[Federal Register: March 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 62)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16764-16777]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31mr08-12]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 212, 225, and 252

RIN 0750-AF25


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Contractor
Personnel Authorized To Accompany U.S. Armed Forces (DFARS Case 2005-
D013)

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: DoD has adopted as final, with changes, an interim rule
amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)
to implement DoD policy regarding contractor personnel authorized to
accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States.

DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone 703-602-0328; facsimile
703-602-7887. Please cite DFARS Case 2005-D013.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    DoD published an interim rule at 71 FR 34826 on June 16, 2006, to
implement policy found in DoD Instruction 3020.41, Contractor Personnel
Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces. In addition, changes to
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) were proposed at 71 FR 40681
on July 18, 2006, and finalized at 73 FR 10943 on February 28, 2008, to
address the issues of contractor personnel that are providing support
to the U.S. Government outside the United States but are not covered by
the DFARS rule. Since the FAR and the DFARS rules are similar in many
respects, the following discussion of comments received on the DFARS
rule also includes relevant issues raised with regard to the FAR rule.

1. Right to Self-Defense (252.225-7040(b)(3)(i))

a. Distinction Between Self-Defense and Combat Operations
    Comment: One respondent stated that there is an inherently vague
line between what constitutes ``defense'' and ``attack,'' which is
plainly crossed when the terms are applied in asymmetric warfare; and
that contractors employing ``self-defense'' measures would have to
undertake a wide array of combat activities to ensure their safety.
    DoD Response: The DFARS rule recognizes that individuals have an
inherent right to self-defense. It does not require self-defense, but
authorizes it when necessary. In addition, the rule does not authorize
preemptive measures. To the contrary, it recognizes that the actual
conduct of an individual cannot be controlled, only governed, by
contract terms and, therefore, emphasizes the consequences for the
inappropriate use of force (252.225-7040(c)(3)(iii)).
b. Whether the Right of Self-Defense Should be Modified to ``Personal''
Self-Defense
    Comment: One respondent recommended insertion of the word
``personal'' before ``self-defense,'' stating that this will clarify
that civilians accompanying the force are authorized to use deadly
force only in defense of themselves, rather than the broader concept of
unit self-defense or preemptive self-defense.
    DoD Response: DoD does not concur with this recommendation. The
meaning of the term ``self-defense'' may vary depending on a person's
duties and the country or designated operational area in which the
duties are being performed.
c. Whether the Right of Self-Defense Should be Extended to Defense
Against Common Criminals
    Comment: One respondent stated that, since the rule will apply in
innumerable asymmetrical environments, the phrase ``against enemy armed
forces'' should be deleted, asserting that the right of self-defense
should extend beyond enemy armed forces, since such defensive actions
may be needed as protection against common criminals.
    DoD Response: The final rule removes the phrase ``against enemy
armed forces'' from paragraph (b)(3)(i) of the DFARS clause. DoD
believes that it is more useful to the contractor to make an overall
statement as to what is allowed with regard to use of deadly force in
self-defense, than to focus on the law of war authorities with regard
to enemy armed forces. There are legitimate situations that may also
require a reasonable exercise of self-defense against other than enemy
armed forces, e.g., defense against common criminals or terrorists.
When facing an attacker, it will often not be possible for the
contractor to ascertain whether the attacker is technically an ``enemy
armed force.'' A cross-reference has been added in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii) of the clause, with regard to the limitations on the use of
force specified in paragraphs (d) and (j)(3) of the clause.

2. Role of Private Security Contractors (252.225-7040(b)(3)(ii))

a. Whether a Separate Category for Private Security Contractors Is
Necessary
    Comment: One respondent stated there is no need for private
security contractors as a separate category if private security
contractors (like other contractors) can only use deadly force in self-
defense.
    DoD Response: While the right to self-defense applies to all
contractors, the rule recognizes that private security contractors have
been given a mission to protect other assets/persons. Therefore, it is
important that the rule reflect the broader authority of private
security contractors with regard to use of deadly force, consistent
with the terms and conditions of the contract.
b. Hiring Private Security Contractors as Mercenaries Violates the
Constitution, Law, Regulations, Policy, and American Core Values
    Comment: Several respondents commented that, by allowing
contractors to assume combat roles, the Government is allowing
mercenaries in violation of the Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and core American values. One law specifically identified was 5
U.S.C. 3108, Employment of detective agencies; restrictions (the
``Anti-Pinkerton Act''). Also identified were the DoD Manpower Mix
Criteria and the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act of
1998, which

[[Page 16765]]

preclude contracting out core inherently governmental functions,
especially combat functions.
    DoD Response: While not disputing the many prohibitions against the
use of mercenaries, private security contractors are not mercenaries
and they are not part of the armed forces. The Government is not
contracting out combat functions. The Government has the authority to
hire security guards worldwide. In accordance with OMB Circular A-76,
protection of property and persons is not an inherently governmental
function. Private security contractors may be persons accompanying the
armed forces within the meaning of Article 4A(4) of the Geneva
Convention III.
    In Brian X. Scott, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-298370 (Aug. 18, 2006), the
Comptroller General of the United States concluded that solicitations
for security services in and around Iraq violated neither the Anti-
Pinkerton Act, nor DoD policies regarding contractor personnel, because
the services required are not ``quasi-military armed forces''
activities. The Comptroller General also relied on the language of the
interim DFARS rule, which prohibits contractor personnel from
participating in direct combat activities, as well as the provisions of
DoD Instruction 3020.41, which makes it the responsibility of the
combatant commander to ensure that private security contract mission
statements do not authorize the performance of any inherently
governmental military functions. The Comptroller General concluded that
``* * * the services sought under the solicitations appear to comport
with the DoD policies and regulations which state that security
contractors are not allowed to conduct direct combat activities or
offensive operations.''
c. Whether the Standard for Use of Deadly Force Should be Modified to
One of ``Reasonableness''
    Comment: Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of the DFARS clause uses ``only when
necessary'' as the standard for describing the use of deadly force by
security contractors. DoD Directive 5210.56, Use of Deadly Force and
the Carrying of Firearms by DoD Personnel Engaged in Law Enforcement
and Security Duties (E2.1.2.3.1), uses the standard of ``reasonably
appears necessary.'' The respondent stated that, while deadly force is
to be avoided, the ``only when necessary'' standard in the interim rule
fails to recognize the ``reasonably appears necessary'' standard that
is critical to split-second decisions, particularly in a war zone.
    DoD Response: DoD agrees that the DFARS rule should be consistent
with the cited DoD Directive and has incorporated the ``reasonably
appears necessary'' standard into the final rule.
d. Whether Protected Assets/Persons for Private Security Contractors
Should be Limited to Non-Military Objectives
    Comment: One respondent stated the rule should be clarified to
limit private security contractor personnel to protecting assets/
persons that are non-military objectives. This omission from the
interim rule seems to conflict with Army Field Manual No. 3-100.21,
which prohibits the use of contractors in a force protection role. The
respondent also expressed concern about how to craft statements of work
for private security contractors that do not assign inherently
governmental functions to contractors.
    DoD Response: It is not possible to know in advance of an actual
conflict what may become a military objective. Almost anything worth
protecting could become a military target in wartime. As stated in
paragraph 2 above, the Government is not contracting out combat
functions. The United States Government has the authority to hire
security guards worldwide. According to OMB Circular A-76, Performance
of Commercial Activities, protection of property and persons is not an
inherently governmental function (see FAR 7.503(d)(19)). DoD
Instruction 3020.41 provides limitations and safeguards for private
security contracts, including legal review on a case-by-case basis.
Paragraph 6.3.5 of that Instruction states that, ``Whether a particular
use of contract security personnel to protect military assets is
permissible is dependent on the facts and requires legal analysis.''
The DoD Instruction also states in paragraph 6.3.5.2, ``Contracts shall
be used cautiously in contingency operations where major combat
operations are ongoing or imminent. In these situations, contract
security services will not be authorized to guard U.S. or coalition
military supply routes, military facilities, military personnel, or
military property except as specifically authorized by the geographic
Combatant Commander (non-delegable).'' Since these requirements must be
fulfilled before the private security contract is entered into, it is
not necessary or appropriate to include these requirements in the DFARS
rule.
e. Use of the Term ``Mission Statement''
    Comments: Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of the DFARS clause authorizes
private security contractor personnel to use deadly force only when
``necessary to execute their security mission to protect assets/
persons, consistent with the mission statement contained in their
contract.'' Several respondents stated that the use of the term
``mission statement'' in that sentence caused confusion and should be
clarified. One respondent noted that not all contracts for security
services will contain a ``mission statement'' as such. Statements of
work may contain sections entitled ``objectives,'' ``purpose,'' or
``scope of work,'' which may or may not contain the equivalent of a
mission statement. The respondent further noted that the need to deploy
security personnel quickly could result in a mission statement (or its
equivalent) that may not be as precise as desired and, therefore, ill-
suited to serve as part of a standard for when deadly force is
authorized.
    Other respondents requested clarification as to whether
subcontractors would be considered private security contractors, or
whether the term ``private security contractor'' was limited to
contractors that have a contract directly with the Government. One
respondent stated there is no guidance as to who would qualify as
private security contractor personnel, creating uncertainty as to
whether private security companies retained by a prime contractor would
be covered if the prime contractor drafted a mission statement for its
private security subcontractor.
    DoD Response: DoD agrees that the term ``mission statement'' could
cause confusion and has replaced ``mission statement'' with ``terms and
conditions'' in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of the clause. DoD does not
believe that any clarification with regard to subcontractors is
necessary. When a clause flows down to subcontractors, the terms are
changed appropriately to reflect the relationship of the parties.
Nothing in the rule indicates that private security contractors cannot
be subcontractors.
f. Authority of Combatant Commander To ``Create Missions''
    Comment: One respondent stated that the rule delegates extensive
authority to combatant commanders to direct contractor actions under
both support and security contracts. The respondent further stated that
granting such nearly unlimited authority to combatant commanders to
create missions is inconsistent with laws and regulations that convey
such authority to contracting officers and serves to undermine their
authority.
    DoD Response: The combatant commander is not authorized to create

