SPE. The ratification approving official for all Non-DISA unauthorized commitments (regardless of amount) and DISA unauthorized commitments valued below $1M is the HCA. Coordination of the ratification request shall flow from the individual that made the unauthorized commitment as follows: 1) Cognizant KO to prepare the Determination and Findings, 2) DITCO HCO, and 3) General Counsel for a legal opinion, prior to submitting to PL22 for review and processing. PL22 will log the request, assign a tracking number, review the complete package and coordinate for HCA/SPE approval.

(S-90) The individual that made the unauthorized commitment prepares the ratification request package using the standardized “Request for Approval of Unauthorized Commitment” format, includes the documents specified in the “Ratification Checklist of Required Documentation” and prepares a DISA Form 9 in accordance with the DISA Action Officer’s Guide and the provided DISA Form 9 Instructions. The ratification request package and DISA Form 9 shall be submitted to PL22 for tracking. If the unauthorized commitment was made by a non-DISA employee, then the Form 9 will be prepared by the contract specialist or KO.

The Ratification Checklist of Required Documentation, Request for Approval of Unauthorized Commitment, and DISA Form 9 Instructions are located at https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=ratification_templates .

(S-91) Ratification packages shall be submitted within 15 business days after initial notification to the KO of the unauthorized commitment. The KO shall complete the processing of the ratification determination and findings within 14 business days after the receipt of an accurate and complete package in accordance with the “Ratification Checklist of Required Documents” referenced above.

(S-92) The ratification approving official reviews the ratification request package and approves or disapproves the ratification request. Final approval of the ratification action resides with the appropriate ratification-approving official.

(S-93) After submission of a ratification request, the individual that made the unauthorized commitment and an appropriate management official from the individual’s organization may be required to brief the ratification approving official on the circumstances and corrective actions taken to prevent recurrence of unauthorized commitments. The ratification approval official will determine if a briefing is required and the method of the briefing via in person, by telephone, or by video-teleconference (VTC).

(S-94) The Quality Assurance and Compliance Branch, PL22 will maintain a database of all unauthorized commitments and ratification requests. The database, at a minimum, shall include the following information:

(1) Ratification Control Number– A unique control number assigned for each ratification request package. The first two numbers correspond to the last two numbers of the fiscal year in which the ratification request is received, followed by a dash and two numbers corresponding to the sequence in which the ratification request is received (i.e., 10-01, 10-02, 10-03, etc.). Ratification control numbers will be assigned upon receipt of a complete ratification package.

(2) Contract Number and/or Order Number– The pertinent contract/order number against which the individual made an unauthorized commitment. If no contract existed at the time that an unauthorized commitment was made, so indicate. If the ratification request was approved and implemented, indicate the resulting, applicable contract number, with appropriate notation to that effect.

(3) Contracting officer(KO)/Organization Code/Phone – Enter the appropriate name, organization code, and telephone number of the KO for the pertinent contract involved. If no contract exists, the information should be that of the KO involved in the ratification action.

(4) Date Received – This is the date on which the ratification request package was received..

(5) Customer DISA or Non-DISA – This is self-explanatory. Indicate whether the customer is from DISA or a non-DISA source.

(6) Vendor – Identify the pertinent vendor’s name and location (city and state).

(7) Organization/Office Code/Phone Number – This information identifies the organization to which the individual that made the unauthorized commitment belongs, as well as the office code and phone number.

(8) Date of Unauthorized Commitment – The actual date on which the unauthorized commitment was made.

(9) Dollar Value – The dollar value of the unauthorized commitment.

(10) Date of Ratification – The date on which the pertinent contract was ratified or the date on which the approved ratification request was implemented.

(11) Description of the Unauthorized Commitment and Ratification Requirement – Self-explanatory.

(12) Reason(s) for Ratification – A simple statement is all that is needed. This is a statement of why the unauthorized commitment was made. For example, expired contract; failure of the requirements office to communicate with the business management office and the KO prior to making arrangements with the vendor to start work or provide a product/service.”

(13) If Not Ratified, Why Not? – Self-explanatory. If the ratification request was not approved, explain why it was not approved. If the ratification request was approved, leave this field blank.

