We recently told you about a proposed DFARS rule that would “encourage contractors to develop science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs. STEM programs are, programs or initiatives, either formal or informal, which encourage the pursuit of education and experience in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics disciplines.”

We also told you about a catch in the proposed rule. Buried in the language were the following phrases:

• “The Contractor shall assume the responsibility for all the costs and investments in support of the STEM disciplines.”

• “The Contractor will not be reimbursed for any costs incurred or associated with the support of the STEM disciplines. Any costs incurred for supporting the STEM disciplines are unallowable under this contract.”

Based on the catch, we concluded the following about the proposed rule—

… it is disingenuous and perhaps even contrary to Congressional intent, to both ‘encourage’ contractors to engage in STEM-related activities, while at the same time declaring that if the contractor does engage in such activities, the costs are not allowable contract costs. One is tempted to assert that the two policy positions are contrary to one another. Declaring that STEM-related costs are unallowable seems to be faint encouragement, indeed.

We asked our readers to consider submitting comments to the DAR Council. Perhaps they did so, because the DAR Council recently announced that the proposed rule was being withdrawn.

Why did the Council withdraw the rule? According to the Federal Register announcement—

DoD has determined that the proposed amendment to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) is not a necessary part of the Department's plan to implement a section of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, that requires DoD to encourage contractors to develop science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs. … At this time, DoD is in the process of reassessing the most effective and efficient methods by which it can encourage contractors to develop science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs.

We suppose that’s as close to an acknowledgement of a misstep as we are ever going to see from current DOD rule-makers. But while we could quibble with the wording, we are quite satisfied at the outcome—as we trust our readers are. Thanks to those who submitted comments.