OFPP’s staff is surprising small, at least to me.  This is a huge undertaking for such a small, yet extremely competent group.  I wonder if they will draw upon outside resources including others within OMB.

I completely agree with what you said, Vern.  Masters and solid journeymen will thrive.  Those who constantly look for detailed written guidance on every step they take will struggle.

Next steps?  Drastically reduce DFARS and other detailed agency regulations?

Logical since GSA will be in charge of buying all supplies and services for civilian agencies.  Draft EO would make GSA the center of most common buys

Weno2 said:

Logical since GSA will be in charge of buying all supplies and services for civilian agencies.  Draft EO would make GSA the center of most common buys

Not so draft version:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/eliminating-waste-and-saving-taxpayer-dollars-by-consolidating-procurement/

I believe they are setting up to completely gash 1102 personnel. With implementation of AI and significantly less regulation, they will argue the need for less people. 

I just hope they realize their plan won't work before our military readiness degrades too significantly.

Vern Edwards said:

I learned this morning that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is rewriting the FAR and has excluded GSA, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council, and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council from the process. I presume that means the job is being done by personnel in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, but I do not know that to be true.

They are not going to add anything. Instead, they are going to "line out" all text that is not required by statute. They may also line out text that is related to a statute but not essential to implementing the statute. Text based on executive orders will be lined out, since it is not based on statute. They are doing research into the sources of existing text. The prospective new text is being referred to as FAR 2.0.

According to the source they are planning to move fast and complete the project in weeks, not months. It appears they are going to bypass the normal notice and comment process.

I think this is good news, but that the aftermath will be difficult for acquisition personnel who do not have a strong conceptual grasp of acquisition concepts, principles, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques. Masters and solid journeymen will thrive. Those who have not received a strong professional education will struggle.

Hold on to your hats.

Any idea what kind of numbers we are looking at regarding text required by statute? Are we talking a third of the FAR? Half? Sounds like it's a substantial amount of language.

I'd say at least half.

Motorcity said:

Any idea what kind of numbers we are looking at regarding text required by statute? Are we talking a third of the FAR? Half? Sounds like it's a substantial amount of language.

On 3/20/2025 at 1:30 PM, Vern Edwards said:

I think this is good news, but that the aftermath will be difficult for acquisition personnel who do not have a strong conceptual grasp of acquisition concepts, principles, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques. Masters and solid journeymen will thrive. Those who have not received a strong professional education will struggle.

I have long wished many a “shall” in FAR were a “should”.  I may just get my wish with this change.  Gonna keep my paper copy and edit every affected shall to should.

A Thomas Jefferson Far, it shall be.

On 3/20/2025 at 2:30 PM, Vern Edwards said:

... but that the aftermath will be difficult for acquisition personnel who do not have a strong conceptual grasp of acquisition concepts, principles, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques. Masters and solid journeymen will thrive. Those who have not received a strong professional education will struggle.

I believe I have sense of what this means but is there a way to expand on this.  Will the reading be more generalized and less details allowing more "contracting officers should be allowed wide latitude to exercise business judgment." (FAR 1.602-2).  Something else?

Just now, sackanator said:

Will the reading be more generalized and less details allowing more "contracting officers should be allowed wide latitude to exercise business judgment." (FAR 1.602-2).  Something else?

Don't know.

On 3/21/2025 at 4:25 PM, sackanator said:

I believe I have sense of what this means but is there a way to expand on this.  Will the reading be more generalized and less details allowing more "contracting officers should be allowed wide latitude to exercise business judgment." (FAR 1.602-2).  Something else?

What “business judgement”…?

As FAR 2.0 moves forward, I’m trying to understand what’s law versus what’s just regulation.

1. Is the requirement for prompt payment to small businesses (e.g., payment within 15 days) based in statute, or is that just a FAR policy that could be removed or changed in the rewrite?

2. Is the “rule of two” for small business set-asides required by law, or could that also be removed or revised in FAR 2.0?

Would appreciate any clarity on whether these are statutory requirements or just regulatory ones.

Buckle your seatbelts... I'm not sure.  Just striking non-statutorily based regulation from the FAR might help a little?  Most of what we hang ourselves on is the language we draft within our own prescribed documents (commercial determinations, pricing documents, eval criteria, etc., etc..)... Why do we do it?  

Protests.  

(Someone else might call it Fairness.  I might accept Risk Adversity).  

It's more systemic than what I think even a comprehensive reduction in FAR language will get us.

BlaineTheMono said:

As FAR 2.0 moves forward, I’m trying to understand what’s law versus what’s just regulation.

1. Is the requirement for prompt payment to small businesses (e.g., payment within 15 days) based in statute, or is that just a FAR policy that could be removed or changed in the rewrite?

2. Is the “rule of two” for small business set-asides required by law, or could that also be removed or revised in FAR 2.0?

Would appreciate any clarity on whether these are statutory requirements or just regulatory ones.

You can look these up.  Some subjects are easy; others take some work.  For example, the FAR text may include specifics under “Authority.”  That can cite specific statute.  In some cases, the FAR references other parts of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).  You need to look into those to determine if statues are behind it.  Occasionally more than one statue can be involved.