[[Page 16766]]

missions for private security contractors. A contractor must perform in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. The combatant
commander is responsible for reviewing/approving any contractor request
to carry weapons and evaluating whether the planned use of such weapons
is appropriate.
g. Approval of Private Security Contractors
    Comment: One respondent questioned whether there will be a vetting
process and a list of approved Private Security Contractors from which
DoD contractors or their subcontractors may acquire services.
    DoD Response: Contractors are responsible for providing their own
security support and for the selection and performance of
subcontractors. However, the Government may reserve the right to
approve subcontracts.
h. Definition of ``Private Security Contractor''
    Comment: Several respondents requested a definition of ``private
security contractor.'' One respondent noted that DoD Instruction
3020.41 uses the term ``security services.''
    DoD Response: DoD considered defining ``private security
contractor'' to mean ``a contractor that has been hired to provide
security, either by the Government or as a subcontractor.'' However, in
considering this definition, DoD realized that, in some circumstances,
a contractor whose primary function is not security may directly hire a
few personnel to provide security, rather than subcontracting to a
private security contractor. The authority for use of deadly force
ultimately rests with the individuals who are providing the security,
whether as direct hires or as employees of a subcontractor. Therefore,
the final rule amends paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of the contract clause to
replace the term ``private security contractor personnel'' with
``contractor personnel performing security functions.'' In addition,
since some contractor personnel performing security functions are
employees, rather than hired by contract, paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of the
clause has been further amended to address execution of the security
mission by such personnel consistent with their job description and
terms of employment.
i. Coordination and Communication With Private Security Contractors
    Comment: One respondent stated that DoD is coordinating
responsibilities and functions among the military and contractor
security forces in Iraq and requested that the DFARS state that DoD
will similarly coordinate security efforts in future theaters of
operation. In addition, the respondent stated that the DFARS should
name an organization to coordinate the overall activities of the
private security contractors to meet U.S. tactical and strategic goals
and that DoD should have a process by which it communicates and
receives threat information to and from contractors operating in the
field, as required by DoD Instruction 3020.41. Further, DoD Instruction
3020.41, paragraph 6.3.5.3.3, also requires a plan as to how
appropriate assistance will be provided to contractor security
personnel who become engaged in hostile situations.
    DoD Response: Such plans for coordination and communication are the
responsibility of the combatant commander and are outside the scope of
this DFARS rule. These issues must be addressed before the combatant
commander approves the arming of contingency contractor personnel to
provide security services. Once approved, the terms and conditions of
the contract will reflect these requirements as appropriate.

3. Consequences of Inappropriate Use of Force (252.225-7040(b)(3)(iii))

a. Loss of ``Law of War'' Protection From Direct Attack
    Comment: The statement in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of the contract
clause, that civilians lose their law of war protection from direct
attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities,
raised numerous questions regarding its meaning. One respondent
considered this to be a correct statement under the international law
of war, but that it may call into question the foundation for the
global war on terrorism and targeting ``unlawful combatants'' when they
are not taking a direct part in hostilities.
    DoD Response: The statement in question has been excluded from the
final rule. DoD considered the statement to be unnecessary and
potentially confusing. Paragraph (b)(3)(i) of the clause establishes
the right to self-defense. Paragraph (b)(3)(ii) sets forth a limited
right for some contractor personnel to protect assets/persons. A new
paragraph (b)(3)(iii) has been added to address the consequences of the
inappropriate use of force.
b. Consequences Other Than ``Law of War'' Consequences
    Comment: Several respondents stated that the notice to contractors
relating to the personal and legal impact of directly participating in
hostilities is incomplete. Without including the cautionary language of
DoD Instruction 3020.41 relating to possible criminal and civil
liability, civilians accompanying the armed forces might erroneously
believe the only impact of their direct participation is that they
would be lawful targets during such time that they are participating in
hostilities. One respondent was also concerned that, by not mentioning
potential immunity, it could be argued that the clause waives otherwise
available immunities. The respondents suggested addition of language
stating that, ``Since civilians accompanying the force do not have
combatant immunity, unless immune from host nation jurisdiction by
virtue of an international agreement or international law, contingency
contractor personnel are advised that inappropriate use of force could
subject them to U.S. or host nation prosecution and civil liability.''
    DoD Response: The new paragraph (b)(3)(iii) in the contract clause
incorporates the information found in DoD Instruction 3020.41 relating
to possible immunity and possible criminal and civil liability for
contractor personnel who inappropriately use force.

4. Contractors Are Not Active Duty (252.225-7040(b)(4))

    Comment: One respondent was concerned about paragraph (b)(4) of the
contract clause, which states, ``Service performed by Contractor
personnel subject to this clause is not active duty or service under 38
U.S.C. 106.'' The respondent stated that the Note under 38 U.S.C. 106
explains that the Secretary of Defense is to determine what constitutes
active duty or service under this statute for Women's Air Forces
Service Pilots who were attached to the Army Air Corps during World War
II and persons in similarly situated groups who rendered services in a
capacity considered civilian employment or contractual service. The
respondent stated that the determination can only be made
retrospectively.
    DoD Response: Paragraph (b)(4) of the clause correctly states the
terms of service for Defense and non-Defense contractors. Contractors
should hold no expectations under this clause that their service will
qualify as ``active duty or service.'' The Note under 38 U.S.C. 106
requires that determinations for any applicant group be based on (1)
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, and (2) a full review of the
historical records and any other evidence pertaining to the service of
any such group. In promulgating the DFARS, DoD has issued a regulation
prescribed by

[[Page 16767]]

the Secretary. This DoD regulation establishes the historical record
that shall be used in future review of the historical evidence
surrounding a contractor's service under this clause. DoD policy is
that contractors operating under this clause shall not be attached to
the armed forces in a way similar to the Women's Air Forces Service
Pilots of World War II. Contractors today are not being called upon to
obligate themselves in the service of the country in the same way as
the Women's Air Forces Service Pilots or any of the other groups listed
in 38 U.S.C. 106.

5. Weapons (252.225-7040(j))

a. Nature of the Authorized Weapons
    Comment: One respondent stated there is no reasonable limitation on
the nature of the weapons that a contractor is to handle, whether as a
``self-defense'' contractor or a private security contractor. This
range could include anything from small arms to major weapons systems.
    DoD Response: The possible situations are too numerous to permit
prescription of specific weapons for each situation. However, it is
unlikely that a contractor would attempt to bring a major weapon system
onto the battlefield, or that the combatant commander would authorize
such weapons.
b. Combatant Commander Rules on the Use of Force
    Comment: One respondent stated that there is no reasonable means by
which a combatant commander can generate rules regarding the use of
force by contractors. The respondent further stated that the rules must
be related to doctrine, dogma, rules of engagement, etc., and these are
formulated well above the level of the combatant commander. Since the
rules may be different, contractor personnel would be subject to a
range of serious risks and liabilities.
    DoD Response: It is the authority of the combatant commander to
perform those functions of command over assigned forces involving
organizing and employing commands and forces; assigning tasks;
designating objectives; and giving authoritative direction over all
aspects of military operations, joint training, and logistics necessary
to accomplish the missions assigned. Operational control is inherent in
combatant command (command authority) and, therefore, provides full
authority to organize and employ commands and forces as the combatant
commander considers necessary to accomplish assigned missions. The
combatant commander also establishes rules of engagement in the
designated operational area, and does take into consideration many
influences such as doctrine. The combatant commander will seek advice
from experts in areas such as law and security before making such
decisions. Since the rules regarding contractor authorization to carry
firearms will vary according to the phase of the conflict, the
combatant commander is the most informed and able individual to
determine whether a contractor should carry weapons.
c. Law of Armed Conflict Issues
    Comment: One respondent stated that the notion that the Government
assumes no responsibility whatsoever for the use of weapons on a
battlefield by a contractor authorized and required to use such
weapons, as the practical effect of the contract requirements, makes no
sense and is certain to cause contractual law of armed conflict and
other problems.
    DoD Response: There have been no issues on the law of armed
conflict for contractors carrying weapons, because in the current
conflicts there are no enemy armed forces that are lawful combatants
and no enemy government to provide them prisoner of war status and
protections if captured. DoD also notes that, at the beginning of the
current conflict, contractors were not permitted to carry weapons at
all. During the post-major operations phase, civilian contractors that
have been brought in for a variety of security operations are
authorized (and required) to provide their own weapons. The obvious
safety/security issues connected with carrying a weapon far outweigh
any theoretical issues.
d. Liability for Use of Weapons
    Comment: Several respondents expressed concern that the Government
authorizes and sometimes requires contractor personnel to carry
weapons, but that it places sole liability for the use of weapons on
contractors and contractor personnel, even if the contractor was acting
in strict accordance with the contract statement of work or under
specific instructions from the contracting officer or the combatant
commander (252.225-7040(j)(4)). One respondent considered that
statement to be inconsistent with prior regulatory history, citing the
statement in the preamble to the final DFARS rule published on May 5,
2005 (70 FR 23792), that ``risk associated with inherently Governmental
functions will remain with the Government.''
    DoD Response: While a contractor may be authorized to carry and use
weapons, the contractor remains responsible for the performance and
conduct of its personnel. A contractor has discretion in seeking
authority for any of its employees to carry and use a weapon. The
contractor is responsible for ensuring that its personnel who are
authorized to carry weapons are adequately trained to carry and use
them safely, adhere to the rules on the use of force, comply with law
and agreements, and are not barred from possession of a firearm.
Inappropriate use of force could subject a contractor or its
subcontractors or employees to prosecution or civil liability under the
laws of the United States and the host nation. The Government cannot
indemnify a contractor and its personnel against claims for damages or
injury or grant immunity from prosecution associated with the use of
weapons. With regard to the statement on inherently governmental
functions, this rule does not authorize contractors to perform any
inherently governmental functions.

