Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and. Governmentwide Requirements for Drug- Free Workplace (Grants); Proposed Rule. The most significant changes are- -. First, this proposed common rule on debarment and suspension would. If an. agency decides that its nonprocurement activities are sufficiently. Agencies that do not have sufficient. This should help clarify. Congress, in. enacting the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1. Federal acquisition law from. The ambiguity was created because the current common rule is. U. S. C. 2. 30. 4(g) and. U. S. C. 2. 53(g), but states the current level to be $2. The proposed rules will allow agencies and participants. GSA List on the internet, to. The. drug- free workplace requirements currently are in subpart F of the. Debarment and Suspension Nonprocurement Common Rule. Moving those. requirements to a separate part will allow them to appear in a more. Department of. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed or interim rule that is. Congressional. review for a period of 1. Therefore, HUD is not joining in. Meunier, Office of Grants and Debarment (3. R). Environmental Protection Agency, 1. Pennsylvania Avenue NW.. Washington, DC 2. Comments may be submitted via e- mail. Meunier, Debarring Official. Environmental Protection Agency, by phone at (2. Information about the Interagency. Committee on Debarment and Suspension can be found on their home page. A chart showing where each. Office of Management and Budget's home page (http: //www. Grants Management.''. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Executive Order 1. Debarment and Suspension,'' issued. February 1. 8, 1. CFR 1. 98. 6 Comp., p. Federal. nonprocurement activities. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Executive branch agencies in 1. May 2. 6, 1. 98. 8 (5. Information Notice No. 89-39: List of Parties Excluded From Federal Procurement or Non-Procurement Programs UNITED STATES NUCLEAR. AND SUSPENSION (NONPROCUREMENT) AND GOVERNMENTWIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR. That are excluded from Federal Health Care Programs or federal contracts. General Services Administration. What is the Excluded Parties List System. Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs. The General Services Administration. The List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and. FR 1. 91. 60). 2. In 1. 99. 4 Congress passed the Federal Acquisition. Streamlining Act of 1. Public Law 1. 03- 3. Stat. 3. 32. 7) mandating. The ISDC's proposed amendments form. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It is formatted so that matters common to a. This allows readers easy access to information that may be of. The rule also contains tables and a. It also presents. Wherever possible, the. However, the ISDC recommended against. This decision was based on the. ISDC's view that the procurement and nonprocurement communities have. Unless Federal consent is required at a lower level. The ISDC recommended this change because it. This approach allows those Federal agencies with vulnerability at. This corrects confusion created. U. S. C. 4. 03(1. Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1. OFCCP Debarred Companies. To find a list of current companies. In the search bars type in the Entity name or using an exclusion search term, Duns & Bradstreet. April 27, 2009 St at e L ists GSA -EPLS. Government-wide Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment. Does Not Require Publication of Exclusion List. Because the current common. The procurement debarment. FAR to. keep its exclusion level at $2. The status of voluntary. Governmentwide suspension. It was once used because respondents found the. It was. in fact, a special term used for those who accepted ineligibility. The ISDC found that there are. Federal agencies to accept voluntary exclusion agreements in place of. However, with the creation of the. Governmentwide system, voluntary exclusion agreements that offer. Governmentwide system. This. section identifies factors that a debarring official may regard as. It includes factors that currently. Sec. 9. 4. 06- 1(a) of the FAR. These factors currently offer. Government and contractors with respect to. All information related to the. FR 1. 91. 60- 1. 91. May 2. 6, 1. 98. 8), and 6. FR 3. 30. 36- . 3. June 2. 6, 1. 99. Therefore, notwithstanding the technical existence of any. Nor may it be used to coerce a respondent into accepting. An agency may address its. Federal Government. In all cases. suspending and debarring officials must use business judgment and. Where. an agency has the authority to act under either the procurement or. Under the proposed rule, a new term is used. FAR. This type of ineligibility may arise by operation of a. In. addition, it may have special attributes that are inconsistent with the. FAR. For. example, persons convicted under the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. EPA Debarring Official certifies that the. The. proposed rule refers to these and other special forms of ineligibility. Disqualifications must be listed on the. General Services Administration (GSA), List of Parties Excluded or. Disqualified from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs. List), but are not subject to the uniform procedural requirements of. In recent years, courts have used many vehicles to. Currently. the withholding of entry of the judgment in a criminal matter often. This does not benefit either the. From a business point of view, the withholding of an. Federal agencies from taking appropriate action to protect the. It makes no sense for an agency to have to prove the. Under the proposed rule. This change would benefit both the government and. An agency may exclude. Sec. The proposed rule sets forth more clearly the two. The first is when an agency grants an. Sec. Exceptions are transaction- specific. Exempt transactions have special status and are not. Exempt transactions may or may not be. Each agency is. responsible for clarifying the applicability or non- applicability of an. This exemption is proposed because most often the. The proposed rule would. The proposed. modification to the existing rule would recognize the advances made in. While the. current rule provides some guidance as to how a suspending official may. The proposed rule would. Sec. 1. 