I wonder if they will strike language that implements other agencies' regulations (e.g., SBA, DOL, etc.). I don't think striking such language from the FAR would affect the force of those regulations.

Another thought. Let's say they strike something like "Contracting officers shall purchase supplies and services from responsible sources at fair and reasonable prices." FAR 15.402(a). Subsequent to that, an agency issues an internal policy that says "contracting officers shall purchase supplies and services from responsible sources at fair and reasonable prices." Is the agency's policy subject to the publication and notice requirements of 41 U.S.C. 1707?

BlaineTheMono said:

As FAR 2.0 moves forward, I’m trying to understand what’s law versus what’s just regulation.

1. Is the requirement for prompt payment to small businesses (e.g., payment within 15 days) based in statute, or is that just a FAR policy that could be removed or changed in the rewrite?

2. Is the “rule of two” for small business set-asides required by law, or could that also be removed or revised in FAR 2.0?

Would appreciate any clarity on whether these are statutory requirements or just regulatory ones.

Prompt payment is statutory. See 31 USC Ch. 39.

The rule of two is not statutory.

Vern Edwards said:

Prompt payment is statutory. See 31 USC Ch. 39.

The rule of two is not statutory.

Thanks, Vern!

Vern Edwards said:

Prompt payment is statutory. See 31 USC Ch. 39.

The rule of two is not statutory.

Actually 31 U.S.C. 39 pertains to agencies other than DoD.  10 U.S.C. 38 covers DoD

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/32.009-1

Thanks, formerfed!

On 3/20/2025 at 4:35 PM, formerfed said:

OFPP’s staff is surprising small, at least to me.  This is a huge undertaking for such a small, yet extremely competent group.  I wonder if they will draw upon outside resources including others within OMB.

I completely agree with what you said, Vern.  Masters and solid journeymen will thrive.  Those who constantly look for detailed written guidance on every step they take will struggle.

Next steps?  Drastically reduce DFARS and other detailed agency regulations?

GSA's Office of Governmentwide Policy is supporting members of the FAR Council and the White House as these re-writes / strike-throughs are being done. Otherwise, no one in the policy chain that is typically involved in changes has been read in on the updates or what is coming. OGP is pulling FAR case files from as far back as the Clinton Administration for review, including how SAM is set up and changes that impact that system. The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council hasn't met in over a month.

On 3/21/2025 at 1:19 PM, Motorcity said:

Any idea what kind of numbers we are looking at regarding text required by statute? Are we talking a third of the FAR? Half? Sounds like it's a substantial amount of language.

I'm hearing at least 50% if not more.

TheFedSubK said:

GSA's Office of Governmentwide Policy is supporting members of the FAR Council and the White House as these re-writes / strike-throughs are being done. Otherwise, no one in the policy chain that is typically involved in changes has been read in on the updates or what is coming.  

The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council hasn't met in over a month.

Thanks for that information.  GSA OGP has some good people so I’m glad to see them involved.  Honestly, I don’t see the CAC reacting to anything quickly.  And I can add I once was a member for a short time.

"Instead, they are going to "line out" all text that is not required by statute."

FAR 52.204-21 was not originally required by statute, but later was (under the FY20 NDAA).

I'm hoping the review catches that and leaves it in - if it were "lined out," it would have far-reaching implications for the entire CMMC initiative and framework. It would pull the rug out from under DFARS 252.204-7012, DFARS 252.204-7019, DFARS 252.204-7020, and DFARS 252.204-7021.

Interesting to note that the NIST SP 800-171 requirements for contractors is not directed by a statute.  NIST SP 800-53 is for government agencies but 800-171 for contractors not a statutory requrement as far as I can tell.

formerfed said:

Thanks for that information.  GSA OGP has some good people so I’m glad to see them involved.  Honestly, I don’t see the CAC reacting to anything quickly.  And I can add I once was a member for a short time.

Interesting! And, like many others here, I'll note that this kind of effort has been undertaken before. Parallel to Section 809 activities in the 2017-2019 timeframe, we did lots of analysis of statutory vs. non-statutory language in the FAR (and agency supplements). Not sure where that specific work stands now, as I've moved from the policy world to academia.

I've been told to watch for a big announcement in this regard on April 1. Possibly an executive order. They didn't mean it as a joke. (The FAR took effect on April 1, 1984.)

I have no idea what the announcement will say.

Vern Edwards said:

I've been told to watch for a big announcement in this regard on April 1. Possibly an executive order. They didn't mean it as a joke. (The FAR took effect on April 1, 1984.)

I have no idea what the announcement will say.

With the FAR's 40th anniversary/ birthday on 4/1/2025 my guess is its the forthcoming E.O. several have been tipped off to that will revise acquisition regulations. By their logic, an announcement on or near that day wouldn't surprise me.

Vern Edwards said:

Prompt payment is statutory. See 31 USC Ch. 39.

The rule of two is not statutory.

The rule of two is not statutory.  However, Kingdomware was decided based upon the fact that VA is subject to the rule of two for SDVOSB set asides.  

Not simple stuff. And a revision of the FAR, if done well will not happen easily.

Don Mansfield said:

I wonder if they will strike language that implements other agencies' regulations (e.g., SBA, DOL, etc.). I don't think striking such language from the FAR would affect the force of those regulations.