6. Risk/Liability to Third Parties/Indemnification (252.225-7040(b)(2))

    Comment: Many respondents expressed concern that the DFARS rule
shifts to contractors all risks associated with performing the
contract, and may lead courts to deny contractors certain defenses in
tort litigation. The respondents cited decisions by State and Federal
courts arising out of injuries or deaths to third parties, including
military members and civilians. Generally, the courts absolved
contractors of liability to third parties where the Government carried
ultimate responsibility for the operation. For example--
    [cir] In Smith v. Halliburton Co., No. H-06-0462, 2006 WL 1342823
(S.D. Tex. May 16, 2006) and Whitaker v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,
No. 05-CV-78, 2006 WL 1876922 (M.D. Ga. July 6, 2006), the courts found
there was no risk and no liability associated with contractor
performance when active duty military members were injured in
situations where the military (or the injured member himself) was
responsible for force protection of military members.
    [cir] In Koohi v. United States, 976 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1992), the
contractor bore no risk and no liability for military decisions aboard
the U.S.S. Vincennes to shoot down an approaching aircraft during a
time of war, and the contractor had no responsibility to design or
manufacture the Aegis weapon system to prevent such use by military
members.
    Some respondents expressed concern that the acceptance of risk may
preclude

[[Page 16768]]

grants of indemnification. One respondent stated that the rule could
adversely affect indemnification that would otherwise be available. The
clause at FAR 52.228-7, Insurance-Liability to Third Persons, provides
limited indemnification, but provides that contractors shall not be
reimbursed for liabilities for which the contractor is otherwise
responsible under the express terms of any clause specified in the
Schedule or elsewhere in the contract. The respondent also stated that
the provisions requiring the contractor to accept certain risks and
liabilities could also be the basis to deny pre- or post-award requests
for indemnification under Public Law 85-804. Another respondent cited a
decision by a DoD Contract Appeals Board in which the Board declined a
contractor's request for indemnification under Public Law 85-804
because, according to the Board, contractors should not be able to
deliberately enter into contractual arrangements with full knowledge
that a risk is involved and yet propose unrealistically low prices on
the hopes they may later gain indemnification. The respondents
recommended that the United States either identify, quantify, and
accept all the risk or insert language that would immunize contractors
from tort liability. Specifically, several respondents recommended
adding the statement, ``Notwithstanding any other clause in this
contract, nothing in this clause should be interpreted to affect any
defense or immunity that may be available to the contractor in
connection with third-party claims, or to enlarge or diminish any
indemnification a contractor may have under this contract or as may be
available under the law.'' There was also concern that, by accepting
all risks of performance, contractors would not be able to obtain
workers compensation insurance or reimbursement under the Defense Base
Act. One respondent recommended that the contractor's share of risk in
the rule be revised as follows: ``Except as otherwise provided in the
contract, the Contractor accepts the risks associated with required
contract performance in such operations.''
    DoD Response: DoD believes that the rule adequately allocates
risks, allows for equitable adjustments, and permits contractors to
defend against potential third-party claims. Contractors are in the
best position to plan and perform their duties in ways that avoid
injuring third parties. Contractors are equally or more responsible to
research host nation laws and proposed operating environments and to
negotiate and price the terms of each contract effectively.
Accordingly, the clause retains the current rule of law, holding
contractors accountable for the negligent or willful actions of their
employees, officers, and subcontractors. This is consistent with
existing laws and rules, including the clause at FAR 52.228-7,
Insurance-Liability to Third Persons, and FAR Part 50, Extraordinary
Contractual Actions, as well as the court and board decisions cited in
the comments. The current law regarding the Government Contractor
Defense (e.g., the line of cases following Boyle v. United
Technologies, 487 U.S. 500, 108 S. Ct. 2510 (1988)) extends to
manufacturers immunity when the Government prepares or approves
relatively precise design or production specifications after making
sovereign decisions balancing known risks against Government budgets
and other factors in control of the Government. This rule covers
service contracts, not manufacturing, and it makes no changes to
existing rules regarding liability. The public policy rationale behind
Boyle does not apply when a performance-based statement of work is used
in a services contract, because the Government does not, in fact,
exercise specific control over the actions and decisions of the
contractor or its employees or subcontractors. Asking a contractor to
ensure its employees comply with host nation law and other authorities
does not amount to the precise control that would be requisite to shift
away from a contractor's accountability for its own actions.
Contractors will still be able to defend themselves when injuries to
third parties are caused by the actions or decisions of the Government.
However, to the extent that contractors are currently seeking to avoid
accountability to third parties for their own actions by raising
defenses based on the sovereignty of the United States, this rule
should not send a signal that would invite courts to shift the risk of
loss to innocent third parties. The language in the clause is intended
to encourage contractors to properly assess the risks involved and take
proper precautions. However, to preclude the misunderstanding that
asking the contractor to ``accept all risks'' is an attempt to shift
all risk of performance to the contractor without regard to specific
provisions in the contract, the statement in the rule regarding risk
has been amended to add the lead-in phrase, ``Except as otherwise
provided in the contract''.

7. Definition of Terms (252.225-7040(a))

a. Theater of Operations
    Comment: One respondent stated that the term ``theater of
operations'' is unwarranted by any legitimate purposes suggested by the
rule, and that this term, if defined at all, should rest in the hands
of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
    DoD Response: The term was included in the interim rule because it
defined the geographic area to which the clause was applicable. The
combatant commander has the authority to define a ``theater of
operations'' within the geographic area for which the combatant
commander is responsible. However, consistent with DoD Joint
Publication 3-0, Joint Operations, DoD has determined that the term
``designated operational area'' is more appropriate to describe the
applicability of the rule, as this term includes the theater of
operations as well as such descriptors as theater of war, joint
operations area, amphibious objective area, joint special operations
area, and area of operations. Therefore, the term ``theater of
operations'' has been replaced with the term ``designated operational
area'' throughout the rule.
b. Other Military Operations
    Comment: Two respondents noted that the term ``other military
operations'' is very broadly defined. One respondent stated that the
term is either over-expansive, or unnecessary, because it is so
inclusive as to suggest nearly any type of military engagement likely
to be carried out in the first half of the current century.
    DoD Response: DoD agrees that the definition was very broad,
because it was intended to cover every type of military operation.
Since the final rule applies to ``other military operations'' only when
designated by the combatant commander, definition of this term is no
longer necessary and has been excluded from the final rule.

8. Terms Not Defined

a. Enemy Armed Forces
    Comment: Two respondents objected to the use of the term ``enemy
armed forces'' in the rule without definition.
    DoD Response: The term ``enemy armed forces'' has been excluded
from the final rule.
b. ``Law of War,'' ``Law of War Protections,'' and ``Take Direct Part
in Hostilities''
    Comment: One respondent stated that terms of art such as ``law of
war,'' ``law of war protections,'' and ``take direct part in
hostilities'' are not defined in the

[[Page 16769]]

rule and likely cannot be defined satisfactorily in the DFARS. The
respondent further stated that understanding the concepts underlying
these terms is crucial to preparing statements of work for and
administering contracts that will send contractor employees into
hostile environments. Therefore, the respondent recommended that the
DFARS text include some discussion of these terms and the need for
contracting personnel to seek advice when dealing with these terms.
    DoD Response: DoD agrees that these terms cannot be defined
satisfactorily in the DFARS and has removed the terms from the final
DFARS rule. However, DoD is developing law of war training that will be
available to contractor personnel.
c. ``Mission Essential,'' ``Essential Contractor Services,'' ``Security
Support,'' ``Security Mission,'' ``Security Plan,'' ``Mandatory
Evacuation,'' and ``Non-Mandatory Evacuation''
    Comment: Two respondents stated that the interim rule used these
terms, which are not defined, and, except for ``essential contractor
services'' and ``security plan,'' are not used in DoD Instruction
3020.41. The respondents considered these terms critical to the
contractor in determining and pricing its obligations under a
solicitation and resulting contract.
    DoD Response: ``Mission essential'' is the term used in DoD
Instruction 3020.37, Continuation of Essential DoD Contractor Services
During Crises. ``Essential contractor services'' is defined in DoD
Instruction 3020.41. The Government identifies the mission essential
personnel and essential contractor services to the contractor, so it is
unnecessary to define these terms in the DFARS. ``Security support''
and ``security mission'' are used with their common dictionary meaning;
however, the terms and conditions of the contract will define the
mission and will also specify if security support will be provided. DoD
Instruction 3020.41, paragraph 6.3.4, addresses the requirements for a
security plan. Since the combatant commander prepares the security
plan, these requirements do not need to be repeated in the DFARS. It is
also unnecessary to define ``mandatory evacuation'' and ``non-mandatory
evacuation'' in the DFARS, as these terms are used with their common
dictionary meaning, and the Government will identify any evacuation
order as mandatory or non-mandatory. The contractor will be given
appropriate instructions in the event an evacuation order is issued.