(14) Type of Preventive Action Taken – Describe the actions taken regarding the individual that made the unauthorized commitment to guard against or prevent recurring unauthorized commitments. For example, indicate what action was taken to prevent this situation from occurring in the future (e.g. directed to attend purchase card training and re-certification as a Government Purchase Card holder, received a written letter of reprimand from immediate supervisor, was placed on leave without pay for a five-day period by the head of their organization. Include the organizational title of who directed the action to be taken.

(15) Referral to Investigative Authorities (Yes/No) – Self-explanatory.

(16) Previous Occurrences (Yes/No) – To the knowledge of the KO, has there been any previous occurrence of an unauthorized commitment by this individual or organization?

(17) Ratification Approval Level (HCA or SPE)/Phone Number/Approval Date/Ratifying Official/Phone – Identify the appropriate approval level for the submitted ratification request; the applicable telephone number, and the date on which the ratification was approved.

(18) Contracting Officer (KO)/Phone Number – Identify the KO responsible for implementing the ratification action on contract, and the KO’s telephone number.

1.603 Selection, appointment, and termination of appointment.

1.603-1 General.

(a) The authority in FAR 1.603-1 for selection, appointment, and termination of DISA KOs is delegated to the DISA Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA), or acting HCA, without power of re-delegation.

(S-90) The process for unlimited KO appointments includes:

● submission of a nomination package (see DARS 1.603-1(S-92)),

● successful completion of a DISA KO appointment test (see DARS 1.603-3(S-91)),

● a KO appointment review board (see DARS 1.603-3(S-90)),

● the presentation of the KO certificate of appointment (SF 1402) by the HCA (see DARS 1.603-3(S-93)).

The process for limited KO appointments includes:

● submission of a nomination package (see DARS 1.603-1(S-92)),

● successful completion of a DISA KO appointment test (see DARS 1.603-3(S-91)),

● the presentation of the KO certificate of appointment (SF 1402) by the HCA (see DARS 1.603-3(S-93)).

The HCA may waive the test and/or review board requirements for a candidate after reviewing the candidate’s “DISA Application for Appointment as a Contracting Officer” and discussing the candidate’s credentials with the Head of the Contracting Office (HCO).

(S-91) It is the responsibility of a candidate’s immediate supervisor and HCO to prepare a candidate for the KO appointment process, including authorizing individual study and providing practice/mock tests and boards.

(S-92) Nomination packages. The HCO shall submit requests for KO appointments to the Procedures Branch (PL23) via email, to include the “DISA Application for Appointment as a Contracting Officer” (see DARS 1.603-2(S-91)). After reviewing the criteria for selection in DARS 1.603-2, the candidate shall prepare the request and staff the nomination package through their respective management chain-of-command and obtain endorsement by the HCO.

1.603-2 Selection.

(S-90) Types of appointments and minimum qualifications.

DISA contracting employees in the 1102 series, or military equivalent, may be appointed as KOs provided they possess the qualifications required for the additional responsibility and duties that result from such appointment. The only exception to the requirement for a DISA employee to be in the 1102 series, or military equivalent, to be eligible for KO appointments are DISA Communications Management and Control Activity (CMCA) personnel who seek appointments based on the most current version of the DISA CMCA OPLAN. The standard types of KO appointments and minimum training requirements for appointment are below in Table 1-1. Minimum education qualifications for appointment above the simplified acquisition threshold are set in DFARS 201.603-2 http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/html/current/201_6.htm. The HCA may grant a deviation to the training requirements for appointment on a case-by-case basis. If a HCO requires a HCA deviation to the minimum training requirements for a candidate in order to meet mission requirements, the HCO must provide written justification to the HCA and obtain written HCA approval of the deviation. The written HCA approval of the deviation must be included with the nomination package.

Table 1-1

SF 1402 Limitations Statements (Entered on face of the SF 1402)

1 Contract authority is limited to $ [insert amount] for any contract action

2 No authority for termination for default is included

3 Termination for convenience authority is limited to the amount of contract authority

4 No limitations

5 Contract authority is limited to $25,000 for any contract action for information technology services and equipment in support of the US Secret Service, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Office of Special Events

6 Authority is limited to authorizing automatic contract file conversions to revise tariff rates

7 Contract authority is limited $150,000 for placing orders for pre-priced items under the FTS2001 and Networx contracts

8 Contract authority is limited to [insert amount] for contract closeout actions

9 Contract authority is limited to $150,000 for any contract action; except, contract authority is $500,000 for orders issued against existing Government contracts or contracts established under FAR Part 8 procedures. No authority to contract for telecommunications services that are usage based, include monthly recurring charges, or are subject to regulatory tariffs is included

10 No authority for termination is included

(S-91) Application for appointment as a contracting officer (KO).