Just a related thought:  many times the NDAA has requirements that apply only to DoD, but the FAR Councils decided to apply them government wide.  Will those provisions be deleted from the FAR but DoD will be required to include them in the DFARS?

Is it safe to assume that they are also lining things out in the supplements (DOSAR, DFARS, etc.)? Whatever gets crossed out in the FAR will affect the supplements I would think. Maybe that gets done at the agency policy shop level?

Motorcity said:

Is it safe to assume that they are also lining things out in the supplements (DOSAR, DFARS, etc.)? Whatever gets crossed out in the FAR will affect the supplements I would think. Maybe that gets done at the agency policy shop level?

Supplements are handled at the agency policy shops. At some point I understand the CAAC will be given a copy of the FAR 2.0 with which to start their rewrites. I have not heard that agencies are doing their edits yet. For now I understand it is close hold. The CAAC has a meeting on the books for every Wednesday morning. The meetings have been cancelled for weeks now as this rewrite is going forward. Working group meetings on most open FAR cases have also stopped for the time being.

Vern Edwards said:

Hysteria.

There has always been direct political control of acquisition. If you don't know that, then you're ignorant of this country's acquisition history. Try reading a book instead of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

For the real pros among 1102s, what's happening now is the opportunity of a lifetime. A chance to improvise, adapt, and overcome, as the Marines would say, and build a reputation for know-how and a career for yourself.

There is no cause for despair, except among the people without a clue—the PWACs, as I call them. Only mastery can fix acquisition, not statutes and regulations.

I hope they cut the heck out of the FAR, the DFARS, and the DFARS-PGI. A 2,038-page regulation with a 1,458-page supplement with its own 610-page supplement is ridiculous, unless you're regulating idiots.

Fewer legal  constraints? Oh, please, let it be. But put thinking people in charge.

I'm looking forward to the removal of the noise and opening up the silence. I learned the FAR from a mentor who said "Work within the silence of the FAR. If it doesn't say you can't, go for it. Just make sure it makes good business sense." Those that know how to make good business decisions and are rooted in their professional ethics will not have a problem; those that don't and aren't will struggle. I'm looking forward to it. After sitting in FAR working group meetings where a dozen agencies would hang on a single sentence for a week or more debating its context and merit, yes, there is MUCH room for improvement. I'm here for it!

Subutai said:

• Purchase Card transactions need SES+ approval.  Yes, that purchase of $1,000 of printer paper needs sign-off from a senior executive.
• Sources sought, RFI, synopsis solicitation, amendments to that solicitation, awards - each and all need SES+ approval.  Yes, you read that right - a single competitive contract award needs five+ different SES approvals.
• Payments to contractors will need additional approvals - by an SES+.  This is in addition to the approvals invoices already need.

How long do you think it will be before the powers that be recognize that these requirements are grossly inefficient and unworkable?  I predict that agency heads who are failing in their missions will start screaming for relief in short order.

Vern Edwards said:

I hope they cut the heck out of the FAR, the DFARS, and the DFARS-PGI. A 2,038-page regulation with a 1,458-page supplement with its own 610-page supplement is ridiculous, unless you're regulating idiots.

It gets worse working for Army where you have AFARS, AFARS PGI, and then most commands have an Acquisition Instruction (AI) which uses very little effort to marry up with the FAR/DFARS. 

Then we add more redundancies such as "Federal Acquisition Regulation: Small Business Participation on Certain Multiple-Award Contracts" which adds more determination and signatures which were already part of the process in FAR 7 "Acq Planning".

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/15/2025-00615/federal-acquisition-regulation-small-business-participation-on-certain-multiple-award-contracts

Retreadfed said:

How long do you think it will be before the powers that be recognize that these requirements are grossly inefficient and unworkable?  I predict that agency heads who are failing in their missions will start screaming for relief in short order.

I don't think those are standard across all agencies, haven't heard of this in NGB which is under Army which is under DoD.

Is FAR 2.0 a necessary streamlining or a dangerous power grab? With talks of "striking out" non-statutory language, critical questions arise:

• Statutes vs. Precedent: Should the FAR, an acquisition legal framework, rely solely on statutes? Or, in alignment with the US Common Law system, should it also incorporate vital legal precedents and case law interpretations?
• Executive Overreach? What is the extent of the executive branch's authority to unilaterally modify the FAR? Are the current processes, or lack thereof, circumventing essential checks and balances?
• Partisanship or Prudence? Is partisanship clouding judgment, or are these genuine efforts to improve efficiency? How do we distinguish between necessary reform and potential political manipulation?
• What is the impact of Striking Out? What are the real-world consequences of removing regulations not explicitly mandated by statute? Will it lead to clarity or chaos for acquisition professionals?
• A New Legal Framework? If the FAR changes its current structure, how can we ensure a robust, fair, and legally sound acquisition framework that protects taxpayer interests?
• Where's the APA? We're discussing the following statutes, but are we ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)? Shouldn't changes to the FAR, a major federal regulation, be subject to its notice and comment requirements? What are the legal implications of bypassing this process?

On 3/22/2025 at 4:31 PM, joel hoffman said:

What “business judgement”…?