9. Scope of Application

a. Commercial Items
    Comment: One respondent expressed concern that DFARS 212.301(f)
requires application of the contract clause across-the-board to
commercial items. The respondent recommended that the clause apply only
if the acquisition of commercial items is for performance of contractor
personnel outside the United States in a covered theater of operations.
    DoD Response: DoD agrees that the clause should apply only if the
acquisition of commercial items is for performance of contractor
personnel outside the United States in a designated operational area.
However, the respondent has misinterpreted the requirement at DFARS
212.301(f)(vii). This paragraph states that the clause at DFARS
252.225-7040 is to be used in accordance with the prescription at DFARS
225.7402-4, which specifies the criteria for use of the clause.
b. Military Operations and exercises
    Comment: One respondent expressed concern regarding application of
the rule to a wide range of military operations and exercises that do
not require special treatment. The rule prescribes use of the clause
when contractor personnel will be required to perform outside the
United States in a theater of operations during ``other military
operations'' or ``military exercises designated by the combatant
commander.'' The respondent recommended that the final rule include
criteria for when the combatant commander should invoke the authority
to require use of the clause.
    DoD Response: DoD has amended the rule to clarify that ``designated
by the combatant commander'' applies to military operations as well as
military exercises. However, DoD does not consider it appropriate for
the DFARS to prescribe criteria to the combatant commander for use of
the clause. The combatant commander is in the best position to
determine whether the circumstances in a designated operational area
warrant use of the clause. In addition, the final rule clarifies that
any of the types of military operations covered by the scope of the
rule may include stability operations.
c. Designation of Specific Geographic Area
    Comment: One respondent questioned whether the combatant commander
should designate a specific geographic area for applicability of the
clause.
    DoD Response: DoD believes that the scope of the DFARS clause
sufficiently defines the area of applicability. The designated
operational area is a specific geographic area, defined by the
combatant commander or the subordinate joint force commander for the
conduct or support of specified military operations.

10. Logistical and Security Support (225.7402-3 and 252.225-7040(C))

a. Lack of Force Protection Represents a Change in Policy
    Comment: Two respondents stated that the lack of committed force
protection represents a drastic change in policy for contractors
accompanying U.S. Armed Forces. Another respondent considered that this
is the penultimate paragraph in the transfer of responsibility for
force protection from the military to contractors, and that it is ill-
considered. One of the respondents noted that, prior to the interim
rule, the DFARS required the combatant commander to develop a security
plan for protection of contractor personnel through military means
unless the terms of the contract placed the responsibility with another
party. That respondent strongly opposed the changes made by the interim
rule, which limit the requirement for the combatant commander to
develop a security plan to those locations where there is not
sufficient or legitimate civil authority and where the commander
decides the provision of security is in the interests of the
Government. The respondent stated that this reversal of policy will--
    (1) Have a significant impact on the ability of contractors to
provide future support to DoD (bid/proposal costs will reflect higher
costs related to the contractor's assumption of security costs);
    (2) Have a direct effect on systems contractors supporting major
weapons systems; and
    (3) Substantially increase contract prices.
    The respondent also cited DoD Joint Publication 4-0, Chapter V, and
Enclosure 2 to DoD Instruction 3020.41 as support for the statements
that DoD affirmatively had the obligation to provide force protection
for contractors providing direct support to the military. Another of
the respondents questioned how the decision that DoD presumably will
not provide a security plan is consistent with protecting contractor
resources vital to accomplishing the U.S. mission.
    DoD Response: In most areas of the world, it is the responsibility
of the host nation to provide protection for civilians working in their
country. It is clearly unnecessary for the combatant commander to
prepare a security plan in

[[Page 16770]]

locations where there is sufficient legitimate civil authority. The
added provisions are from DoD Instruction 3020.41, which provides that
the combatant commander must decide that to provide security is in the
interests of the Government. The combatant commander is in the best
position to judge the circumstances in the designated operational area
and what resources are available to him and to the contractors. The
writers of the regulations cannot commit the U.S. Armed Forces to
provide protection to contractor personnel performing in areas of
conflict, beyond what is provided for in DoD Instruction 3020.41. With
regard to the reference to DoD Joint Publication 4-0, Chapter V, this
chapter (paragraph 13a.) specifically states that force protection
responsibility for DoD contractor employees is a contractor
responsibility, unless valid contract terms place that responsibility
with another party. With regard to the reference to Enclosure 2 to DoD
Instruction 3020.41, the definition of ``Contractors Deploying with the
Force'' in Enclosure 2 states that contractors deploying with the force
usually receive Government-furnished support similar to DoD civilians.
This statement addresses logistics support, not force protection.
    The rule does not state that the combatant commander will not
provide a security plan. The rule specifically states that the
combatant commander will provide a security plan for protection of
contractor personnel in locations where there is not sufficient
legitimate civil authority and the combatant commander decides it is in
the interests of the Government to provide security, especially if
threat conditions necessitate security through military means. The rule
focuses the application of limited resources in those situations where
most needed.
b. Timing of Disclosure
    Comment: One respondent stated that timing of the disclosure of
agency support could impact an offeror's proposal costs and recommended
that, at a minimum, agencies be required to include support
information, not just in the contract, but also in the solicitation.
Another respondent stated that the solicitation should specify whether
DoD will provide a security plan. Contractors need sufficient time to
decide whether they want to bear the additional risk of performance or
make suitable arrangements with a private security firm or its own
personnel. A third respondent requested that the final rule clarify
whether a security plan, if any, will be developed prior to the release
of the solicitation.
    DoD Response: DoD agrees that the timing of the disclosure of the
agency's decision to provide or not provide support could have an
impact on proposal costs. Therefore, DFARS 225.7402-3(c) has been
amended to add a requirement for identification of this information in
the solicitation.
c. Changes in Government-Provided Support
    Comment: One respondent recommended that any changes to Government-
provided security support should expressly require an equitable
adjustment to the contract.
    DoD Response: DoD does not believe it is necessary to expressly
address this issue in the DFARS rule. Any need for equitable adjustment
will be evaluated in accordance with the Changes clause included in the
contract.
d. Agency/Combatant Commander Cannot Know if Adequate Support is
Available
    Comment: One respondent commented that one of the conditions
precedent to Government support is a determination by the Government
that adequate support cannot be obtained by the contractor from other
sources. The respondent stated that, whether or not competitors can
obtain adequate support from other sources is outside of an agency's
knowledge and that this kind of knowledge involved marketplace issues
that vary significantly by the size and experience of the contractor.
The respondent also stated that two of the three key elements of the
combatant commander's decision required by the DFARS rule are outside
of his expertise and scope of knowledge--namely whether the specific
contractor can obtain effective security services and whether effective
security services are available at a reasonable price.
    DoD Response: DoD does not agree that the Government would not be
able to determine whether the contractor was able to obtain adequate
support from other sources. The Government official/combatant commander
would not be making a decision in a vacuum, but would have staff to
perform necessary market research and consult with the contractor as
necessary. The final rule contains an amendment at 225.7402-3(b)(2) to
include ``reasonable cost'' as a criterion for contractor-obtained
support, consistent with the language at 252.225-7040(c)(1)(i)(B).
e. Security Costs Should Be a Cost-Reimbursement Line Item
    Comment: One respondent stated that security costs should be a
cost-reimbursement line item, even in a fixed-price contract, or should
provide for equitable adjustment to reflect material changes in the
threat environment.
    DoD Response: In accordance with FAR 16.103, selecting the
appropriate contract type is generally a matter of negotiation and
requires the exercise of sound judgment. The contractor's
responsibility for the performance costs and the profit/fee incentives
offered are tailored to the uncertainties involved in contract
performance. While DoD acknowledges that there may be a high degree of
uncertainty in the costs for security, the determination of how to
handle that uncertainty is a matter of negotiation rather than
regulation.
f. Shift Mid-Stream
    Comment: One respondent stated that existing contracts with
military force protection could be impacted midstream by the DFARS rule
and that contractors will be required to either shift their work plan
and price such changes accordingly or decline the work.
    DoD Response: This rule does not impact existing contracts. DoD
does not plan to retroactively modify contracts. If the combatant
commander has established a security plan and is currently providing
force protection, there is no reason to believe that this rule would
result in a change to the existing arrangements.
g. Firms Unwilling To Bid
    Comment: One respondent stated that many firms, aware that they
might no longer be provided military force protection, might decline
new overseas DoD work due to the often dangerous or austere conditions.
    DoD Response: The conditions are often dangerous or austere, and
military protection may not be available. If firms are unwilling to
cope with such conditions, they should not bid.
h. Insufficient Infrastructure
    Comment: Regarding non-security support, one respondent noted that
paragraph (c)(3) of the DFARS clause states that, unless specified
elsewhere in the contract, the contractor is responsible for all other
support required for its personnel engaged in a theater of operations.
The respondent further noted that, in some theaters of operations, the
local infrastructure might be insufficient or the military situation
may limit or restrict the

[[Page 16771]]

contractor's ability to provide such support.
    DoD Response: Because of such difficulties, the DFARS clause
provides for logistical support when such support is needed to ensure
continuation of essential contractor services and the contractor cannot
obtain adequate services. However, the contractor cannot assume that
such services will be provided unless it has been arranged and is
specified in the contract.
i. Provision of Care
    Comment: One respondent noted that paragraph (c)(2)(i) of the DFARS
clause states that all contractor personnel ``may be provided'' certain
types of care. The respondent expressed concern that this paragraph
implies there is discretion not to provide such care, but with no
guidance as to how this discretion is to be exercised. The respondent
recommended revision of the phrase ``may be provided'' to ``are
authorized to receive.''
    DoD Response: There was no intent to imply that access to such care
would be denied, but rather that DoD could not commit to providing it
in all circumstances. The phrase has been revised as recommended by the
respondent.

