Page images

with the ethicient. erformance of this contract. As used in this contract, the .cerm “minority business enterprise means a business. at least 50 percent of which is on ned by minority group members or, in case of publicly owned businesses, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by minority group memhers. For the purposes of this definition, minority group members are Neproes. Spanish-speaking American persons, American-Orientals. American-Indians, American-Eskimos, and American Aleuts. Contractors may rely on written representations by subcontractors regarding their status as minority business enterprises in lieu of an independent investigation.


(The following clause is applicahle of this contrart exceeds S.S.CO).

(a) It is the policy of the Government to award contracts to labor surplus area concerns that (1) have heen certified by the Secretary of Lahor (hereafter referred to as certified-eligible concerns with first or second preferences) regarding the employment of a proportionate number of disadvantaged individuals and have agreed to perform substantially (i) in or near sections of concentrated unemployment or underemployment or in persistent or substantial labor surplus areas or (ü) in other areas of the United States, respectively. or (2) are noncertified concerns which have agreed to perform substantially in persistent or substantial labor surplus areas, where this can be done consistent with the efficient performance of the contract and at prices no higher than are obtainable elsewhere. The Contractor agrees to use his best efforts to place his subcontracts in accordance with this policy.

(b) In complying with paragraph (a) of this clause and with paragraph (h) of the clause of this contract entitled "Utilization of Small Business Concerns" the Contractor in placing his subcontracts shall observe the following order ol preference: (1) Certified-eligible concerns with a first preference which are also small business concerns: (2) other certified-eligible concerns with a first preference: (3) certified-eligible concerns with a second preference which are also small business concerns: (4) other certified-eligible concerns with a second preference; (5) persistent or substantial labor surplus arca concerns which are also small business concerns; (6) other persistent or substantial labor surplus area concerns; and (7) small business concerns which are not labor surplus area concerns.


When costs are a factor in any determination of a contract price adjustment pursuant to the "Changes" clause or any other provision of this contract, such costs shall be in accordance with the contract cost principles and procedures in Pan 1-15 of the Federal Procurement Regulations (41 CFR 1-15) in effect on the date of this contract.

22. UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. (The following clause is applicable if this contract exceeds 55.000).

(a) It is the policy of the Government as declared by the Congress that a far proportion of the purchases and contracts for supplies and services for the Government be placed with small business concerns.

(b) The Contractor agrees to accomplish the maximum amount of subcontracting to small business concerns that the Contractor finds to be consistent with the efficient performance of this contract.


If this contract is for $10,000 or more and will generate 400 or more man-days of employment, Form AD-432, Listing of Employment Openings, is attached and is made a part of this contract. 26. PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON CONTRACTORS' CLAIMS.

(The following clause is applicable to all contracts entered into on or alier Sepiemher 21. 197?).

(a) If an appeal is filed by the Contractor from a final decision of the Contracting Officer under the disputes clause of this contract, denying a claim arising under the contract. simple interest on the amount of the claim finally determined owed by the Government shall be payable to the Contractor. Such interest shall be at the rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 92-41, 85 Stat. 97. from the date the Contractor furnishes to the Contracting Officer his written appeal under the disputes clause of this contract, to the date of (1) a final judgement by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (2) mailing to the Contractor of a supplemental agreement for execution either confirming compieted nerotiations between the parties or carrving out a decision of a board of contract appeals.

(b) Notwithstanding (a). above. (1) interest shall be applied only from the date pavment was due. if such date is later than the filing of appeal. and (2) interest shall not be paid for any period of time that the Contracting Officer determines the Contractor has undutv delaved in pursuing his remedies before a board of contract appeals or a court of competent jurisdiction.


(The following clause is applicable if this coniraci exceeds 55.000).

(a) It is the policy of the Government that minority business enter. prises shall have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in the performance of Government contracts.