When you get to the AFARS it pretty much tells you how to do something versus what.  I would say it micro manages.  Example FAR 9.105-2(a)(1) says a contracting officers signing of a contract constitutes a determination.  But supplemental regulations make additional requirements such as AFARS 5109.103 requiring DORA to make the determination.  To me business judgement is being smart enough to know I have the documentation to make a determination (FAPIIS, Exclusions) and not have to document a separate "determination memo" when the FAR says my signature on the contract is sufficient for a responsibility determination.

Hammurabis Heir said:

Where's the APA? We're discussing the following statutes, but are we ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)?

No, because the APA doesn't apply to the FAR System.

Vern Edwards said:

For the real pros among 1102s, what's happening now is the opportunity of a lifetime. A chance to improvise, adapt, and overcome, as the Marines would say, and build a reputation for know-how and a career for yourself.

There is no cause for despair, except among the people without a clue—the PWACs, as I call them. Only mastery can fix acquisition, not statutes and regulations.

I hope they cut the heck out of the FAR, the DFARS, and the DFARS-PGI. A 2,038-page regulation with a 1,458-page supplement with its own 610-page supplement is ridiculous, unless you're regulating idiots.

Fewer legal  constraints? Oh, please, let it be. But put thinking people in charge.

I’ve seen this several times before.  Change is introduced.  A few understand what it all means.  They proceed doing work the new way while a large share of coworkers are waiting for detailed guidance and instructions.  They are quickly recognized for their comprehension and initiative.  They advance while coworkers wonder why.

Hammurabis Heir said:

Is FAR 2.0 a necessary streamlining or a dangerous power grab? With talks of "striking out" non-statutory language, critical questions arise...

Another avid reader of The New York Times and The Washington Post and "threat to democracy" opinion writer hysteria!

We need more "power" over acquisition and less bid protest "case law", which has led us to incompetence and uncertainty. If any part of our society has grabbed "power" over acquisition, business, and contracts it's the legal profession. That's why we have so many thousands of pages of regulation and "case law" to cope with.

It won't be pretty, and FAR 2.0 won't be great, but I can't wait.

Improvise! Adapt! Overcome!

Leaders of the future, Arise! The times, they are a-changin'! The career opportunity of a lifetime.

On 3/25/2025 at 4:17 PM, Hammurabis Heir said:

Is FAR 2.0 a necessary streamlining or a dangerous power grab? With talks of "striking out" non-statutory language, critical questions arise:

• Statutes vs. Precedent: Should the FAR, an acquisition legal framework, rely solely on statutes? Or, in alignment with the US Common Law system, should it also incorporate vital legal precedents and case law interpretations?

• Executive Overreach? What is the extent of the executive branch's authority to unilaterally modify the FAR? Are the current processes, or lack thereof, circumventing essential checks and balances?

• Partisanship or Prudence? Is partisanship clouding judgment, or are these genuine efforts to improve efficiency? How do we distinguish between necessary reform and potential political manipulation?

• What is the impact of Striking Out? What are the real-world consequences of removing regulations not explicitly mandated by statute? Will it lead to clarity or chaos for acquisition professionals?

• A New Legal Framework? If the FAR changes its current structure, how can we ensure a robust, fair, and legally sound acquisition framework that protects taxpayer interests?

• Where's the APA? We're discussing the following statutes, but are we ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)? Shouldn't changes to the FAR, a major federal regulation, be subject to its notice and comment requirements? What are the legal implications of bypassing this process?

Do you think we currently have "clarity" in the current system or a "robust, fair, and legally sound acquisition framework that protects taxpayer interests"?

Before answering, remember this is the same acquisition system where:

• the Army took from 2004 until 2017 to award a contract for a new pistol.

• the KC-46, despite utilizing "commercial contracting" (as the "innovators" would have us believe is a panacea), has delays of a least 7-years and still lacks necessary capabilities

• the Sentinel program, which started in 2017, has yet to test a missile or build a launch facility almost 8 years later and recently suffered a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach

• & everyday acquisition practitioners engage in insanity like this (wifcon.com/articles/The Nash & Cibinic Report-May 2022-Contracting Process Inertia.pdf) - just check the many current solicitations floating around sam.gov and you'll see plenty of them demanding offerors "demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirements and/or provide convincing rationale" (i.e. essay writing contests)

EDIT/UPDATE: I listened to a conversation this week between Jon Stewart and Ezra Klein on his Weekly Show podcast that, while not about contracting directly, was certainly contracting adjacent - they talked about how we (government broadly) became too focused on measuring dollar amounts or compliance and that's distracted us from getting things done. They reference the rural broadband initiative (also referenced in a NYT Op-Ed by Jennifer Pahlka: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/opinion/democrats-elon-musk-doge.html) where despite a $42B program and being passed under the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it has not connected a single household to date. So while I understand in this environment there are many concerns, the question front of mind for me is whether FAR 2.0 will help us get good things done for the American people.

Vern Edwards said:

Another avid reader of The New York Times and The Washington Post and "threat to democracy" opinion writer hysteria!

We need more "power" over acquisition and less bid protest "case law", which has led us to incompetence and uncertainty. If any part of our society has grabbed "power" over acquisition, business, and contracts it's the legal profession. That's why we have so many thousands of pages of regulation and "case law" to cope with.