11. Compliance With Laws, Regulations, Directives (252.225-7040(d))

a. Lack of Access to Necessary Information on Laws, Regulations, and
Directives
    Paragraph (d) of the DFARS clause requires the contractor to comply
with, and ensure that its deployed personnel are familiar with and
comply with, all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including
those of the host country, all treaties and international agreements,
all U.S. regulations, and all orders, directives, and instructions
issued by the combatant commander.
    Comment: One respondent stated that rarely will contractors, let
alone offerors, have access to any (and certainly not all) relevant
orders, directives, instructions, policies, and procedures of the
combatant commander, even in those narrow functional areas specified in
the clause. The respondent also states that frequently a contractor is
asked to deploy to countries or areas of the world on short notice
without extended advance notice and without meaningful access to
information on relevant foreign and local laws.
    DoD Response: Paragraph (d) of the DFARS clause reinforces the
existing obligation for contractor personnel to comply with the laws
and regulations applicable to the contract. Contractors have access to
all of these laws and regulations, and country studies are available
online at http://www.state.gov. Therefore, a contractor may ascertain
on its own the laws and regulations necessary to comply with paragraph
(d) of the clause. In addition, a contractor supporting contingency
operations should have access to any orders, directive, instructions,
policies, and procedures of the combatant commander that affect
contract performance in the designated operational area. The Web site
at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/pacc/cc/areas_of_responsibility.html
links directly to individual combatant commands and countries to
provide the information necessary for operating in that area.
b. Varying Need for Extensive Information
    Comment: One respondent stated that deployed employees may have no
need for certain types of information that are unrelated to their
specific work assignments.
    DoD Response: The DFARS clause only requires knowledge of
applicable laws and regulations. If certain laws or regulations are not
applicable to particular employees, the information provided to those
employees should be tailored as appropriate.
c. Inconsistency Between U.S. Laws and Host or Third Country National
Laws
    Comment: One respondent recommended that the DFARS clause address
how U.S. contractors are to resolve conflicts between compliance with
U.S. law and any inconsistent host or third country national laws.
Another respondent recommended establishment of an order of precedence
among the contract, statement of work, DFARS clauses, DoD instructions
and directives, and combatant commander orders (written or oral).
    DoD Response: DoD does not agree with the recommended changes. The
resolution of conflicts between U.S. and host or third country national
laws must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and, therefore, is beyond
the scope and intent of the regulations. Also, paragraph (d) of the
DFARS clause is a reminder of the existing obligation to comply with
the applicable laws, regulations, and international agreements
specified therein. It is the contractor's responsibility to make the
best possible interpretations and determinations when deciding which
law or regulation takes precedence in the event of a conflict. With
regard to the orders of the combatant commander, see the following
paragraph.
    d. Authority of the Combatant Commander
    Comment: One respondent expressed concern that the broad authority
in paragraph (d)(4) of the DFARS clause would allow the combatant
commander to become unduly involved in the contracting process. In
addition, this paragraph could be interpreted as empowering combatant
commanders to issue instructions for individual contracts on a wide
spectrum of matters.
    DoD Response: Paragraph (d)(4) of the clause is a reminder of the
existing obligation for contractor personnel to comply with laws and
regulations applicable to the contract. It does not provide new
authority for combatant commanders to direct the contracting activities
of other Government agencies. However, paragraph (d)(4) has been
amended to clarify that only the contracting officer is authorized to
modify the terms and conditions of the contract.
e. Ensure That the Statement of Work Does Not Violate Host Nation or
International Law
    Comment: One respondent stated that the rule should direct the
contracting officer to ensure that the statement of work does not
require the contractor to violate host nation or international law.
This would be consistent with many provisions in DoD Instruction
3020.41 that the DFARS rule omits.
    DoD Response: The requiring activity and the combatant commander
have primary responsibility for the statement of work, and they must
follow the requirements of DoD Instruction 3020.41. Therefore, it is
unnecessary to repeat this requirement in the DFARS.

12. Preliminary Personnel Requirements (252.225-7040(e))

a. Immunizations
    Comment: One respondent recommended that contractors be required to
comply with immunization requirements to the ``best of their
knowledge'' rather than requiring that they be aware of all such
requirements, since they may not have ready access to all of the
vaccines, documents, and medical and physical requirements that may be
applicable to a specific deployment.
    DoD Response: Contractors should be aware of all immunization
requirements, since the Government is required to provide specific
information in the contract regarding those requirements.

[[Page 16772]]

b. Foreign Visas
    Comment: One respondent stated that contractors should not have to
obtain foreign government approval through entrance or exit visas
before implementing a contract.
    DoD Response: DoD does not have the authority to waive the visa
requirements of foreign governments. If a contractor is experiencing
problems obtaining any necessary visas, it should advise the
contracting officer so that the U.S. Government can assist if possible.
c. Isolated Personnel Training
    Comment: One respondent requested explanation of the phrase
``isolated personnel training.''
    DoD Response: ``Isolated personnel training'' refers to training
for military or civilian personnel who may be separated from their unit
or organization in an environment requiring them to survive, evade, or
escape while awaiting rescue or recovery. For additional clarity,
paragraph (e)(1)(vi) of the DFARS clause has been amended to add a
reference to DoD Instruction 1300.23, Isolated Personnel Training for
DoD Civilian and Contractors.

13. Personnel Data List (252.225-7040(g))

    Comment: One respondent questioned whether the Privacy Act will
apply to the implementation of a personnel database.
    DoD Response: The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies to any system
of records established by the Government. The final rule designates the
Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) as the
applicable system for maintaining data on deployed personnel. The
Federal Register notice for the SPOT system, as required by the Privacy
Act, was published at 70 FR 56646 on September 28, 2005.

14. Changes (252.225-7040(p))

a. Expansion of Changes Clause
    Comment: One respondent stated that paragraph (p) of the DFARS
clause represented an unnecessary sweeping expansion of the standard
FAR ``Changes'' clause; and that the standard clause is limited for
important reasons, one of which is to ensure that Government contracts
remain within clearly defined scopes. Another respondent stated that
inclusion of change in place of performance in paragraph (p) could be
interpreted to require a contractor to move from Iraq to Kuwait or from
East Timor to Lebanon. Although the respondent strongly supported the
premise that changes are subject to the Changes clause and, therefore,
subject to equitable adjustment when appropriate, the respondent also
recommended that an equitable adjustment be explicitly required.
    DoD Response: DoD does not consider paragraph (p) of the DFARS
clause to be a sweeping change, since it is patterned after the
standard Changes clause for construction contracts, which includes
changes in site performance. Because this DFARS clause is not limited
to construction contracts, the more generic term ``place of
performance'' was substituted for ``site.'' The Changes clause requires
that changes be within the scope of the contract and that equitable
adjustment be provided when appropriate. Since paragraph (p) of the
DFARS clause states that any change order will be subject to the
Changes clause, it is not necessary to repeat the principles of the
Changes clause in the DFARS clause.
b. Interim Rule Preamble
    Comment: One respondent stated that the description of the changes
to paragraph (p) of the DFARS clause, in the preamble to the interim
rule published at 71 FR 34826 on June 16, 2006, was not accurate,
because it only addressed place of performance, when the changes also
included Government-furnished facilities, equipment, material, and
services.
    DoD Response: The preamble accurately described the changes made by
the interim rule published on June 16, 2006. The references to
Government-furnished facilities, equipment, material, and services were
already in the clause prior to the interim rule.

15. Subcontract Flowdown (252.225-7040(q))

a. Obligation and Role of the Parties
    Comment: Two respondents recommended that the Government more
clearly state what parts of the clause are to flowed down and whether,
for each provision, the contractor is to act in the Government's stead.
    DoD Response: The language in paragraph (q) of the DFARS clause is
consistent with the language normally included in FAR/DFARS clauses
requiring flowdown of requirements to subcontractors. The specific
language ``shall incorporate the substance of this clause'' is intended
to allow latitude in correctly stating the relationship of the parties.
The Government does not have privity of contract with subcontractors.
b. Flowdown of Support
    Comment: One respondent, while not objecting to the policy for
subcontract flowdown, questions the ability of the prime contractor to
flow down provisions to subcontractors that have the effect of
committing the Government to undertake affirmative support of each
subcontractor (including third country national firms) retained to
provide support.
    DoD Response: The provision for flowdown of the clause to all
subcontracts where subcontractor personnel are authorized to accompany
U.S. Armed Forces outside the United States reflects the intent that
resuscitative care, stabilization, hospitalization at level III
military treatment facilities, and assistance with patient movement in
certain emergencies is authorized for such subcontractor personnel. The
Government has no privity of contract with subcontractors. Therefore,
all parts of the clause should be flowed down to subcontractors to
ensure that subcontractors supporting deployed forces receive
appropriate coverage. With regard to other types of support, the
contract will specify what support will be provided and to whom.
c. Flowdown to Private Security Contractors
    Comment: One respondent expressed concern that flowing down the
clause to private security contractors means that a prime contractor
can authorize a subcontractor to use deadly force.
    DoD Response: Although the prime contractor flows down clause
requirements, use of deadly force is always subject to the authority of
the combatant commander, who authorizes the possession of weapons and
the rules for their use.