The “DISA Application for Appointment as a Contracting Officer” must document the education, experience, and training qualifications. The application template is located at https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=disa_contracting_officer_appointment_information. Application must be signed and in Microsoft Word format (not PDF).

(S-92) Application review. Upon submission of the nomination package by the HCO to PL23, PL23 will review the package for completeness to ensure the candidate meets the minimum qualification criteria for the requested appointment. If the candidate meets the minimum qualification criteria, and the request is for an unlimited appointment, PL23 will forward the nomination package to the HCA, through PL2 and the PLD Deputy Director, and request the HCA proceed with a KO appointment review board. PL23 will notify the HCO of the HCA’s authorization to proceed to the review board. It is the responsibility of the HCO and candidate to coordinate the schedule of the review board with the review board chairperson. If the request is for a limited appointment, PL23 will notify the HCO and request the HCO schedule the KO appointment test (see DARS 1.603-3(91)).

1.603-3 Appointment.

(S-90) Unlimited appointments.

(1) A candidate seeking an unlimited KO appointment must successfully complete a DISA KO appointment test (see DARS 1.603-3(S-91)) prior to interviewing with a KO appointment review board. If the unlimited candidate previously successfully completed a KO appointment test in obtaining a DISA limited KO appointment, the candidate does not have to retest.

(2) An unlimited KO appointment study guide, that includes sample scenario-based questions, is available at: https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=disa_contracting_officer_appointment_information .

(3) A formal KO appointment review board shall be convened to determine if the candidate is qualified for appointment as a KO with an unlimited appointment. The review board will be chaired by either the PLD Director or the PLD Deputy Director. In addition to the review board chairperson, the review board shall also include:

1. Non-sponsoring HCO

2. General Counsel representative

3. Chief, Policy, Quality Assurance and Procedures Division (PL2)

4. CFE representative

5. PLD Technical Director

Additional board members (e.g., senior cost/price analyst, senior KOs, program management) may also be included at the discretion of the review board chairperson.

(4) The KO appointment review board may discuss the qualifications of the candidate with the HCO prior to formally convening the review board. The candidate should ensure her/his qualifications are summarized in the DISA Application for Contracting Officer Warrant.

(5) The KO appointment review board may be conducted either face-to-face or via VTC at the discretion of the review board chairperson. The maximum amount of time for the entire review board to convene is three hours.

(6) The KO appointment review board process includes:

(i) The candidate will orally summarize his/her qualifications.

(ii) The candidate will orally provide his/her justification for an unlimited warrant.

(iii) The review board chair will present the candidate with up to six written scenario-based questions, with at least one from each of these acquisition topics:

(A) Pre-award

(B) Source Selection

(C) Cost & Pricing

(D) Contract Administration (including terminations)

(iv) Prior to meeting with the board members, the candidate will be provided with a copy of the questions and will be given fifteen minutes to assemble his/her thoughts. The candidate is encouraged to pre-arrange for a quiet and uninterruptable setting for this fifteen minute period. Only pen and paper will be provided, (no open book, no computer access, no notes, etc.).

(v) The candidate will orally discuss in-depth and individually answer the scenario-based questions. The candidate is expected to demonstrate her/his acquisition knowledge by articulating logic and facts associated with the scenario-based questions. The candidate is expected to sustain his/her responses by providing supporting information from the FAR, DFARS, DARS and other acquisition policies, procedures and regulations.

(vi) After the candidate responds to all of the scenario-based questions presented by the board, the candidate will be temporarily dismissed. The Board members will vote, without the candidate present, to determine if the candidate is qualified to be issued an unlimited warrant. The final decision will be determined by the board chairperson and relayed to the candidate as the final portion of the board process.

