Overview
Title
Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 237, Service Contracting, and Related Clauses and Forms
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Defense Department wants permission to check if companies are ready to help, even in tough times, and they are asking people what they think until February 13, 2025.
Summary AI
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has requested approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to gather information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collected data relates to DFARS Part 237 and forms DD Form 2062 and 2063, which involve the handling of deceased remains and ensuring contractors can continue operating during crises. The information helps verify contractors' licenses and their readiness to provide essential services. Public comments on this proposal are open until February 13, 2025, and can be submitted online.
Abstract
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is a notice from the Defense Acquisition Regulations System, which is a part of the Department of Defense (DoD). It announces a proposal for collecting information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Aimed at ensuring compliance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 237, the proposal requires the collection of specific information related to service contracting, including the handling of deceased remains and evaluating contractors' abilities to continue operations during crises. The public is invited to comment on this proposal by February 13, 2025.
General Summary
This notice, published in the Federal Register, states the intention of the Defense Acquisition Regulations System to collect information for ensuring that contractors meet special standards of responsibility. It includes verifying licenses and readiness to maintain essential services during crises. Key elements of this information collection are embodied in DFARS provisions and forms, particularly concerning the preparation and disposition of remains either within or outside of the continental United States. The public is encouraged to submit comments on this proposal.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A few concerns arise regarding this notice. Firstly, the document lacks an estimate of the overall cost associated with this information collection, which makes it difficult to assess potential inefficiencies. Secondly, the rationale behind the 1.01 hours per response is not clarified, potentially leaving room for misunderstandings about the time required. Additionally, there is no explanation for why this collection is being submitted for clearance now or how it integrates with previous data collections. Clarifying these points would enhance understanding and transparency.
Moreover, the document's language about the needs and uses of the data could be more explicit about its impact on DoD missions, particularly in crisis scenarios. There is also ambiguity concerning the term "professional practice," as it does not specify which professions it covers, potentially leading to confusion.
Lastly, the notice does not mention how the public will be informed about the collection's results, an oversight that affects accountability and public engagement in government processes.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
The notice could broadly impact both the public and designated stakeholders. For the general public, especially businesses and institutions expected to respond, the document indicates additional administrative requirements. Understanding the nature and necessity of these requirements might alleviate any concerns about increased paperwork burdens. However, the lack of information about the cost and efficiency of this data collection could fuel skepticism regarding government spending.
Specific stakeholders—namely contractors involved in providing services to the DoD—stand to be directly affected. On the positive side, these requirements might ensure higher standards of service and accountability. Conversely, the ambiguity surrounding the criteria of “professional practice” and the assessment of essential services during crises could lead to confusion or misapplication of regulations.
In conclusion, while the intent behind the notice is ostensibly to streamline and ensure quality in service contracting, better clarification and transparency on several key aspects could improve both stakeholder receptivity and public understanding. Ensuring clear communication can help demystify the objectives of such regulatory proposals and mitigate any negative perceptions related to bureaucracy and compliance burdens.
Issues
• The document does not specify the estimated total cost of the information collection, which is necessary to assess potential wasteful spending.
• There is no indication of how the burden of 1.01 hours per response was determined, which could benefit from further clarification for transparency.
• The document does not explain why this information collection is being submitted for clearance now, nor does it provide historical context or comparison to previous data collections.
• Language related to the needs and uses of the data collected could benefit from additional explanation, particularly regarding how the information directly impacts DoD missions during crises.
• The document refers to 'professional practice' without explicitly defining what professions or practices it encompasses, which could lead to ambiguity.
• There is no mention of how the public will be informed about the results or outcomes of the information collection, which is important for accountability and transparency.