16. Defense Base Act

    Comment: One respondent stated that ``self-defense contracts'' and
private security contracts continue, as a matter of law, to include
compliance with the Defense Base Act; and that, with the interim rule's
expansion of the functions to be performed by contractor personnel, it
becomes unclear that coverage under the Defense Base Act will be
available to contractors.
    DoD Response: The DFARS rule does not expand functions to be
performed by contractor personnel. In addition, the courts have
determined that the Defense Base Act applies to any overseas contract
that has a nexus to either a national defense activity or a facility
construction or improvement project. DoD's private security contracts
fall within Defense Base Act coverage, as they are services to be
performed outside the United States and relate to national defense
activities. DoD

[[Page 16773]]

includes the clause at FAR 52.228-3, Workers' Compensation Insurance
(Defense Base Act), in all service contracts to be performed entirely
or in part outside the United States and in supply contracts that
require the performance of employee services overseas. Defense Base Act
coverage exists as long as contract performance falls within the scope
of the statutory requirements. This DFARS rule does not change or
preclude Defense Base Act coverage. If there is concern about the
unavailability of Defense Base Act coverage because of the high cost of
insurance or unwillingness of insurance providers when high risk is
involved, activities such as the Army Corps of Engineers have
negotiated arrangements with insurance companies to make insurance
available to contractors. Also, the Government will reimburse insurance
companies for expenses incurred relating to war hazards, the biggest
risk.
    Comment: One respondent expressed concern that, by accepting all
risks of performance, contractors would not be able to obtain workers
compensation insurance or reimbursement under the Defense Base Act.
    DoD Response: The statement regarding risk at 252.225-7040(b)(2)
was intended to reinforce the general rule that the contractor is
responsible for fulfilling its contractual obligations, even in
dangerous and austere conditions. It was not intended to conflict with
any other provisions of the contract. For clarity, the introductory
phrase, ``Except as provided elsewhere in the contract,'' has been
added to the statement as requested by the respondent.

17. Basis and Need for DFARS Rule

a. DoD Instruction 3020.41, Contractor Personnel Authorized To
Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces
    Comment: One respondent considered that the interim DFARS rule was
written in response to DoD Instruction 3020.41, but that the legal and
policy predicate of the instruction is unclear. The instruction follows
by only 5 months the predecessor DFARS rule. In turn, the earlier
changes had themselves been predicated on DoD Instruction 3020.37,
Continuation of Essential DoD Contractor Services During Crises.
    DoD Response: The predecessor DFARS rule was published at 70 FR
23790 on May 5, 2005, and was not predicated on DoD Instruction
3020.37. That rule was developed by DoD specialists familiar with the
problems occurring with contracts requiring contractor personnel to
accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed overseas. When the DFARS rule was
published on May 5, 2005, DoD Instruction 3020.41 was still in draft
form. The drafters of the DFARS rule worked closely with the drafters
of DoD Instruction 3020.41 to achieve maximum consistency. When DoD
Instruction 3020.41 was published on October 3, 2005, it contained
changes that had not been anticipated when the DFARS rule was
published. Therefore, DoD issued an interim DFARS rule on June 16,
2006, to incorporate the additional changes included in DoD Instruction
3020.41.
b. DoD Directive 2311.01E, DoD Law of War Program
    Comment: One respondent stated that the DFARS rule is not
consistent with DoD Directive 2311.01E, particularly sections 5.7.2 and
5.7.4.
    DoD Response: DoD has reviewed these sections of the DoD
Instruction and has found no inconsistencies. Section 5.7.2 requires
heads of DoD components to institute and implement effective programs
to prevent violations of the law of war. Section 5.7.4 requires that
contract work statements for contractors comply with DoD Directive
2311.01E and DoD Instruction 3020.41 and require contractors to
institute and implement effective programs to prevent violations of the
law of war by their employees and subcontractors, including law of war
training. DoD is presently preparing training for contractors law of
war and is drafting DFARS changes to incorporate contractor training
requirements (73 FR 1853, January 10, 2008).
c. Need for Separate DFARS Rule With Unique Requirements
    Comment: One respondent stated that there should be a single
coherent regulation generated that does not devolve combat activities
on civilian contractors. In addition, the respondent stated that the
fact that the DFARS changes have been made effective in advance of the
proposed FAR changes suggest that the deviation requirements of FAR
Subpart 1.4 may have been violated. Another respondent stated that
there are inconsistencies between the requirement applicable to
contractors accompanying the U.S. Armed Forces and those for all other
contractors.
    DoD Response: Neither the FAR nor the DFARS rule devolves combat
activities on civilian contractors. Both rules are needed because of
essential differences between contractors that are authorized to
accompany the U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States and
all other contractors that are performing in a designated operational
area or supporting a diplomatic or consular mission, whether under
contract with DoD or a civilian agency. In addition, the requirements
of FAR Subpart 1.4 have not been violated. In accordance with FAR
1.401(f), deviation requirements do not apply to policies or procedures
that have been incorporated into agency acquisition regulations in
accordance with 1.301(a).
d. Need for Interim DFARS Rule
    Comment: Several respondents questioned the need for an interim
rule, providing no opportunity for public comment prior to putting
these changes into effect. One respondent added that, to the extent
that any of the protocols specified in the interim rule have become
essential, there is considerable evidence that those protocols have
been in use for two or more years.
    DoD Response: DoD considered it imperative to amend the DFARS rule
to correct the inconsistencies with DoD Instruction 3020.41. Also, the
fact that personnel are finding it necessary to take action without
regulatory coverage provides more, not less, reason to issue the
regulations necessary to provide structure and boundaries for such
activities.

18. Information Collection Requirements

    Comment: One respondent stated that the rule would impose
substantial information collection requirements on the contracting
communities, suggesting that transmogrification of battlefield
contractors into combatants portends huge increases in their
information collection and management responsibilities that are
anything but usual and customary and are well outside the normal course
of business.
    DoD Response: DoD does not agree that the rule provides for
transmogrification of battlefield contractors into combatants or
requires huge increases in their information collection and management
responsibilities. Although the rule requires contractors to establish
and maintain a current list of contractor personnel in the area of
performance with a designated Government official, such information
should be routinely maintained by the contractor as part of the
contractor's personnel data base.
19. Additional Changes
    The final rule also includes the following changes:
    [cir] Addition of Subpart 225.3 to supplement the final FAR rule
published at 73 FR 10943 on February 28, 2008. The DFARS subpart: (1)
Clarifies the meaning of the term

[[Page 16774]]

``performance in a designated operational area''; (2) specifies that,
for DoD, FAR 25.301 also applies to personal services contracts, since
DoD does not have the same authorities as the civilian agencies with
regard to personal services contractors; (3) provides that the clause
at FAR 52.225-19 will not be used in solicitations and contracts when
all contractor personnel performing outside the United States will be
covered by the clause at 252.225-7040; and (4) specifies the automated
system for use in maintaining DoD contractor personnel data under the
clause at FAR 52.225-19.
    [cir] At 225.7402-4(a), clarification that the contract clause
applies to solicitations and contracts that ``authorize'' contractor
personnel to accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United
States. This is consistent with the terminology used in 225.7402-1,
Scope.
    [cir] Revision of 252.225-7040(e)(2)(iv) to reflect the provisions
of Section 552 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364), which amended 10 U.S.C. 802(a)(10) to make
the Uniform Code of Military Justice applicable to persons accompanying
the U.S. Armed Forces in a contingency operation.
    [cir] Amendment of 252.225-7040(h)(1) to clarify that the
contracting officer may direct the contractor to remove and replace
contractor personnel who fail to comply with or violate applicable
contract requirements.
    This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD has prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis consistent
with 5 U.S.C. 604. A copy of the analysis may be obtained from the
point of contact specified herein. The analysis is summarized as
follows:
    This rule amends the DFARS to implement DoD Instruction 3020.41,
Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces. The
objective is to provide consistent policy and a standard clause
applicable to DoD contracts that authorize contractor personnel to
accompany U.S. Armed Forced deployed outside the United States.
Application of the rule is limited to entities with DoD contracts that
authorize contractor personnel to accompany U.S. Armed forces deployed
outside the United States in contingency operations, humanitarian or
peacekeeping operations, or other military operations or military
exercises when designated by the combatant commander. The rule requires
contractors to maintain data on its personnel that are authorized to
accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States, and
designates the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker
(SPOT) web-based system for entering of the data. No special skills are
required for use of the SPOT system, and the information that must be
entered into the system is of the type that a contractor would normally
maintain with regard to its personnel.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply, because the rule does
not impose any information collection requirements that require the
approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 212, 225, and 252

    Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 212, 225, and 252,
which was published at 71 FR 34826 on June 16, 2006, is adopted as a
final rule with the following changes:
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 212, 225, and 252 continues
to read as follows:

    Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

PART 225--FOREIGN ACQUISITION

0
2. Subpart 225.3 is added to read as follows:
Subpart 225.3--Contracts Performed Outside the United States
Sec.
225.301 Contractor personnel in a designated operational area or
supporting a diplomatic or consular mission outside the United
States.
225.301-1 Scope.
225.301-4 Contract clause.

