II.  Discussion and Analysis of the Public Comment

Comment: The respondent noted that the DFARS case specifically addresses aviation and ship critical safety items, but states that protective personal equipment, such as body armor and helmets, can also have catastrophic results if they fail. The respondent asked how DoD ensures that contract administration activities apply increased surveillance procedures in these types of contracts.

Response: The additional risk-based surveillance required for aviation and ship critical safety items is mandated by law (section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 and section 130 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007). There is no equivalent statutory requirement for protective personal equipment, and instituting such a requirement is outside the scope of this case. However, the respondent's comment has been forwarded to the Defense Contract Management Agency for future consideration.

The respondent also asked about the process that ensures that contract administration activities apply increased surveillance procedures when aviation and ship critical safety items have been identified. The process was summarized in the preamble to the proposed rule published at 76 FR 14642 on March 17, 2011. Briefly, the combination of the actions of the design control activities, joint agency instructions (e.g., Management of Aviation Critical Safety Items), limitations on contracting with sources that have not been approved by the design control activity, and focus on contract administration will ensure the proper surveillance for these critical items.

The respondent did not recommend changes to the DFARS text or clause, and the final rule does not revise the DFARS text or clause from that published in the proposed rule.