Comments on E-Verify Employment Eligibility Verification, FAR Case 2007-013.
As a small business providing commercial items, we are always concerned about
new regulations that will make selling to the Federal Gov't unattractive. This new
regulation would cost our organization significant time and effort to comply and
could force us to cease selling our commercial items to the Federal Gov't. Our
comments are as follows:
1. We believe that all new FAR regulations need to be written in a manner to fully
support the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) that established
the preference within the Federal Gov't for the acquisition of commercial items. The
language of this new Employment Eligibility Verification system does not fully
support FASA by limiting its commercial item exception to only COTS items or
items that would be COTS except for minor modifications, instead of using the full
definition of commercial items at FAR 2.101. Why doesn't this new regulation use
the full FAR 2.101 definition? In accordance with FASA, the current broad
definition of a commercial item enables the Gov't to take greater advantage of the
commercial marketplace. By only exempting a narrow range of commercial items,
businesses like ours may choose to cease selling our commercial items to the
Federal Gov't. Our recommendation would be to point this regulation to the
standard definition of a commercial item at FAR 2.101.
2. The subcontractor flow down requirements will be virtually impossible for a small
organization like us to enforce. As a small commercial business, we are happy if
we can just get subcontractors to provide their services to us. If we try to enforce
programs like the Employment Eligibility Verification, they will just say no to our
business. And as a small commercial organization, we will be out of options for
obtaining services and this would force us to cease doing business with the
Federal Gov't. Our recommendation would be that the requirements not flow down
to subcontractors.
3. As a small business under 50 employees, we would prefer an exemption
because of the significant costs and time associated with compliance. It seems
reasonable that employers with over 50 employees would have the staff to comply
with these new rules, but smaller employers are typically stretched to their limits
and cannot afford the employees or time to comply with these types of
regulations. Regulatory compliance thresholds of less than 50 employees are
used in other FAR sections including FAR 52.222-26 Equal Opportunity
(submission of form EEO-1 is not required for contractors with less than 50
employees).
4. The authors of the document (the Councils) make a specific comment that if an
entity believes that complying with E-Verify will impose significant economic
impact, then they should choose not to do business with the Federal Gov't. Again,
this line of thinking is contrary to FASA which seeks to eliminate barriers for
entities to sell commercial items to the Federal Gov't. This thinking also
erroneously assumes that the Federal Gov't can do without the products that
businesses like ours provide if we decide to cease selling to the Federal Gov't.
Thank you for taking time to consider our comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Jason Lemmon
President
Onboard Systems Int'l
Vancouver, WA
FAR Case 2007-013, Employment Eligibility Verification (Comment #3)
This is comment on Proposed Rule
FAR Case 2007-013, Employment Eligibility Verification (Proposed Rule)
View Comment
Related Comments
View AllPublic Submission Posted: 06/19/2008 ID: FAR-FAR-2008-0001-0017
Aug 11,2008 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 06/19/2008 ID: FAR-FAR-2008-0001-0018
Aug 11,2008 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 06/19/2008 ID: FAR-FAR-2008-0001-0022
Aug 11,2008 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 06/19/2008 ID: FAR-FAR-2008-0001-0030
Aug 11,2008 11:59 PM ET
Public Submission Posted: 06/19/2008 ID: FAR-FAR-2008-0001-0036
Aug 11,2008 11:59 PM ET