(vii) If the review board concludes the candidate is qualified, he/she will be notified that an unlimited warrant will be immediately processed.

(viii) If the review board concludes the candidate is not qualified for an unlimited warrant, the chairperson will provide the candidate and their HCO with constructive feedback. This feedback will facilitate the candidate in preparing to re-interview at a later date. Candidates may re-interview after 60 calendar days. The HCA may waive the 60 day requirement.

(S-91) Limited appointments.

(1) Candidates for limited KO appointments shall be required to successfully complete a time limited, proctored examination to assess contracting knowledge and research ability. Only CMCA and FTS 2001/Networx KO appointments are exempt from the testing requirements. In addition, a KO with a limited appointment who has previously successfully completed the DISA KO appointment test does not have to retest to qualify for an increased limited appointment. However, a KO with a limited appointment who has not previously passed a DISA KO appointment test is required to pass the test to qualify for an increased limited appointment.

(2) The KO appointment test is open-book/open-computer with access to the FAR, DFARS and DARS, but assistance by another individual or group is not permitted. The candidate may use formally published contracting materials, but shall not use informal training material or notes. The candidate shall be given a four hour period. A candidate must score an 85% (68 points out of 80 possible points) or better to pass the test. A passing score does not guarantee a KO appointment.

(3) Each test shall be comprised of 40 true-false and multiple-choice questions pertaining to the FAR, DFARS, and DARS. The test shall consist of 30 questions from the following sections of the FAR, DFARS and DARS:

Required Questions

The remaining 10 questions will be from other sections of the FAR, DFARS, or DARS.

(4) Test final scores shall be provided to the candidate, the candidate’s immediate supervisor, the HCO and the HCA.

(5) On a case-by-case basis, the HCA may allow accommodations for special needs employees to include relaxation of the four hour time limit to complete the test, or accommodations for employees with visual or mobility issues, or those requiring voice-assisted software, etc.

(6) If the candidate correctly answers both the question and the reference indicating where the candidate found the answer, then the candidate shall be granted two points. If the candidate answers the question correctly, but answers the reference incorrectly, the candidate shall be granted one point. If the candidate answers the question incorrectly, but answers the reference correctly, the candidate shall not be granted any points. In this last scenario, an incorrect answer but where the candidate correctly answered the reference demonstrates the candidate did not understand the regulation and, therefore, shall not be granted any points. The following illustrates the scoring methodology:



References shall be provided to the lowest possible level as illustrated below. Subdivisions below the paragraph level (e.g. FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)(A) ) are acceptable, but are not required.



(7) PL23 shall be responsible for maintenance of test questions. Test questions residing within the test question database shall be maintained by PL23, including addition/deletion of questions and modifications to existing questions and/or references as dictated by publication of new policy.

(8) Each HCO shall appoint a test administrator to schedule and proctor the test. The KO appointment test shall remain in the possession of the test administrator who is accountable and responsible for ensuring the test remains secure, so as not to invalidate the KO appointment testing process/program. Candidates are prohibited from duplicating or discussing the questions with others, so as not to compromise the integrity of the testing process.

(9) The test administrator is responsible for scoring and validating test results, manually adjusting the test score, as appropriate, and identifying to PL23 when test question/database maintenance is required. The candidate may dispute the accuracy of the test questions and/or reference to the test administrator. If the test question or reference was in error, the test administrator shall manually adjust the test score.

(10) Candidates may retake the test a second time as early as the next scheduled test. Candidates who do not pass after two attempts may retest after 60 calendar days. The HCA may waive the retesting time.

(11) Upon successful completion of the test, the HCO will provide the HCA and PL23 with the test results and the HCO will request the HCA approve the KO appointment request and sign the SF 1402.

(S-92) Changed appointments.

(1) A changed appointment is an appointment revised to reflect new information on the SF 1402. Such changes may be accomplished at any time based upon the request of an HCO, or if directed by the HCA. A change to an appointment may either be fundamental or administrative in nature. A "fundamental" change represents a change to the scope of the KO's responsibility and authority as reflected by a change to the limitations presented on the SF 1402. Any other change shall normally be viewed as an "administrative" change. Examples of administrative changes are those that correct any wording on the SF 1402 (e.g., a name change) without changing the force and effect of the appointment.