Subpart 225.3--Contracts Performed Outside the United States


225.301  Contractor personnel in a designated operational area or
supporting a diplomatic or consular mission outside the United States.


225.301-1  Scope.

    (a) Performance in a designated operational area, as used in this
section, means performance of a service or construction, as required by
the contract. For supply contracts, the term includes services
associated with the acquisition of supplies (e.g., installation or
maintenance), but does not include production of the supplies or
associated overhead functions.
    (c) For DoD, this section also applies to all personal services
contracts.


225.301-4  Contract clause.

    (1) Use the clause at FAR 52.225-19, Contractor Personnel in a
Designated Operational Area or Supporting a Diplomatic or Consular
Mission Outside the United States, in accordance with the prescription
at FAR 25.301-4, except that--
    (i) The clause shall also be used in personal services contracts
with individuals; and
    (ii) The clause shall not be used when all contractor personnel
performing outside the United States will be covered by the clause at
252.225-7040.
    (2) When using the clause at FAR 52.225-19, the contracting officer
shall inform the contractor that the Synchronized Predeployment and
Operational Tracker (SPOT) is the appropriate automated system to use
for the list of contractor personnel required by paragraph (g) of the
clause. Information on the SPOT system is available at http://
www.dod.mil/bta/products/spot.html.

0
3. Sections 225.7402 through 225.7402-4 are revised to read as follows:


225.7402  Contractor personnel authorized to accompany U.S. Armed
Forces deployed outside the United States.

    For additional information on contractor personnel authorized to
accompany the U.S. Armed Forces, see PGI 225.7402.


225.7402-1  Scope.

    (a) This section applies to contracts that involve contractor
personnel authorized to accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside
the United States in--
    (1) Contingency operations;
    (2) Humanitarian or peacekeeping operations; or
    (3) Other military operations or military exercises, when
designated by the combatant commander.
    (b) Any of the types of operations listed in paragraph (a) of this
subsection may include stability operations such as--
    (1) Establishment or maintenance of a safe and secure environment;
or
    (2) Provision of emergency infrastructure reconstruction,
humanitarian relief, or essential governmental services (until feasible
to transition to local government).

[[Page 16775]]

225.7402-2  Definition.

    See PGI 225.7402-2 for additional information on designated
operational areas.


225.7402-3  Government support.

    (a) Government support that may be authorized or required for
contractor personnel performing in a designated operational area may
include, but is not limited to, the types of support listed in PGI
225.7402-3(a).
    (b) The agency shall provide logistical or security support only
when the appropriate agency official, in accordance with agency
guidance, determines in coordination with the combatant commander
that--
    (1) Such Government support is available and is needed to ensure
continuation of essential contractor services; and
    (2) The contractor cannot obtain adequate support from other
sources at a reasonable cost.
    (c) The contracting officer shall specify in the solicitation and
contract--
    (1) Valid terms, approved by the combatant commander, that specify
the responsible party, if a party other than the combatant commander is
responsible for providing protection to the contractor personnel
performing in the designated operational area as specified in 225.7402-
1;
    (2) If medical or dental care is authorized beyond the standard
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of the clause at 252.225-7040,
Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany U.S. Armed Forces Deployed
Outside the United States; and
    (3) Any other Government support to be provided, and whether this
support will be provided on a reimbursable basis, citing the authority
for the reimbursement.
    (d) The contracting officer shall provide direction to the
contractor, if the contractor is required to reimburse the Government
for medical treatment or transportation of contractor personnel to a
selected civilian facility in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of
the clause at 252.225-7040.
    (e) Contractor personnel must have a letter of authorization (LOA)
issued by a contracting officer in order to process through a
deployment center or to travel to, from, or within the designated
operational area. The LOA also will identify any additional
authorizations, privileges, or Government support that the contractor
personnel are entitled to under the contract. For a sample LOA, see PGI
225.7402-3(e).


225.7402-4  Contract clauses.

    (a) Use the clause at 252.225-7040, Contractor Personnel Authorized
to Accompany U.S. Armed Forces Deployed Outside the United States,
instead of the clause at FAR 52.225-19, Contractor Personnel in a
Designated Operational Area or Supporting a Diplomatic or Consular
Mission Outside the United States, in solicitations and contracts that
authorize contractor personnel to accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed
outside the United States in--
    (1) Contingency operations;
    (2) Humanitarian or peacekeeping operations; or
    (3) Other military operations or military exercises, when
designated by the combatant commander.
    (b) For additional guidance on clauses to consider when using the
clause at 252.225-7040, see PGI 225.7402-4(b).

PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

0
4. Section 252.225-7040 is revised to read as follows:


252.225-7040  Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany U.S. Armed
Forces Deployed Outside the United States.

    As prescribed in 225.7402-4(a), use the following clause:
CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL AUTHORIZED TO ACCOMPANY U.S. ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES (MAR 2008)
    (a) Definitions. As used in this clause--Combatant Commander
means the commander of a unified or specified combatant command
established in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 161.
    Designated operational area means a geographic area designated
by the combatant commander or subordinate joint force commander for
the conduct or support of specified military operations.
    Subordinate joint force commander means a sub-unified commander
or joint task force commander.
    (b) General.
    (1) This clause applies when Contractor personnel are authorized
to accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States
in--
    (i) Contingency operations;
    (ii) Humanitarian or peacekeeping operations; or
    (iii) Other military operations or military exercises, when
designated by the Combatant Commander.
    (2) Contract performance in support of U.S. Armed Forces
deployed outside the United States may require work in dangerous or
austere conditions. Except as otherwise provided in the contract,
the Contractor accepts the risks associated with required contract
performance in such operations.
    (3) Contractor personnel are civilians accompanying the U.S.
Armed Forces.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this clause,
Contractor personnel are only authorized to use deadly force in
self-defense.
    (ii) Contractor personnel performing security functions are also
authorized to use deadly force when such force reasonably appears
necessary to execute their security mission to protect assets/
persons, consistent with the terms and conditions contained in their
contract or with their job description and terms of employment.
    (iii) Unless immune from host nation jurisdiction by virtue of
an international agreement or international law, inappropriate use
of force by contractor personnel authorized to accompany the U.S.
Armed Forces can subject such personnel to United States or host
nation prosecution and civil liability (see paragraphs (d) and
(j)(3) of this clause).
    (4) Service performed by Contractor personnel subject to this
clause is not active duty or service under 38 U.S.C. 106 note.
    (c) Support. (1)(i) The Combatant Commander will develop a
security plan for protection of Contractor personnel in locations
where there is not sufficient or legitimate civil authority, when
the Combatant Commander decides it is in the interests of the
Government to provide security because--
    (A) The Contractor cannot obtain effective security services;
    (B) Effective security services are unavailable at a reasonable
cost; or
    (C) Threat conditions necessitate security through military
means.
    (ii) The Contracting Officer shall include in the contract the
level of protection to be provided to Contractor personnel.
    (iii) In appropriate cases, the Combatant Commander may provide
security through military means, commensurate with the level of
security provided DoD civilians.
    (2)(i) Generally, all Contractor personnel authorized to
accompany the U.S. Armed Forces in the designated operational area
are authorized to receive resuscitative care, stabilization,
hospitalization at level III military treatment facilities, and
assistance with patient movement in emergencies where loss of life,
limb, or eyesight could occur. Hospitalization will be limited to
stabilization and short-term medical treatment with an emphasis on
return to duty or placement in the patient movement system.
    (ii) When the Government provides medical treatment or
transportation of Contractor personnel to a selected civilian
facility, the Contractor shall ensure that the Government is
reimbursed for any costs associated with such treatment or
transportation.
    (iii) Medical or dental care beyond this standard is not
authorized unless specified elsewhere in this contract.
    (3) Unless specified elsewhere in this contract, the Contractor
is responsible for all other support required for its personnel
engaged in the designated operational area under this contract.
    (4) Contractor personnel must have a letter of authorization
issued by the Contracting Officer in order to process through a
deployment center or to travel to, from, or within the designated
operational area. The