It won't be pretty, and FAR 2.0 won't be great, but I can't wait.

Improvise! Adapt! Overcome!

Leaders of the future, Arise! The times, they are a-changin'! The career opportunity of a lifetime.

While I appreciate your response, and as someone who, like many in federal procurement, has followed your advice for nearly 15 years—learning a great deal from your discussions and the Government Contract Reference Book you co-authored—I'm still concerned that you've chosen to resort to personal attacks rather than addressing the substantive questions I raised. Labeling me a reader of specific publications doesn't invalidate the concerns about the legal implications of FAR 2.0. Could we please focus on the actual issues? Furthermore, it's interesting that you seem to advocate for less 'case law' and more 'power' in acquisition. That's precisely what I'm concerned about, and honestly, your response seems to be proving my point.

Don Mansfield said:

No, because the APA doesn't apply to the FAR System.

I understand that some FAR changes might be considered interpretative or procedural, and therefore exempt from the full APA requirements. However, given the potential significant impact of FAR 2.0, I believe a thorough legal analysis is warranted. Could you provide specific examples of how these changes fall under APA exemptions?

Could you please provide legal references to back that statement up?

Most of the standard A-E and construction specific contract clauses are long-standing, standardized assignments of risk and responsibilities between the parties. Not sure why they would be candidates for streamlining contracting or otherwise controversial.

There are varieties of commercial construction contract formats and terms and conditions, generally written in the interest of the proponent organizations that formulate and issue them. Similarly, the professional architecture and engineering organizations promote their own versions of those type contracts.

Hammurabis Heir said:

Is FAR 2.0 a necessary streamlining or a dangerous power grab?

@Hammurabis HeirThat's the comment that prompted my response. Leave the politics ("dangerous power grab") out of it. Is FAR 2.0 necessary streamlining? Yes. The FAR is 2,034 pages long and is further swollen by thousands of pages of supplemental regulations. We cannot afford the acquisition system as currently regulated and operated. It's literally a danger to the country.

Here are my responses to your questions:

Hammurabis Heir said:

Statutes vs. Precedent: Should the FAR, an acquisition legal framework, rely solely on statutes? Or, in alignment with the US Common Law system, should it also incorporate vital legal precedents and case law interpretations?

Precedents of the Federal courts that interpret statutes, yes. But GAO "case law", no. GAO bid protest decisions are not binding on the Executive Branch, they never have been.

Hammurabis Heir said:

Executive Overreach? What is the extent of the executive branch's authority to unilaterally modify the FAR? Are the current processes, or lack thereof, circumventing essential checks and balances?

I would say its authority is unlimited, as long as the modifications are consistent with the Constitution and statute.

Hammurabis Heir said:

Partisanship or Prudence? Is partisanship clouding judgment, or are these genuine efforts to improve efficiency? How do we distinguish between necessary reform and potential political manipulation?

Partisanship is as American as apple pie. ("dangerous power grab"). Whether it "clouds" judgement or informs judgement is a matter of debate. I presume that the current desire to cut regulation is prompted by a partisan desire for less government and less regulation. I also presume that it reflects a genuine desire to improve efficiency.

Hammurabis Heir said:

What is the impact of Striking Out? What are the real-world consequences of removing regulations not explicitly mandated by statute? Will it lead to clarity or chaos for acquisition professionals?

Striking out non-statutory text will cause confusion among those members of the workforce that are not steeped in acquisition concepts, principles, rules, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques and that do not know how to business without "guidance". It will be up to management to provide that guidance. Expect some chaos and confusion. The emergence of clarity and stability will depend on the senior procurement executives, heads of the contracting activities, chiefs of contracting offices, and contracting officers. How well do you expect them to perform?

Hammurabis Heir said:

A New Legal Framework? If the FAR changes its current structure, how can we ensure a robust, fair, and legally sound acquisition framework that protects taxpayer interests?

Demand that senior procurement executives, heads of contracting activities, chiefs of contracting offices, contracting officers, and contract specialists do their jobs, and fire them if they don't.

Hammurabis Heir said:

Where's the APA? We're discussing the following statutes, but are we ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)? Shouldn't changes to the FAR, a major federal regulation, be subject to its notice and comment requirements? What are the legal implications of bypassing this process?

The notice and public comment provisions of the APA do not apply to procurement regulations. See 5 USC 553(a)(2).

Without standardized design and construction contracting approaches, the do it your own way approach would, in my opinion, produce chaos and confusion for both industry and government agencies.

We conducted nationwide Town Hall meetings with the design and construction community in the late 1990’s as we developed the $50 billion MILCON/BRAC/Grow the Army Transformation Program acquisition approach. In those meetings and feedback, the industry made it clear that they wanted uniform design criteria, contract formats, source selection approaches and after award contract management procedures.

The Army was standardizing the organizational (Brigade Combat Teams) functional and technical design criteria for 40 plus standard facilities types that would be replicated across the Army in the hundreds and some in the thousands.

Industry said they couldn’t afford to and wouldn’t compete in multiple, individual Districts and Installations for the same types of standard facilities if there would be individual installation design standards,  individual Corps District RFP/competition standards and individual District project after-award execution/contract admin procedures. They strongly advocated standardization and streamlining all these facet approaches across the Army.