(i) A fundamental change to an appointment shall be viewed and processed as a new appointment concurrent with termination of the existing appointment. All documentation required to support a new appointment is required to support a fundamental change to an existing appointment.

(ii) Upon written request of an HCO to PL23, an administrative change may be accomplished to an existing appointment via simplified procedures tailored to fit the specific need. All administrative changes to an SF 1402 will require termination of the existing appointment and approval and issuance of a new SF 1402 by the HCA.

(S-93) Presentation of certificates of appointment. The HCA approves all requests for appointment, termination, and reissuance and signs all KO appointment certificates. The HCA, or designee, shall meet with each newly appointed KO. This meeting shall emphasize the duties inherent with a KO appointment, including fiduciary and ethical responsibilities. The HCA shall provide the new KO clear instructions regarding the limits of their authority.

(S-94) Administration of appointments.

(1) Each SF 1402 will be sequentially numbered by calendar year. PL23 will maintain the master KO records (e.g., Applications for Appointment as a KO, test results, KO appointment board review results and copies of SF 1402s) to document the candidate meets the required training and experience requirements.

(2) PL23 will maintain an electronic KO database on the DITCO Intranet web site and validate the accuracy of the database information at least annually. Supervisors are responsible for notifying PL23 when a KO no longer requires a KO appointment to perform her/his duties.

(3) KOs must ensure the original SF 1402 is prominently displayed in the immediate work area. The SF 1402 will be made available to company/contractor representatives for viewing upon request.

SUBPART 1.90 — PROCUREMENT OVERSIGHT

1.9000 Review and Approval of Contract Actions.

(S-90) Definitions.

Approval to definitize an undefinitized contract action (UCA) or an unpriced change order (UCO). The Approval Authority for all UCAs and UCOs is the HCA. An action that creates a UCA or an UCO (Note: The Contracting Officer is required to seek HCA approval before entering into a UCA IAW DFARS 217.7404-1 and before final definitization of a UCA (IAW DARS 217.7405(S-91)) or UCO (IAW DARS 243.204-70-7(S-91));

Approval Authority (AA) means the individuals delegated the authority to review and approve contract actions and contract clearances (reference 1.9000(S-92)(2)(i)).

“Begin negotiations” means, for the purpose of non-competitive contract actions, starting discussions with an offeror for the purpose of reaching agreement on all aspects of the proposal. Initiation of audits and fact-finding necessary to evaluate the proposal and develop the Government’s negotiation objective do not constitute negotiations

“Contract Clearance” means: For competitive acquisitions conducted with or without discussions, approval by the Approval Authority to authorize the KO to request final proposal revisions; and to award a contract or order. For non-competitive contract actions approval by the Approval Authority is required to award a contract, order or contract modification.

(S-91) Exclusions.

1A competitive acquisition of $50 million or more, including options, processed in accordance with the source selection procedures of FAR Part 15. For this category of acquisitions, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the approval authority for the release of a solicitation, issuing a request for final proposal revisions and executing contract award. Although there is no AA for this group of acquisitions, legal (GC) and policy compliance (PL22) reviews shall be obtained prior to issuing a solicitation and prior to requesting SSA approval to award, using the procedures at 1.9000(S-93).

(2) Orders that are issued in strict accordance with the previously approved pricing arrangements/pricing tables and other terms and conditions of the basic contract vehicle including GSA schedules, GWACs and MACs.  This exclusion includes orders where contractors are contacted solely to seek deeper discounts on known quantities. Orders that result from solicitation and negotiation of labor categories, hours, or changed scope/requirements with contractors are not excluded from review and approval requirements;

(3) An order issued against an existing contract, BOA or BPA if:

(i) the prices have been established in the basic indefinite delivery contract, BOA or BPA;
(ii) all other terms and conditions have been established in the basic indefinite delivery contract, BOA or BPA;
(iii) the basic contract, BOA or BPA was reviewed and considered legally sufficient by the supporting legal office; and, (D) there are no negotiations (i.e., no proposal, formal or informal, is necessary for the order to be issued) involved in the award of the proposed order under the indefinite delivery contract, BOA or BPA.

