FAC 2005-045 was published today, August 30, 2010 in the Federal Register. A link to the FAC is posted on the WIFCON home page.

In the promulgation of the final rule for FAR Case 2008-024 "Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds", the Councils state that, in reference to a matrix of changes from the prior to the new thresholds, "the current matrix is again available and the Councils have provided a revised Web address to access it."

The web address for the matrix of FAR changes that is www.regulations.gov, as referenced at FAR 1.109(d) in the final rule, but the matrix at this address is dated 2/4/10 and does not reflect the current thresholds for some of the changes. Also, the final rule is missing reference to 16.505((1)(ii) and (iii) and ((4), (it appears in the matrix) but I don't see anything in the promulgation that explains why this final rule removed this reference.

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

FAC 2005-045 was published today, August 30, 2010 in the Federal Register. A link to the FAC is posted on the WIFCON home page.

In the promulgation of the final rule for FAR Case 2008-024 "Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds", the Councils state that, in reference to a matrix of changes from the prior to the new thresholds, "the current matrix is again available and the Councils have provided a revised Web address to access it."

The web address for the matrix of FAR changes that is www.regulations.gov, as referenced at FAR 1.109(d) in the final rule, but the matrix at this address is dated 2/4/10 and does not reflect the current thresholds for some of the changes. Also, the final rule is missing reference to 16.505((1)(ii) and (iii) and ((4), (it appears in the matrix) but I don't see anything in the promulgation that explains why this final rule removed this reference.

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

Not sure about the matrix, but when I checked the final rule, I found:

16.505 [Amended]

35. Amend section 16.505 by--

a. Removing from the introductory text of paragraph ((1)(ii) ``$5

million'' and adding ``$5.5 million'' in its place;

b. Removing from the heading of paragraph ((1)(iii) ``$5

million'' and adding ``$5.5 million'' in its place, and removing ``$5

million'' and adding ``$5.5 million'' in its place; and

c. Removing from the heading of paragraph ((4) ``$5 million'' and

adding ``$5.5 million'' in its place, and removing ``$5 million'' and

adding ``$5.5 million'' in its place.

Did you miss that?

Not sure about the matrix, but when I checked the final rule, I found:

Did you miss that?

I searched the final rule (the below document) and the 16.505 reference is not included.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-21025.pdf

Am I not looking at the right thing?

I searched the final rule (the below document) and the 16.505 reference is not included.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-21025.pdf

Am I not looking at the right thing?

I would have sworn I cut and pasted that language from:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-21025.htm

but it isn't there now. I know I didn't type those words out myself. They'll have to fix that oversight. The thresholds in 16.505 certainly were intended to have been changed.

Try here (Microsoft Excel). If this doesn't work, search Case 2008-024 at regulations.gov.

FAC 2005-045 was published today, August 30, 2010 in the Federal Register. A link to the FAC is posted on the WIFCON home page.

. . .

Also, the final rule is missing reference to 16.505((1)(ii) and (iii) and ((4), (it appears in the matrix) but I don't see anything in the promulgation that explains why this final rule removed this reference.

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

It turns out that these cites didn't show up in the final rule because the CPI adjustments used in the final rule were lower than expected in the proposed rule, and the $5 million thresholds at these three cites didn't change enough to qualify for an adjustment. In the final rule's Supplementary Information, see "C. Changes Between the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule" for explanation of the CPI difference. The details of each threshold are provided in the matrix. For these thresholds, the $5 million was escalated in the proposed rule to $5,258,000, barely making the cut to adjust to $5,500,000 (the nearest $500,000). In the final calculation, it only escalated to $5,154,784, thus resulting in no change, as the nearest $500,000 was the original $5 million.

I must have inadvertently cut and paste from the proposed rule.