Inasmuch as the Army’s annual construction program grew to as much as six times the normal MILCON volume for five to six years, its goals were to drastically shorten the acquisition, design and construction timelines, to reduce initial costs (award 100% of the annual programmed projects, get awards of 100% of project scope within 100% of the programmed budget)  and reduce life cycle costs (operation and maintenance) for the many facility types, most of which  had commercial counterparts.

That and the industry input were big lessons learned to save money, foster industry interest and participation and drastically streamline and shorten the time to obtain the new facilities.

Motorcity said:

Is it safe to assume that they are also lining things out in the supplements (DOSAR, DFARS, etc.)? Whatever gets crossed out in the FAR will affect the supplements I would think. Maybe that gets done at the agency policy shop level?

Traditionally, agency supplements are the domain of the agency-level policy shop.

On 3/20/2025 at 4:30 PM, Vern Edwards said:

I think this is good news, but that the aftermath will be difficult for acquisition personnel who do not have a strong conceptual grasp of acquisition concepts, principles, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques. Masters and solid journeymen will thrive. Those who have not received a strong professional education will struggle.

I don't think I agree with this, Vern. It probably depends on what you mean by "thrive" and "struggle."

The majority of 1102s today don't "thrive" professionally (i.e., don't have a sound understanding of what they're doing or why), and many are flat-out unqualified for the role. In fact, many either can't or won't open the FAR--ever--outside of the classroom.

Despite this, most "get by" (i.e., maintain some level of output and receive passing assessments) through some combination of obedience, work-of-mouth knowledge, intuition, and "common sense" (real or perceived). 

I suspect even after the re-write the majority of practitioners will continue to operate in this manner. There would need to be some major new incentive or disincentive, or change in how 1102s are selected and trained, for this to change. Fewer rules would only mean that these folks run afoul of the rules less often.

FrankJon said:

I don't think I agree with this, Vern.

Okay. We'll see.

FrankJon said:

Despite this, most "get by" (i.e., maintain some level of output and receive passing assessments) through some combination of obedience, work-of-mouth knowledge, intuition, and "common sense" (real or perceived). 

I suspect even after the re-write the majority of practitioners will continue to operate in this manner. There would need to be some major new incentive or disincentive, or change in how 1102s are selected and trained, for this to change.

I agree with that, I'm sad to say. It also makes me sad to realize that so many citizens think that mediocrity and incompetence are hallmarks of government.

We sit here, surrounded by our many degrees and all our accumulated knowledge, yet feeling more like children. It's become clear to us that what our grandparents, some with barely a high school education, knew was right, and we couldn't have been more ignorant. If we're fortunate enough to live long enough, we’ll see the world change before our eyes, often faster than we can process. I remember my grandmother, who passed away at 95 in Sykesville, MD. She spent her final days in a wheelchair, asking Alexa to play her favorite songs and Bible sermons. This was the same woman who, in the 1920s, lived above a grocery store in poverty, watching horse-drawn carts deliver goods to restock the general store beneath her quarters on Main Street.

Someone asked for my stab in the dark prediction: I think SEWP and NITAAC will fold and be absorbed by GSA GWACs.  GSA will move to transfer existing 13-15 level COs to process under a pilot for roughly four large agencies for which it will assume procurement.  The three-year plan will be to monitor the pilot in hopes that it is successful to bring more agencies under GSA for full cradle to grave procurements.  This is good and bad.  While GSA is known to be somewhat indifferent and unresponsive in the limited role they now play, the boon is that by making individual agencies go through another agency, it will reign in some of the egregious politics and influence of SESs that seem to dangle acquisition offices like marionets daring anyone to question them. 

Understand that CIOs began a migration off legacy in 1996 with a 5-year project plan.  It is now 29 years later.  The PALT keeps extending out and the project remains incomplete.  Unfathomable amounts of money have been spent.

Guardian said:

We sit here, surrounded by our many degrees and all our accumulated knowledge, yet feeling more like children. It's become clear to us that what our grandparents, some with barely a high school education, knew was right, and we couldn't have been more ignorant. If we're fortunate enough to live long enough, we’ll see the world change before our eyes, often faster than we can process. I remember my grandmother, who passed away at 95 in Sykesville, MD. She spent her final days in a wheelchair, asking Alexa to play her favorite songs and Bible sermons. This was the same woman who, in the 1920s, lived above a grocery store in poverty, watching horse-drawn carts deliver goods to restock the general store beneath her quarters on Main Street.

Someone asked for my stab in the dark prediction: I think SEWP and NITAAC will fold and be absorbed by GSA GWACs.  GSA will move to transfer existing 13-15 level COs to process under a pilot for roughly four large agencies for which it will assume procurement.  The three-year plan will be to monitor the pilot in hopes that it is successful to bring more agencies under GSA for full cradle to grave procurements.  This is good and bad.  While GSA is known to be somewhat indifferent and unresponsive in the limited role they now play, the boon is that by making individual agencies go through another agency, it will reign in some of the egregious politics and influence of SESs that seem to dangle acquisition offices like marionets daring anyone to question them. 

Understand that CIOs began a migration off legacy in 1996 with a 5-year project plan.  It is now 29 years later.  The PALT keeps extending out and the project remains incomplete.  Unfathomable amounts of money have been spent.