(4) Inquiries issued in accordance with the Inquiry/Quote/Order (IQO) Acquisition Deskbook. However, Orders issued in accordance with the IQO process are not excluded from the contract clearance review and approvals;

(5) Contract actions that solely provide incremental funding, incentive fee funding, award fee funding or other administrative contract modifications.

(6) Priced options that were previously established in the basic contract/order and that are exercised in accordance with the established prices and terms and conditions of the contract/order.

(S-92) Policy, thresholds, and approvals.

Procurement actions are subject to various review levels and thresholds as set forth below.

Head of Contracting Office Directors (HCOs) and Chiefs of Contracting Office (CoCOs) are accountable for procurement quality and are strongly encouraged to establish internal review systems to ensure quality standards are maintained for all procurement actions within their offices, including simplified acquisitions.

(1) The objectives of the review and approval process are to ensure that:

(i) Contract actions effectively implement approved acquisition strategies;

(ii) Negotiations and contract actions result in fair and reasonable business arrangements;

(iii) Negotiations and contract actions are consistent with laws, regulations, and policies; and,

(iv) An independent review and assessment for the proposed contract action is accomplished.

(2) Contract actions meeting the contract value thresholds set below shall not be awarded without obtaining the required review approvals and contract clearance approvals

(i) Competitive acquisitions and non-competitive contract actions processed in accordance with FAR Subpart 8.4, Part 12, Part 13, and Subpart 16.5:

* Note: Contract value is determined by applying the sum of the value of the basic portion of the instant acquisition, plus any options, and the value of any contingencies, such as ceiling, award fees/terms, and performance incentives.

* *Note: The Approval Authority for all UCAs and UCOs is the HCA.

See DARS 15.303 for Source Selection for Source Selection Authority Thresholds

(S-93) Approval Authority Review and Approval

(1) For all competitive and non-competitive acquisitions with a value of $6.5 million up to $100 million, the KO shall submit a “Request for Review and Approval” form, located at https://www.ditco.disa.mil/DitcoContractingTemplates/doku.php?id=contracting_templates, the documents identified in Table 1-2 below, and the Peer Review report, if applicable, via email through their chain-of-command, to the AA.

(2) For all competitive and non-competitive contract actions valued at $100 million or more, the KO shall submit a “Request for Review and Approval” form, the documents identified in Table 1-2 below, and the Peer Review report via email through their chain-of-command. The HCO shall forward package to the HCA for approval.

The approval package shall consist of the following:

- Request for Review and Approval;

- Peer review report;

- Policy compliance (PL22) and Legal (GC) reviews in accordance with 1.9000(S-94)

- KO disposition of any chain-of-command comments and PL22 and GC review comments;

- Documents identified in Table 1-2 below.

(3) Approval. If the AA is satisfied that the contract action/file meets the objectives of 1.9000(S-92), then the AA will sign and date Part B of the “Request for Review and Approval” form. Any conditions that the AA places on approval shall be specified on the “Request for Review and Approval” form. The “Request for Review and Approval” form shall be retained in the official contract file.

(4) Review and Approval Request -- Resubmission for Approval.

(i) Changes in acquisition strategy and/or terms and conditions may require the contract action to be resubmitted for approval. The following are examples of situations that require resubmission for approval:

(A) Exceeding approved negotiation parameters
(B) Changing contract type
(C) Changing contract share ratio
(D) Major change in quantity
(E) Major change in requirements
(F) Change to a significant term or condition
(G) Addition or deletion of a significant term or condition 

(S-94) General Counsel and Policy Compliance Reviews.

(1) Legal (GC) and Policy Compliance (PL22) reviews are required for contract actions $6.5M and above. The reviews shall be obtained prior to submission to the AA/SAA.

(2) At a minimum, the KO must review the contract file/documentation prior to requesting a legal and policy compliance review.  Also, the contract file must be reviewed at least one level above the KO prior to requesting a legal and policy compliance review for contract actions greater than or equal to $10M. The contract specialist or KO may submit the request for legal and policy compliance review only after all reviewer comments, if any, are resolved.

(3) Legal and policy compliance reviews may be requested concurrently. A minimum of four (4) business days for legal and policy compliance reviews should be factored into the procurement process.

