Overview
Title
Information Collection; Value Engineering Requirements
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and NASA want to keep checking if there are better ways to do things and save money, and they are asking people to share their thoughts on how to make this process better and easier. They promise to be fair about sharing any money saved from these ideas.
Summary AI
The Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are seeking public feedback on extending the value engineering requirements through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). They want comments on whether the information collection is essential for federal acquisitions and how it can be improved while minimizing the burden on respondents. The public is invited to submit comments by May 12, 2025, via the website https://www.regulations.gov. The collected data will help evaluate Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECPs) that contractors submit, and if accepted, enable a fair sharing plan for cost reductions.
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 an extension concerning value engineering requirements. 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 June 30, 2025. 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 involves a notice by the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) regarding the extension of value engineering requirements. This notice invites the public to comment on the value of collecting information necessary for federal government acquisitions and suggests ways to improve the data collection process while minimizing the burden on respondents.
General Summary
The goal of the notice is to extend the approval of value engineering requirements, which are set to expire on June 30, 2025, for three additional years. The value engineering requirements aim to evaluate changes proposed by contractors to reduce costs and enhance efficiency in government contracts. Public comments are invited to assess whether these requirements are necessary, their utility, and how they could be refined to better suit all stakeholders.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several issues emerge from the document. First, the document does not clearly outline any potential risks or downsides associated with the Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECPs), which could be essential for a comprehensive understanding of their implications. Additionally, it is ambiguous about how public feedback will be utilized to improve the collection and evaluation of information. Moreover, the justification for extending the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval beyond its expiration date is not detailed, raising questions about the necessity of this extension. The complexity of language describing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses may also pose a challenge to individuals not versed in these regulations, potentially limiting public understanding and participation in commenting. Lastly, the document lacks discussion of alternative approaches that could reduce the burden on respondents, aside from mentioning automated techniques.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this document impacts the public by informing them about the opportunity to influence government processes involving the collection and use of engineering proposals that potentially save taxpayer money. Through public participation, there's a chance for individuals and organizations to voice concerns or suggest improvements, thus affecting how government contracts are managed.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For contractors and businesses involved in government projects, the extension and requirements for Value Engineering can have significant positive implications. Accepting VECPs can lead to equitable sharing plans for cost reductions, providing financial incentives and fostering innovation. However, the burden of detailed proposal submissions could pose a challenge, especially for smaller companies or those not accustomed to such exhaustive processes.
In summary, while the document aims to optimize government contracting through value engineering, it highlights the ongoing need for public engagement and feedback to fine-tune these efforts. Addressing the identified concerns and making the process more accessible could lead to more meaningful contributions from diverse stakeholders, ultimately benefiting both the government and its contracting partners.
Issues
• The document does not specify any potential risks or disadvantages associated with the Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECPs), which could be important for fully understanding their implications.
• The document lacks specific information on how the feedback from the public will be used to make improvements to the collection of information, leading to potential ambiguity about the impact of submitting comments.
• The document does not provide detailed justification for extending the OMB approval beyond the current expiration date, which may raise questions about the necessity of the extension.
• The language used to describe the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses might be perceived as overly complex for individuals not familiar with these specific regulations, potentially limiting public understanding.
• There is no discussion of any alternative approaches considered for minimizing the burden of information collection aside from automated techniques, which could demonstrate consideration of different methods to ease the burden on respondents.