Central Nonprofit Agencies' Requirements to Charge Fees and Clarifying the Permissibility of Subcontracting within the AbilityOne Program

National Industries for the Blind (NIB), a central nonprofit agency, opposes the proposed rule because it incorrectly attempts to apply the Uniform Guidance to the AbilityOne Program Fee, which they argue is not a "federal award." They contend that the rule is premature, creates unnecessary administrative burdens, and lacks sufficient economic analysis, requesting that the Commission withdraw the NPRM and wait for OMB's final rule on the Uniform Guidance.

The South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind (STLB), an organization supporting employment for people who are blind, broadly supports the proposed rulemaking but expresses significant concerns regarding the regulatory burden of Uniform Guidance and the lack of economic analysis. They request specific clarifications on subcontracting definitions, fee structures, and the distinction between supply-chain procurement and subcontracting to ensure operational feasibility for participating nonprofit agencies.

SourceAmerica, a Central Nonprofit Agency (CNA) for the AbilityOne Program, opposes the proposed rule that would apply the Uniform Guidance (2 C.F.R. Part 200) to its agreement with the U.S. AbilityOne Commission. They argue that the CNA relationship is a unique procurement-based structure rather than a traditional grant relationship, and that imposing these regulations would create unnecessary administrative burdens, increase costs for federal agencies, and conflict with the administration's deregulatory priorities.

Didlake, a Nonprofit AbilityOne Federal Contractor, expresses concerns regarding the proposed changes to subcontracting definitions and CNA fee structures. They argue that the proposed thresholds and fee limitations may create operational risks, affect cost recovery, and impact contract viability, urging the Commission to consider the cumulative impact of these changes.

The Travis Association for the Blind, an organization representing people who are blind, supports the proposed rule's direction regarding Program Fees and subcontracting. They advocate for specific refinements, including clearer distinctions between supply-chain procurement and subcontracting, the establishment of performance measures for fee utilization, and the preservation of flexibility for NPA-to-NPA partnerships.

The West Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, an organization supporting employment for people who are blind, expresses mixed views on the proposed rule. While they support clarifying the Program Fee as an allowable expense and modernizing subcontracting rules, they oppose the specific requirement to structure agreements under 2 C.F.R. part 200 due to potential regulatory burdens and lack of economic analysis.

ServiceSource, a private company, supports the Commission's efforts to clarify fee collection and subcontracting requirements but advocates for specific modifications. They recommend a tiered fee structure with annual caps to reduce costs to the Federal government and argue against a rigid 25% direct labor hour threshold for for-profit subcontractors due to administrative burdens.

ACHIEVE Human Services, Inc. argues that the proposed rule lacks transparency regarding CNA fee calculations and suggests a more analytical, risk-based, and tiered pricing structure. They also express concern that the 25% subcontracting threshold and associated compliance requirements impose an administrative burden and may limit the ability of NPAs to enter new lines of business.

Envision, Inc., a nonprofit agency participating in the AbilityOne Program, broadly supports the proposed rulemaking but expresses concerns regarding the potential for increased regulatory burdens and operational uncertainty. They advocate for specific clarifications on fee structures, the application of Uniform Guidance, and the distinction between ordinary supply-chain procurement and subcontracting.

The National Council of SourceAmerica Employers (NCSE) expresses support for greater transparency regarding CNA fees but opposes adopting 2 C.F.R. Part 200 in its entirety at this time. They argue that full adoption could lead to increased costs and administrative burdens, suggesting instead a selective implementation of specific requirements relevant to fee reporting.