I can see GSA taking over most civilian side IT and staffing (domestic, at least). They may cherry pick the best 1102s from each civilian agency, especially the ones who have the DITAP certificate. I can't see this being a 4-agency pilot sort of deal, though. I think it's going to be a wholesale move and transfer of portfolios and duties to GSA. Automation will be doing a lot of the work.

My simple anedotal view of what is going on based on experience.

The current FAR.  When it was brought forth I was a young and energtic contract specialist.  I spent hours reading and sent comments regarding its wording.  I had a very seasoned 1102 supervisor who told me that I was wasting my time on my efforts because the FAR would never happen.  It did but in my humble opinion the history since, fostered by the thinking of the never ending line of  seasoned 1102's, has turned it into something more cumbersome than what was ever intended via supplement, policy and additional guidance.  A long history of disappointment.

Rarely in my career had I ever seen a FAR part 12 procurement include a "tailored" provision and clause , FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-4 respectfully,  that took much of the paragraphs in each and turned them into dust to follow what happens in the commercial world. (And I was an offender myself.)   Even to today it still seems so.  Too bad a tool that  was not used to make everyones life easier.

My first simple answer in this thread still stands - I hope the current effort is one of revitalization, with the added hope that the current workforce embraces it as such and works very hard to make it the revitalization it can and should be.

For those interested in some historical background and perspective, see "Presidential Power Over Federal Contracts Under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act: The Close Nexus Test of AFL-CIO v. Khan", by Kimberly A. Edgerton, Duke Law Review (1980).

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2735&context=dlj

The opening passage:

Quote

The United States government spends approximately $110 billion on goods and services each year. Since the depression of the 1930s, the government has with increasing frequency attempted to use the economic leverage provided by its purchasing power to achieve social and economic objectives. Most attempts to implement national policy goals through the procurement process have been expressly directed by statute. On a few occasions, however, the sole source of the procurement policy has been an Executive order. As Professor Arthur Miller points out, the Executive order method is available to the President when Congress will not act. This makes the process attractively flexible, yet subject to serious questions about the power of the President vis-a-vis Congress.

In the past, Presidents have used this process only sparingly. In AFL-CIO v. Kahn, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia may have opened the door to a substantial increase in executive use of procurement power....

Footnotes omitted. The article is 30 pages long. Keep in mind that the article is 40+ years old.

AFL-CIO v. Kahn is 618 F.2d 784 (1979) (en banc). You can get it by Googling. See also Commonweath v. Biden, 57 F.4 545 (2023).

Don Mansfield said:

No, because the APA doesn't apply to the FAR System.

See, 41 U.S.C. 1707

Hammurabis Heir said:

Statutes vs. Precedent: Should the FAR, an acquisition legal framework, rely solely on statutes? Or, in alignment with the US Common Law system, should it also incorporate vital legal precedents and case law interpretations?

What legal precedents do you have in mind?  The decisions of the ASBCA, CBCA and COFC are not applicable government wide.  In fact the COFC seems to be populated by independent contractors who do not feel bound by decisions issued by other judges on the court.  The only government wide procurement decisions that are precedential are those issued by the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court.  Even then, they may be interpreting regulations or statutes that do not apply to all agencies.  As it is now, the FAR Councils don't seem to pay attention to precedential court decisions.  For example, there are at least 3 CAFC decisions stating when interest starts to accrue on a claim that are contradictory to what is in the FAR.

Hammurabis Heir said:

Executive Overreach? What is the extent of the executive branch's authority to unilaterally modify the FAR?

Every president since at least Lyndon Johnson has issued executive orders amending federal procurement regulations.  While the implementing regulations may have been subject to notice and public comment, that procedure was  meaningless since the decision had already been made in the XO.

Hammurabis Heir said:

Partisanship or Prudence? Is partisanship clouding judgment, or are these genuine efforts to improve efficiency? How do we distinguish between necessary reform and potential political manipulation?

Again, presidents have historically issued XOs regarding procurement matters that were generated to satisfy some political base.  Do you remember Clinton's so called "blacklist" XO concerning grounds for suspension and debarment that was issued to satisfy labor unions?

Hammurabis Heir said:

A New Legal Framework? If the FAR changes its current structure, how can we ensure a robust, fair, and legally sound acquisition framework that protects taxpayer interests?

Wouldn't a procurement system built solely on statute be a legally sound system?  

Hammurabis Heir said:

Where's the APA? We're discussing the following statutes, but are we ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)? Shouldn't changes to the FAR, a major federal regulation, be subject to its notice and comment requirements? What are the legal implications of bypassing this process?

The notice and publication requirement for procurement policies etc. is found in 41. U.S.C. 1707.  It is not clear from that statute that removal or cancellation of policies requires notice and comment.  In any event, notice and public comment may be a futile act if the revision to the FAR is a result of an XO as has been the result on several occasions before.  In any event, we do not know that FAR 2.0 will not be published for public comment.

Retreadfed said:

See, 41 U.S.C. 1707

I actually referenced that back on page 1. Hammurabis missed it.

FrankJon said:

Fewer rules would only mean that these folks run afoul of the rules less often.