(4) In circumstances where legal and policy compliance reviews must be delayed (not waived), the KO shall obtain written approval from the appropriate AA for that contract action, to proceed with the procurement, but shall obtain legal and policy compliance review after the fact and as soon as reasonably practicable. Written documentation shall justify the circumstances for such an action and shall be retained in the contract file.

(5) Policy compliance (PL22) reviews ---

(i) Requests for policy compliance review shall be sent via email to the “DISA Ft Meade PLD Mailbox PL22 Policy Compliance Review” group mailbox. The following standard subject line format shall be used: “[insert Office Code (i.e., PLX)], [insert “Pre-Solicitation”, “Pre-Award” or “Post-Award,” as appropriate] Policy Compliance Review Request, [insert solicitation, contract/modification, or order/modification number] and [*insert EDMS folder ID number].” Urgent requests for review must also include “Expedite” in the subject line and shall be forwarded to the PL22 group mailbox by the COCO.

(ii) Other pertinent information needed to assist the PL22 policy compliance reviewers should be included in the body of the e-mail. For example, provide the EDMS folder ID number, document identifier/description, , indicate if a policy compliance review was accomplished at a previous stage of the procurement (and if so, the solicitation number), indicate if this is an “after-the-fact review,” provide the estimated dollar value of the procurement, etc. Draft documents, limited to the solicitation, contract or order, the pre-Price Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) or Procurement Summary, or any best-value trade-off evaluation summaries (e.g., Selection Recommendation Document (SRD)), may be submitted as attachments to the email if not available in EDMS.

*Note: Regardless of the type of review, the EDMS folder identifier used in EDMS at the time of the review request must be included to allow the automatic storing of the review results.

(iii) Each review comment will be listed under one of the following categories: Administrative, Critical or Recommendation. Below is the definition of each category:

(A) Administrative is grammar, punctuation, style, etc.

(B) Critical is when the procurement is non-compliant with the FAR, DFARS, DARS, and DISA prescribed procedures. The reference will be cited and the comment shall be resolved within two business days and/or prior to release of any further documentation. The critical comment(s) and disposition shall become a permanent part of the contract action file.

(C) Recommendation is proposed by the procurement analyst based upon document content.

(6) Legal (GC) reviews ---

(i) DITCO-Pacific (PL7), DITCO-Scott Telecommunications Contracting Division (PL82) and DITCO-Scott IT Contracting Division (PL83) shall obtain legal reviews from legal counsel located at DITCO-Scott. DITCO-National Capital Region (PL6), DITCO-Europe (PL5), and WHCA shall obtain legal reviews from legal counsel located at NCR.

(ii) Requests for legal review from legal counsel located at DITCO-Scott shall be sent via email to the “DISA Scott AFB DITCO Mailbox Legal Office” group mailbox. Requests for legal reviews from legal counsel located at DITCO-NCR shall be sent via email to the “DISA Ft Meade GC Mailbox Acquisition Law Team” group mailbox. The following standard subject line format shall be used: “[insert Office Code (i.e., PLX)], [insert “Pre-Solicitation”, “Pre-Award Contract Clearance” or “Contract Clearance” as appropriate] Legal Review Request, [insert solicitation, contract/modification, or order/modification number].” Provide the EDMS document identifier in the body of the email so that legal counsel can access contract file documentation, in addition to that described below, as they deem appropriate to complete their review.

Note - The minimum documentation required for legal review, as described in the following paragraphs (iii) through (vii), are summarized in Table 1-2 below.

(iii) Requests for pre-solicitation reviews to issue a solicitation for competitive acquisitions must include, at a minimum, a copy of the solicitation as an attachment to the email.

(iv) Requests for pre-award reviews to award a competitive acquisition conducted without discussions must include, at a minimum, a copy of the contract or order, the post-PNM or Procurement Summary, any best-value trade-off evaluation summaries (e.g., Selection Recommendation Document (SRD)), a copy of the RFP or RFQ, and a draft notification to unsuccessful offerors, as attachments to the email. Also, indicate in the body of the email that discussions were not conducted and that the solicitation clearly stated that the Government may award without discussions.

(v) Requests for pre-award reviews to request final proposal revisions for competitive acquisitions conducted with discussions must include a copy of the proposed letter to offerors requesting final proposal revisions.

