FAR Case 2007-013, Employment Eligibility Verification (Comment #3)

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