(b) The Contractor agrees to use his hest etforts to carry out this policy in the award of his subcontracts to the fullest extent consistent


FORM AD-377 (REV. 7.72)

[ocr errors]

Subject: Proposed Contract on Dietary Issues with food and lutrition Board,


[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Dr. Pallansch has told me of the decision not too a!ieod with the proposed contract with the food and rutrition Board (+7:)) and the suggested arcametive of having the Department select an expert group to provide the decded infornacion.* I hope the decision can be reconsiderët, as the need for the luformation covered under the contract la critical to our research program. The contract is to provide us with guidelines for acceptable levels of several dietary substances not presently covered by the current lecontended Dietary Allowances (NDA) and with authoritative statements about other issues hasic to food selection guidance materials, Two crucial matters are involved credibility and timeliness,

The controversial nature of the dietary issues involved and their potential lapact on agricultural production and on food and nutritiou programs of the Department make it imperative that we obtain an lupartial, competent opinion. Information obtained from another "Bource would not carry' the authority tad credibility of doformation comiog fron FNB, the country's leading authority on dietary standards. The Dietary Goals developed by the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, whico address some but not all of the 188ues the contract covers, have been debated iu print (see attachment) and in public by leading scientists. This makes it unlikely that the Dapattment could come up with an expert group whose views were öök already known;" thus compromising guidance the group could provide. FiiB offers the only means for obtaining a disinterested and objective assessment. PNB?Undoubtedly will develop söne ot the information we šče requesting even if: Nando not..bave e contract with them However, tining is critical. requested Infornation 18 essential for analysis and interpretation of data from the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey and for our autrition education activities which are underzoing critical review in response to recent Congressional criticism. Decisions about survey analysis and nutrition education activities, which we expect to make based on the loforuation from the contract, must be made within the next several months. The contract would expedite the work by FX. Initiation of such a contract is consistent with the role as legj aceacy la autrition given the Departnent by Coagress in the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977.


One additional point of concern is that use of guideliacs provided by a source other than FiB will lead to probler.s 1f FiB were to come out later with different fuiiclir.cs to extend or au cat tlie A. ke and most otirer groups working fr. applied nutrition use the RDA's establi3lied by Fir3. A shanga-by the Departn:ont to another source of guidelines for all or some of the dietary-guistances would place us in the position of having the basis for our dietary túljance different from that used by the rest of the nutrition Coom ty.

I would appreciate any consideration you can give this matter.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Enclosed is one copy of the referenced document which has been signed on behalf of the Academy.

Following signature on behalf of the Government, we would appreciate receiving a fully executed copy of this document for our files.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas Gehen

Thomas Gikas
Assistant Business Manager


August 20, 1980

Honorable Bob Bergland
Secretary of Agriculture
U. 8. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D. C. 20250

Doar decretary Bergland:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 23 in response to my letter of June 20 requesting materials pertaining to the termination by the United States Department of Agriculturo (USDA) of its contract negotiations with the rood and Nutrition Board (TNB) of the National Academy of Sciances for a study by the Board of the Senate Select Committar on Nutrition's Dietary Goals.

I appreciate your sending me the proposed contrast between the Department and the FNB on the review of the dietary guidelines and the other fow pieces of correspondence on this patter. However, I am wondering if soma materials may not be missing. There is no material referencing reasons for the suddon tarnidation in the contract proceedings which caught at least some USDA employees by surprise. Thero surely must be some documentation between the time the contract was proposed and the January 16, 1978 nemo from Dr. Rixok to Administrator Edmiaster asking for a reversal of the teminathon decision.

I note that the January 16, 1978 namorandum of Dr. Risak which you sont indicates that Dr. Risak had been informed by Dr. Pallassch that a decision had been made 'not to go ahead with the proposed contract with the FNB. Yet, apparently, USDA bad expressed an urgent nead for the study and the TNB had began planning for the study on that basis, even as the contract was being negotiated. This meant the FNB Vu lacurring some expense. As a matter of fact, as late as Pebruary 15, 1978, I believe PNB and USDA officials were meeting to work out the last details of the contract. FNB was laformed of the termination decision February 22, 1978. How do you account for this?

« PreviousContinue »