Overview
Title
Information Collection; Novation and Change-of-Name Agreements
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is asking people for their thoughts on how companies can change names or pass on deals to others. They want to make sure this process is easy and not too much work for everyone involved.
Summary AI
The Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and NASA are asking the public to comment on a proposal related to government contract agreements. The proposal aims to gather input on the necessity and effectiveness of the information collection for federal acquisitions and to minimize burdens on the public. This collection is part of efforts to streamline processes when contractors want recognition of a successor in interest or a name change. Public comments are welcome until April 5, 2021, with more details available on regulations.gov.
Abstract
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, DoD, GSA, and NASA invite the public to comment on a revision and an extension concerning alternatives to Government- unique standards. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of Federal Government acquisitions, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. OMB has approved this information collection for use through October 31, 2021. DoD, GSA, and NASA propose that OMB extend its approval for use for three additional years beyond the current expiration date.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register is a notice from the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and NASA, inviting public comments on proposed revisions to the way certain information is collected in the context of federal government acquisitions. This information relates primarily to novation and change-of-name agreements, which are important for contractors undergoing changes such as mergers or business name changes.
General Summary
The agencies are seeking public input to determine whether the current collection of information meets the needs of federal acquisitions, whether it is practically useful, and how the process can be improved. The ultimate aim is to ensure these processes are efficient and not unnecessarily burdensome for contractors. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had initially approved these procedures until October 2021, and the proposing agencies are seeking to extend that approval for an additional three years.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One of the primary concerns with the text is the complexity and specialized language used, such as terms like "novation agreement," which might not be immediately understood by the general public. Without definitions or context, readers who are not familiar with federal acquisition regulations may find it challenging to grasp the full implications of these agreements. Moreover, while contact and submission instructions are given, those unfamiliar with navigating regulatory processes may find them intimidating or unclear.
Impact on the General Public
For the general public, this document represents an opportunity to voice opinions on government procedures that affect business dealings with federal agencies. However, the impact may be limited for individuals without a specific interest or involvement in government contracts. The complexity of the language might discourage broader public participation in the commenting process.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Contractors and businesses that regularly engage in government contracts are the primary stakeholders affected by this proposal. They may benefit from streamlined processes proposed by DoD, GSA, and NASA if the outcome leads to reduced paperwork and more efficient transactions when undergoing organizational changes. Conversely, stakeholders without a deep understanding of these regulatory practices may find the current processes daunting and may feel inadequately equipped to contribute meaningfully to the commentary process.
In conclusion, while the document serves a critical regulatory function, enhancing business operations with federal entities, there is a need for clearer communication and simplification to facilitate broader understanding and participation. This would ensure that relevant feedback is received from all affected parties, ultimately improving the regulatory frameworks that govern federal acquisitions.
Issues
• The summary section includes a complex and lengthy sentence that may lead to misunderstanding or confusion. It could be broken down and simplified for better clarity.
• The document refers to the regulation site multiple times but does not provide any additional context or direct links, which might make it difficult for some users to find relevant information easily.
• The contact information is provided in a straightforward manner, but for someone unfamiliar with the process, it might not be clear how they can actually use these contacts effectively for their inquiries.
• The use of jargon and specific regulatory language (such as 'novation agreement') might not be easily understandable to the general public without prior knowledge of federal acquisition regulations.
• The document doesn't provide an explanation of what novation and change-of-name agreements are, which could leave some readers confused about the relevance or impact of these agreements.
• The 'Annual Burden' section provides quantitative data but lacks qualitative context or explanation about what these numbers mean in practical terms.