[[Page 16776]]

letter of authorization also will identify any additional
authorizations, privileges, or Government support that Contractor
personnel are entitled to under this contract.
    (d) Compliance with laws and regulations. The Contractor shall
comply with, and shall ensure that its personnel authorized to
accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the United States as
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause are familiar with and
comply with, all applicable--
    (1) United States, host country, and third country national
laws;
    (2) Treaties and international agreements;
    (3) United States regulations, directives, instructions,
policies, and procedures; and
    (4) Orders, directives, and instructions issued by the Combatant
Commander, including those relating to force protection, security,
health, safety, or relations and interaction with local nationals.
However, only the Contracting Officer is authorized to modify the
terms and conditions of the contract.
    (e) Pre-deployment requirements. (1) The Contractor shall ensure
that the following requirements are met prior to deploying personnel
in support of U.S. Armed Forces. Specific requirements for each
category may be specified in the statement of work or elsewhere in
the contract.
    (i) All required security and background checks are complete and
acceptable.
    (ii) All deploying personnel meet the minimum medical screening
requirements and have received all required immunizations as
specified in the contract. The Government will provide, at no cost
to the Contractor, any theater-specific immunizations and/or
medications not available to the general public.
    (iii) Deploying personnel have all necessary passports, visas,
and other documents required to enter and exit a designated
operational area and have a Geneva Conventions identification card,
or other appropriate DoD identity credential, from the deployment
center. Any Common Access Card issued to deploying personnel shall
contain the access permissions allowed by the letter of
authorization issued in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of this
clause.
    (iv) Special area, country, and theater clearance is obtained
for personnel. Clearance requirements are in DoD Directive 4500.54,
Official Temporary Duty Abroad, and DoD 4500.54-G, DoD Foreign
Clearance Guide. Contractor personnel are considered non-DoD
personnel traveling under DoD sponsorship.
    (v) All personnel have received personal security training. At a
minimum, the training shall--
    (A) Cover safety and security issues facing employees overseas;
    (B) Identify safety and security contingency planning
activities; and
    (C) Identify ways to utilize safety and security personnel and
other resources appropriately.
    (vi) All personnel have received isolated personnel training, if
specified in the contract, in accordance with DoD Instruction
1300.23, Isolated Personnel Training for DoD Civilian and
Contractors.
    (2) The Contractor shall notify all personnel who are not a host
country national, or who are not ordinarily resident in the host
country, that--
    (i) Such employees, and dependents residing with such employees,
who engage in conduct outside the United States that would
constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one
year if the conduct had been engaged in within the special maritime
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, may potentially
be subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the United States in
accordance with the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of
2000 (18 U.S.C. 3621, et seq.);
    (ii) Pursuant to the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441), Federal
criminal jurisdiction also extends to conduct that is determined to
constitute a war crime when committed by a civilian national of the
United States;
    (iii) Other laws may provide for prosecution of U.S. nationals
who commit offenses on the premises of U.S. diplomatic, consular,
military or other U.S. Government missions outside the United States
(18 U.S.C. 7(9)); and
    (iv) In time of declared war or a contingency operation,
Contractor personnel authorized to accompany U.S. Armed Forces in
the field are subject to the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice under 10 U.S.C. 802(a)(10).
    (f) Processing and departure points. Deployed Contractor
personnel shall--
    (1) Process through the deployment center designated in the
contract, or as otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer, prior
to deploying. The deployment center will conduct deployment
processing to ensure visibility and accountability of Contractor
personnel and to ensure that all deployment requirements are met,
including the requirements specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this
clause;
    (2) Use the point of departure and transportation mode directed
by the Contracting Officer; and
    (3) Process through a Joint Reception Center (JRC) upon arrival
at the deployed location. The JRC will validate personnel
accountability, ensure that specific designated operational area
entrance requirements are met, and brief Contractor personnel on
theater-specific policies and procedures.
    (g) Personnel data. (1) The Contractor shall enter before
deployment and maintain data for all Contractor personnel that are
authorized to accompany U.S. Armed Forces deployed outside the
United States as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this clause. The
Contractor shall use the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational
Tracker (SPOT) web-based system, at http://www.dod.mil/bta/products/
spot.html, to enter and maintain the data.
    (2) The Contractor shall ensure that all employees in the
database have a current DD Form 93, Record of Emergency Data Card,
on file with both the Contractor and the designated Government
official. The Contracting Officer will inform the Contractor of the
Government official designated to receive this data card.
    (h) Contractor personnel. (1) The Contracting Officer may direct
the Contractor, at its own expense, to remove and replace any
Contractor personnel who jeopardize or interfere with mission
accomplishment or who fail to comply with or violate applicable
requirements of this contract. Such action may be taken at the
Government's discretion without prejudice to its rights under any
other provision of this contract, including the Termination for
Default clause.
    (2) The Contractor shall have a plan on file showing how the
Contractor would replace employees who are unavailable for
deployment or who need to be replaced during deployment. The
Contractor shall keep this plan current and shall provide a copy to
the Contracting Officer upon request. The plan shall--
    (i) Identify all personnel who are subject to military
mobilization;
    (ii) Detail how the position would be filled if the individual
were mobilized; and
    (iii) Identify all personnel who occupy a position that the
Contracting Officer has designated as mission essential.
    (i) Military clothing and protective equipment. (1) Contractor
personnel are prohibited from wearing military clothing unless
specifically authorized in writing by the Combatant Commander. If
authorized to wear military clothing, Contractor personnel must--
    (i) Wear distinctive patches, arm bands, nametags, or headgear,
in order to be distinguishable from military personnel, consistent
with force protection measures; and
    (ii) Carry the written authorization with them at all times.
    (2) Contractor personnel may wear military-unique organizational
clothing and individual equipment (OCIE) required for safety and
security, such as ballistic, nuclear, biological, or chemical
protective equipment.
    (3) The deployment center, or the Combatant Commander, shall
issue OCIE and shall provide training, if necessary, to ensure the
safety and security of Contractor personnel.
    (4) The Contractor shall ensure that all issued OCIE is returned
to the point of issue, unless otherwise directed by the Contracting
Officer.
    (j) Weapons. (1) If the Contractor requests that its personnel
performing in the designated operational area be authorized to carry
weapons, the request shall be made through the Contracting Officer
to the Combatant Commander, in accordance with DoD Instruction
3020.41, paragraph 6.3.4.1 or, if the contract is for security
services, paragraph 6.3.5.3. The Combatant Commander will determine
whether to authorize in-theater Contractor personnel to carry
weapons and what weapons and ammunition will be allowed.
    (2) If the Contracting Officer, subject to the approval of the
Combatant Commander, authorizes the carrying of weapons--
    (i) The Contracting Officer may authorize the Contractor to
issue Contractor-owned weapons and ammunition to specified
employees; or
    (ii) The [Contracting Officer to specify the appropriate
individual, e.g., Contracting Officer's Representative, Regional
Security

[[Page 16777]]

Officer] may issue Government-furnished weapons and ammunition to
the Contractor for issuance to specified Contractor employees.
    (3) The Contractor shall ensure that its personnel who are
authorized to carry weapons--
    (i) Are adequately trained to carry and use them--
    (A) Safely;
    (B) With full understanding of, and adherence to, the rules of
the use of force issued by the Combatant Commander; and
    (C) In compliance with applicable agency policies, agreements,
rules, regulations, and other applicable law;
    (ii) Are not barred from possession of a firearm by 18 U.S.C.
922; and
    (iii) Adhere to all guidance and orders issued by the Combatant
Commander regarding possession, use, safety, and accountability of
weapons and ammunition.
    (4) Whether or not weapons are Government-furnished, all
liability for the use of any weapon by Contractor personnel rests
solely with the Contractor and the Contractor employee using such
weapon.
    (5) Upon redeployment or revocation by the Combatant Commander
of the Contractor's authorization to issue firearms, the Contractor
shall ensure that all Government-issued weapons and unexpended
ammunition are returned as directed by the Contracting Officer.
    (k) Vehicle or equipment licenses. Contractor personnel shall
possess the required licenses to operate all vehicles or equipment
necessary to perform the contract in the designated operational
area.
    (l) Purchase of scarce goods and services. If the Combatant
Commander has established an organization for the designated
operational area whose function is to determine that certain items
are scarce goods or services, the Contractor shall coordinate with
that organization local purchases of goods and services designated
as scarce, in accordance with instructions provided by the
Contracting Officer.
    (m) Evacuation. (1) If the Combatant Commander orders a
mandatory evacuation of some or all personnel, the Government will
provide assistance, to the extent available, to United States and
third country national Contractor personnel.
    (2) In the event of a non-mandatory evacuation order, unless
authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor
shall maintain personnel on location sufficient to meet obligations
under this contract.
    (n) Next of kin notification and personnel recovery. (1) The
Contractor shall be responsible for notification of the employee-
designated next of kin in the event an employee dies, requires
evacuation due to an injury, or is isolated, missing, detained,
captured, or abducted.
    (2) In the case of isolated, missing, detained, captured, or
abducted Contractor personnel, the Government will assist in
personnel recovery actions in accordance with DoD Directive 2310.2,
Personnel Recovery.
    (o) Mortuary affairs. Mortuary affairs for Contractor personnel
who die while accompanying the U.S. Armed Forces will be handled in
accordance with DoD Directive 1300.22, Mortuary Affairs Policy.
    (p) Changes. In addition to the changes otherwise authorized by
the Changes clause of this contract, the Contracting Officer may, at
any time, by written order identified as a change order, make
changes in the place of performance or Government-furnished
facilities, equipment, material, services, or site. Any change order
issued in accordance with this paragraph (p) shall be subject to the
provisions of the Changes clause of this contract.
    (q) Subcontracts. The Contractor shall incorporate the substance
of this clause, including this paragraph (q), in all subcontracts
when subcontractor personnel are authorized to accompany U.S. Armed
Forces deployed outside the United States in--
    (1) Contingency operations;
    (2) Humanitarian or peacekeeping operations; or
    (3) Other military operations or military exercises, when
designated by the Combatant Commander.

    (End of clause).

[FR Doc. E8-6582 Filed 3-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-P