(vi) Requests for pre-award reviews to award a contract or order for competitive acquisitions conducted with discussions must include, at a minimum, a copy of the contract or order, the post-PNM, Procurement Summary, or Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD), any best-value trade-off evaluation summaries (e.g., Selection Recommendation Document (SRD)) if not a source selection conducted pursuant to FAR Part 15), a copy of the RFP or RFQ, and a draft notification to unsuccessful offerors, as attachments to the email.

(vii) Requests for pre-award reviews to award a contract action for non-competitive contract actions must include, at a minimum, a copy of the contract, order or modification and the post-PNM as an attachment to the email.

Table 1-2

1.9001 Procurement Management Reviews (PMRs) and Special Interest Reviews .

(a) Chief, Quality Assurance Branch (PL22) will establish and maintain DISA’s Procurement Management Review (PMR) program, conduct Special Interest Reviews, and assist the Agency with other reviews as appropriate. PMRs assist the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) and the Vice-Director, as the Agency Senior Procurement Executive, in evaluating DISA’s procurement processes including DISA’s Purchase Card Program. PMRs also assist the Contracting Chiefs and Commanders with improving the operational efficiency and effectiveness of their contracting organizations. This is accomplished through the assessment of internal management controls, acquisition policies and procedures, and annually certifying to the Secretary of Defense that the procurement system meets established statues, regulations, and policies. Additionally, the results of the internal PMRs are used to assess the procurement organization’s ability to sustain external scrutiny such as DoD Inspector General (DoDIG) Audits, General Accountability Office (GAO) Audits, external PMRs, and other independent reviews.

(b) PMRs are conducted on the HCA’s four Defense Information Technology Contracting Organizations (DITCOs) and two external organizations:

(1) DITCO-National Capital Region (NCR)

(2) DITCO-Europe

(3) DITCO-Pacific

(4) DITCO-Scott

(5) WHCA (White House Communications Agency)

(6) CMCA (Communications Management and Control Activity)

(c) PMRs assess the following, which include GAOs High Risk Areas and OMB Circular

A-123:

(1) Sound contracting business decisions;

(2) Effective competition, small business, and other procurement initiatives;

(3) Pricing Techniques;

(4) Types of Contracts;

(5) Market Research;

(6) Customer satisfaction;

(7) Designation of Contracting Officers Representatives (CORs);

(8) Performance-Based Acquisition (PBA) – Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans (QASPs);

(9) Contract Award and Incentive Fee Process

(10) Wide Area Work-Flow-Receipt and Acceptance (WAWF-RA);

(11) Contract Close-out;

(12) Purchase Card Program;

(13) Overall internal management controls;

(14) Proper separation of functions and duties;

(15) Proper Government oversight; and

(16) Adequate checks and balances.

(d) Special Interest Reviews are conducted at the request of the HCA or Vice Director. These reviews evaluate --

(1) Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs);

(2) Limited KO’s warrants;

(3) Purchase cardholders and approving officials; and

(4) Other areas as appropriate.

(e) Chief, Quality Assurance Branch (PL22) or designee will be the final decision authority for unresolved PMR issues.

(f) Chief, Quality Assurance Branch (PL22) will appoint a PMR Coordinator who will:

(1) Conduct PMRs on contracting offices at least once every 12-18 months;

(2) Conduct special interest reviews at the request of the HCA or Vice Director;

(3) Assist with Agency reviews when requested;

(4) Conduct follow-up reviews to validate corrective action taken from previous identified findings and recommendations;

(5) Identify systemic issues;

(6) Establish and maintain PMR statistics for the Procurement Directorate’s Balanced-Scorecard (BSC);

(7) Establish and lead the PMR team;

(8) Issue a draft report allowing sufficient time for comments;

(9) Consider comments received prior to release of the final report;

(10) Ensure final report requires the appropriate organization to provide a Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) for correcting all findings and recommendations; and

(11) Release the final report to the organization after approval by the HCA.

1.9002 Procurement Oversight for Classified

Classified procurements are not exempt from compliance reviews. The Chief, Quality Assurance Branch (PL22) shall be contacted to coordinate all compliance reviews for classified procurements. The contracting officer shall ensure contract documents are redacted to remove any reference to the awardee, program, etc.