98. 9), that a suspending official need not make a separate. This language is necessary to. Federal agency to suspend. Federal, State or local indictment, but only. Federal officials. In suspension and debarment matters, there is no. Federal, state or. All indictments for alleged misconduct relevant to. Federal. concern. Therefore, where the prospect of an administrative fact- . Federal level. This information is. By highlighting this. These. sections of the proposed rule also clarify that a general denial of. A suspending or. debarring official can only determine if a respondent is entitled to a. Confirmation requires contact with. Federal official by telephone or other means, a search. Routine Use Notice. The proposed rule would permit the. GSA List to include a field. Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) and Social Security Numbers. SSNs) if legally appropriate. The List and current database contains. The current commercial world uses TINs. SSNs widely and freely to confirm identities for all kinds of. Otherwise, the. current system will remain commercially inefficient. We specifically. invite comment on the proposed inclusion of this provision in the. Certification as a means of enforcement has proven. Advancements in technology allow. GSA list on. line. This makes the certification process largely obsolete. The. proposed rule would allow agencies to employ any method of enforcement. GSA List that is administratively and commercially feasible. The only requirement of the Drug Free Workplace Act of. The remaining provisions of subpart F are used. Federal assistance awards and by Federal. Federal suspension and. Moving the requirements of the. F into a part separate from the common rule allows each. Federal agency to place it in an appropriate location within the Code. Federal Regulations where it may be more easily used by recipients. Federal awarding and administering officials. Due to the. proposed reformatting, requirements would appear in a different order. Subpart F. The following table will assist. Appendix C. 3. Appendix C. Appendix C. 8. - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -. The proposed separate part would make one substantive change to the. F. The proposed substantive change would require. Federal agencies to obtain recipients' assurances of compliance with. This substantive change implements. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year. Public Law 1. 05- 8. Stat. 1. 83. 8- 1. Drug- . Free Workplace Act of 1. The body of the proposed separate part. C. to the common rule. First, it includes a definition of. Second, the proposed. The term. ``grant'' then is proposed to be redefined to bring it into conformance. Federal Grant and. Cooperative Agreement Act (currently at 3. U. S. C. Doing so. To. accommodate the change to the term ``award,'' the proposed separate. Impact Analysis- -Executive Order 1. This is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(4). Executive Order 1. Regulatory Planning and Review.''. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U. S. C. 6. 05(b)) requires that, for. This proposed rule addresses. Federal agency procedures for suspension and debarment. It clarifies. current requirements under the Nonprocurement Common Rule for Debarment. Suspension by reorganizing information and presenting that. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1. The Unfunded Mandates Act of 1. Public Law 1. 04- 4) requires. State, local, Indian Tribal governments or the private sector. Since. this proposed rule, if published as a final rule, would not result in. Paperwork Reduction Act. The participating agencies certify that this proposed rule, if. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1. U. S. C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1. This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 2. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1. U. S. C. This proposed rule, if published as a final rule, would not. Result in an annual effect on the economy of $1. United States- based companies to. Executive Order 1. Federalism. This proposed rule, if published as a final rule, would not have. States, on the relationship between. States, or on the. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order. CFR, 1. 98. 9 Comp.. Each subpart. contains information related to a broad topic or specific audience with. You will find provisions. In subpart .. The section. The pronoun ``we'' always is the . For example, three. Exclusion or excluded, which refers only to discretionary. Federal Acquisition Regulation (4. CFR part 9, subpart 9. Disqualification or disqualified, which refers to prohibitions. Executive Order. 1. Executive Order 1.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |