(c)(1) The offer of nonconforming material to the Government should be the exception, and contractors should be discouraged from submitting requests for waivers/deviations (hereinafter sometimes referred to as waivers) in all cases where the contractor is at fault in producing the nonconforming supplies. Contracting officers should emphasize to the contractor that the latter is responsible for the control of product quality and for offering to the Government for acceptance only that material which conforms to contractual requirements. When evaluation of technical requirements indicates a specification change is required or would be beneficial to the Government, contracting officers shall take action through appropriate channels with the activity responsible for technical requirements to change the requirements in question, rather than waive them. Caution and good judgment must be exercised by the total Government team involved in the waiver evaluation process to ensure that technical requirements are not degraded during any attempt to assist the contractor in solving its problems with schedule compliance or with fulfilling the valid technical requirements contained in the contract. See subparagraph (f)(90), below.
(90) See definitions at 46.101 and DFARS 246.407(1). The contracting element shall control all contractor requests for waivers and deviations by maintaining a register and recording the following information: type of waiver or deviation (critical, major, or minor); brief description of the requested waiver/deviation; contract number; contractor's name; item identification (NSN and noun nomenclature); specification/technical data; date the request was received; center/service element(s) in the evaluation loop; date resolved; action taken; consideration obtained; specification change made; and any pertinent or commodity-oriented data desired. The data shall be used to report in accordance with the Management Information System Glossary (RCS DLA(M)26(C)MIN). Unless the specification clearly defines major and minor characteristics, all test characteristic nonconformances submitted as waiver requests shall be classified as major nonconformances and processed as such. When several minor nonconformances are submitted for a single item, a determination will be made as to whether the cumulative effect is a major nonconformance.
(91) The contracting officer shall ascertain whether the contractor's request for waiver was forwarded through the ACO and includes the ACO's recommendations for approval or disapproval. The contracting officer must have the ACO's comments and recommendations, in order to evaluate properly a request for waiver. Conversely, the ACO must be fully apprised of the request for waiver to ensure that the contractor has taken action to correct and prevent recurrence of the conditions causing the nonconformance. Therefore, requests for waiver submitted directly to the contracting officer shall be returned to the contractor for resubmission through the ACO, except in those situations where time is an essential element. In such cases, the ACO's recommendations will be obtained by the most expeditious means available. The contracting officer shall refer the request for waiver to the quality and supply elements of the Center, or the CBU, for evaluation and recommendations. In addition to those criteria listed at FAR 46.407(c)(1), the following factors shall be considered in making a decision to accept or reject he waiver request:
(A) Suitability of the item for use "as is," or the practicability and cost of rework or repair. For a major nonconformance, this determination must be made by the activity responsible for technical requirements and obtained in writing.
(B) Previous request(s) for waiver(s) from the same contractor.
(C) Previous request(s) of the same nonconforming characteristics from the same contractor and/or other contractors.
(D) The supply status of the item and the effect that disapproval of the request for waiver/deviation will have on the delivery schedule.
(92) The contracting officer shall submit each accept decision on critical and major nonconformances for approval by the chief of the contracting office. The contractor will not be notified until the chief of the contracting office has made the decision to approve or disapprove the waiver request.
(d) Contracting officers shall make a conscious decision on each DLA contract whether CAO authority to accept minor nonconformances will be withheld. Contracts to new contractors, contracts for new or significantly-changed items or sensitive items (i.e., those with very high visibility), or those cases where previous experience with a contractor warrants that all minor nonconformances be submitted to the contracting office shall receive high consideration. If CAO authority is withheld, the letter of delegation sent to the CAO will clearly indicate such. All contractor requests for waiver of minor nonconformances forwarded to the contracting office shall require approval by the chief of the contracting office.
(d)(90) Contracting officers need to recognize that situations may occur where contractors have a single line producing items which may be supplied as spare parts procured under DLA contracts or further processed by the manufacturer and incorporated into major systems or subsystems procured by the military services. In many of these instances, Material Review Board (MRB) activity is authorized for use in the military service contracts. If CAO authority for approval of minor nonconformances is withheld on DLA contracts in these situations, the Centers and CAOs should work together to resolve any issues concerning how to handle material which may have been subjected to previous MRB activity in the in-process area.
(e) All nonconformance information for decisions on waiver requests made by the Center and any waiver or MRB intelligence provided by the CAO, when authority has not been withheld by the contracting office, shall be included in the contractor's performance record.
(f) (90) No waivers or deviations from design requirements are to be permitted without a commitment to verify the validity of the technical data for the item (e.g., the military or federal specification, engineering drawings, etc.) with the appropriate engineering support activity, and to change any such requirement found to be erroneous, outdated, or unduly restrictive, prior to any future procurements of the item. The only exception authorized is to satisfy requisitions under "readiness" situations and then for direct shipment only (i.e., Direct Vendor Delivery), not for stock. The Lead Standardization Activity (LSA) will be furnished copies of all approved waivers and deviations from military or federal specifications. The LSA will assure that the specification is revised to reflect the product changes allowed by the waiver/deviation. Minor waivers/deviations resulting from errors in manufacturing or from a contractor's inability to meet valid technical requirements are to be granted only under exceptional circumstances, when such waivers are in the best interests of the Government (e.g., when backorders warrant urgent delivery), and never on a repetitive basis. Major/critical nonconformance waiver requests for the sole benefit of the contractor shall not be granted. (This waiver paragraph does not apply to off-specification fuel that can be blended at the depot to be made acceptable.)
(91) The hardware centers, and DSCP's medical and clothing and textile commodities, are strongly encouraged to use the calculation provided below as a baseline, or starting point, in determining the adequacy of the contractor's offer of consideration for those rare instances in which waivers or deviations are granted and memorialized via contract modification. These costs are taken from the DLA-DORO Report, Cost of Nonconforming Supplies Update (1994). At the time the study was originally conducted several years ago, the overall DLA average cost associated with a product quality deficiency report, or PQDR, amounted to $501 in administrative costs plus 3.55 percent of the contract value for holding costs. Today, the DLA average administrative cost is $868; holding cost percentages have been separately established by Center, as follows (DSCP Subsistence and DESC are not included):
DSCC =5.64% (or 0.0564)
DSCC (DESC) =8.13% (or 0.0813)
DSCR =5.14% (or 0.0514)
DSCP (Former DISC) =12.81% (or 0.1281)
DSCP (C&T) =0.07% (or 0.0007)
DSCP (Med) =1.47% (0.0147)
(i) Calculation: Amount of consideration = $868 + [H x proposed contract value].
Where - $868 represents the total administrative costs to the Government; H represents the Center average holding cost proportion of the overall contract cost, expressed as a decimal, rather than as a percentage.
Step One: Multiply H for the individual Center by the contract dollar amount of the supplies covered by the waiver or deviation. This is the total holding (variable) cost component for nonconforming supplies.
Step Two: Add $868 (the fixed, or administrative, cost to the Government of dealing with nonconformances) to the result of step one. This is the total amount of consideration which should be used as a guide in determining the adequacy of the contractor's final offer of compensation for the waiver or deviation.
(ii) It is important to note that, if the contracting officer chooses to use this guidance, but is unable to obtain agreement with the contractor on a reasonable (vice a token) consideration amount, the Government is not obligated to accept a lesser amount merely for the sake of reaching that agreement and restoring the contractor to a "conforming" or satisfactory status. In such situations (and assuming the proper notification has been made in writing to the contractor), it may be preferable to leave the contract in a nonconforming status than to modify it for an insignificant amount, or at no cost to the contractor. Either course of action, modifying the contract or refusing to restore the contractor to a satisfactory status in the event of its failure to make a good-faith offer of adequate consideration, will still preserve the Government's right to maintain a record of the deficiency, and to consider future business with the contractor in light of this poor performance. Concern about the possibility of failure to reach agreement with the contractor should, therefore, not affect the contracting officer's decision to use this means of determining the adequacy of the contractor's offer.
(92) [Subparagraphs (f)(92) through (f)(95) do not apply to contracts containing express warranty provisions.] Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the contractor to make restitution to the Government for patent nonconformances discovered after Government inspection and acceptance in accordance with FAR clause 52.246-2, Inspection of Supplies - Fixed Price, or any other standard inspection clause. Nevertheless, in each instance of a contractor-caused, post-acceptance nonconformance, the contracting office that defective product or service, and request repair or replacement. This does not prohibit local procedures which allow for the quality element to discuss quality and technical issues with contractors in the investigation of contractor-caused defective material prior to transmittal of the case to the contracting officer for formal notification to the contractor. After the formal notification, the contractor must decide how to respond to the request. This response (to which the contracting officer must agree as being in the best interest of the Government) may take the form of an offer of monetary restitution (including offset against other contracts), in lieu of repair or replacement in kind.
(93) If the contractor fails to respond to the notice of nonconformance, follow-up letters should be sent, as necessary. If the contractor also refuses to acknowledge the follow-ups, the contracting officer has other options, including assigning the contractor to the Contractor Alert List or ensuring that a preaward survey is performed on the contractor prior to award of any future contract. (Furthermore, whether or not the Government is provided consideration, the fact of that poor performance should still be considered in best-value decisions.)
(94) When workload constraints preclude following up on every initial post-acceptance nonconformance notification, priority should be placed where: the nonconformance is major or critical; the number or dollar amount of the items potentially affected is high; and/or the contractor has a history of tendering defective supplies to the Government.
(95) The contracting officer cannot "hold out” for a specific amount of money when the contractor volunteers a refund or contractual offset in lieu of repair or replacement. He or she may, though, determine whether the amount offered is a realistic alternative to the other ways in which the contractor could rectify the problem. If the refund amount is less than the contract price of the nonconforming items for which it is offered, it may or may not be characterized as a full voluntary refund, because it may only be a partial mitigation of damages. That is, it may not represent the full value of the Government's loss. On the other hand, where the contractor decides that repair is the appropriate form of recoupment, and such repair is less expensive to the contractor than replacement or monetary reimbursement of the full contractual price of the defective items, the Government may nevertheless have been fully compensated for the value of its loss. The contracting officer must determine whether the method of recompense provided is full mitigation for loss; that determination will affect the reporting of the recoupment. See subparagraph (96)(iv), below:
(96) At any time, the Centers should be able to ascertain the number and dollar value of all reported contractor-caused item nonconformances and their disposition. The Agency overall should be provided information on dollar totals associated with these nonconformances and with the corrective actions taken. Therefore, beginning with the third quarter of FY 95, all contracting activities exclusive of DESC shall compile and report to J-72 on a quarterly basis, no later than 30 days after the end of a fiscal quarter, and cumulatively. Additionally, up to eleven previous quarters should also be reported. That is, there should eventually be twelve separate quarterly records (three complete fiscal years' worth of data) and one overall total reported in this fashion; the earliest quarter should drop off with each new reporting cycle. If there are remaining unresolved nonconformances from such a "retired" quarter, they should be written off, unless they are the subject of litigation, or a resolution is imminent. The totals requested below should be provided for all reported contractor-caused nonconformances able to be identified by contract by fiscal quarter in which notice of the nonconformance is received by the contracting officer (via PQDR or other means), rather than by contract year. Aggregated totals for collections will be maintained by quarter according to the date the nonconformance is received by the contracting officer, regardless of the date of receipt of the reimbursement. For example, if the contracting officer receives a PQDR for resolution in the second quarter of FY95 on a 1992 contract, the record of the nonconformance will be established in FY95, second quarter. If collections against that nonconformance are received in installments, the first one in the third quarter of that fiscal year and the next in FY 96, these reimbursements will both be reported against the FY 95 second quarter total. Obviously, in order to do this, the contract identity of the records comprising the total of the nonconformances for any quarter will have to be maintained at the Center; collections will need to be "credited" against the appropriate complaint. However, only totals need be reported to J-72, as indicated below. A sample report is provided at 90.14.
(i) For the immediately preceding fiscal quarter, up to eleven previous fiscal quarters, and cumulatively, of the total number of validated complaints for which the Government should seek recompense (i.e., nonvoluntary and voluntary recoupments), except for items covered by warranty or fraudulently-tendered items covered under the Counterfeit Material/Unauthorized Product Substitution (CM/UPS) program, the contracting activity should report:
(A) total dollar value [see (iv), below];
(B) total dollars demanded/requested;
(C) total dollars recouped.
(ii) For the immediately preceding fiscal quarter, up to eleven previous fiscal quarters, and cumulatively, of the total number of defects discovered after acceptance that are covered by express warranty, the contracting activity should report:
(A) total dollar value [see (iv), below];
(B) total dollar demanded;
(C) total dollars recouped.
(iii) For the immediately preceding fiscal quarter, up to eleven previous fiscal quarters, and cumulatively, of the total dollars recouped, categories (i) and (ii), the contracting activity should report:
(A) total dollars - monetary reimbursement (including, where used, contract offsets; this may also include repairs to defective items that have been retained by the Government, to the extent these can be quantified. See (f)(95), above, and (IV), below):
(B) total dollars - replacements.
(iv) In order to establish a record of nonconformance against which a voluntary or nonvoluntary recoupment can be applied, the contracting officer must make an initial evaluation of the extent of the Government's loss. In so doing, he/she will likely use the contract price of the defective items as the amount of that loss. However, this may or may not ultimately be determined the correct amount to be collected from a nonconforming contractor. If, either as a result of independent research or in response to a contractor's offer of consideration for less than the contract price, the contracting officer finds that the Government's loss would be satisfied by a lesser amount than originally indicated, the contracting officer should revise the total for nonconformance and the total requested/demanded ((A) and (B) in (i) and (ii), above) downward to what he/she considers a realistic and appropriate amount. On the other hand, total dollars recouped ((C) in (i) and (ii), above) must exactly reflect what has been collected "in cash or in kind." If the amount the contractor offers is less than the contract price but is considered adequate restitution for the nonconformance, the total for the nonconformance and the amount demanded/requested should be identical to the amount received. If the contractor's offer is less than the contract price and the contracting officer does not consider it adequate compensation for the Government's loss, the total for the nonconformance and the total demanded/requested, whether or not these are revised downward from the original record, should not be made equivalent to the contractor's inadequate recompense.
(90) No part of section 46.407 pertains to the deliberate intent on the part of the contractor to provide off-specification product, or otherwise to make a fraudulent tender to the Government. When quality assurance or other personnel discover evidence indicating that the contractor deliberately failed to honor its contractual undertaking, all cognizant parties, including the administrative contracting officer, should confer with PLFA Fraud counsel in accordance with DLAR 5500.10, Combating Fraud in DLA Operations. In line with this policy, recoveries for fraud should continue to be reported as collections by the Office of General Counsel; however, they should not be included in the recoupment reporting scheme set forth in (f)(96), above.
(97)
Use 52.246-9039, Removal of Government Identification from Non-Accepted Supplies, in all solicitations and contracts.