How about exercising personal initiative and sound business judgement (FAR 1.202(d))?

Will the training for the 1102 workforce continue to be characterized by the approach of "Complete a step, earn a reward, proceed to the next step"?

Whatever happened to reading simply for the love of it and maintaining an insatiable curiosity about the world?  Often, what takes place beyond the contracting officer's office after hours is just as important, if not more so.

I revert to one of my favorite @Vern Edwards quotes, which is:

"The FAR was not written to be read like a narrative or topical exposition.  It was not written as a guidebook or handbook.  Rather, it was written to be consulted from time to time, as necessary.  When reading the FAR you must do so slowly, word-by-word, and carefully consider what you have read.  Seemingly ordinary words might be 'terms of art' that have a special meaning in the acquisition world.  Sometimes a passage will seem perfectly clear, but that apparent clarity might actually obscure a much deeper and more complex meaning.  Sometimes, in order to understand a particular passage, you must already be familiar with two or more other passages or with other government regulations."

The current FAR is a hybrid of (1) statutory requirements, (2) legal requirements and considerations imposed by caselaw and (3) policy. The intent of the Administration seems to be to remove (2) and (3) and read the (1) statutory rules very narrowly. While removing policy arguably may have some merit, by increasing flexibility (doubtful), eliminating the portions of the regulation addressing caselaw requirements will be disastrous. 
the courts and BCA’s will continue to impose those requirements but most KO’s won’t know what they are. Just as the DOGE “willful ignorance” approach to personnel law has led to multiple lawsuits (almost all of which go against the government), the proposed rewrite will only spawn successful protests, CICA stays, injunctions and claims. Government procurement will become anything but “efficient”

HHS's 1102 workforce: ~1,400 1102s.  I've run the numbers on the type of work they do.  In a given year:  

About 65% (~850) only do Low Complexity.  Very rarely to never use FAR 15.2, FAR 15.3, non-commercial, cost-reimbursement, competitive source selection using 'trade-offs' (however defined, under any FAR part) with >2 offers received.   This sort of CS often does 40-100+ actions per year.

Low complexity accurately describes the large majority of HHS's contracting work.  The median obligated amount on FDPS, for all of HHS, is about $42,000.  As far as I can recall, HHS as a Department did one IFB in FY23 and zero last year.  Less than half (a lot less) of FPDS reports indicate competitive procedures where 2 or more offers were received.

 10% (<150) do High Complexity work.  Have an acquisition that meets 3/4 of the FAR 7.102 criteria, is CR, using FAR 15.2 etc.  These are, presumably, your non-supervisory GS-14s and (if they exist) non-supervisory GS-15s (reminds of the rare and elusive WO5 from my Army days). 

I think a drastically descoped FAR has completely different implications for and effect on these two types of work and types of workers.  Maybe no to minimal change for the first group?

Simplified acquisition should not be addressed in the FAR. Simplified acquisition should be addressed in an entirely separate regulation,  the SAR. Not in a FAR supplement---a separate regulation.

I started with the DAR (sure there are posters that started before the DAR), then the FAR. FAR 2.0 just another stop on the contracting knowledge bus.

Weno2 said:

I started with the DAR (sure there are posters that started before the DAR),

Yes, there are some old mossbacks like me on here.  I first got exposed to the ASPR in 1964.  At that time, it fit in one small 3 ring binder.

Retreadfed said:

I first got exposed to the ASPR in 1964.

Retread! You old coot! That's 10 years before me. We need to have the Smithsonian interview you for the national archives!

On 3/24/2025 at 6:21 PM, formerfed said:

Thanks for that information.  GSA OGP has some good people so I’m glad to see them involved.  Honestly, I don’t see the CAC reacting to anything quickly.  And I can add I once was a member for a short time.

I was a CAAC advisor in 2021-2022. My contacts said they are still waiting to see the FAR 2.0. Tomorrow (4/1/2025) is the 40th anniversary. You never know what might happen on April Fool's Day.

So far, other than 100 little bunnies placed all over my house, no big surprises.

The cat is slowly being let out of the bag.

Welcome to the FAR Overhaul Initiative | Acquisition.GOV - This is a link to a "staging" website for FAR 2.0. You may need to login to get access. To be clear, no revisions (or "model FAR deviation guidance") have been posted yet.

Versions of this website have been posted for well over a week (and occasionally showing up in search results on google). Prior versions were largely consistent with what is now posted, but with different feedback mechanisms and revised language describing the issuance of deviations.

Copy and pasted text of the landing page is below for those who have trouble accessing it.

Revolutionary FAR Overhaul

Under Executive Order XXXX, the Federal government is undertaking the first comprehensive overhaul of the FAR in over 40 years.

Led by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, this initiative will eliminate burdensome and outdated requirements, remove non-statutory rules, and replace them with practical buying guides and plain-language regulations.

The goal is clear: faster acquisitions, greater competition, and better results.

Revised FAR Parts

OFPP is issuing revised FAR parts as model FAR deviation guidance. These simplified parts can be adopted immediately by agencies until the FAR is revised during the formal rulemaking process.

• Revised FAR Parts and Agency Deviations

• We welcome informal input on revised FAR parts: Submit feedback here

Buying Guides

As the FAR is overhauled/simplified, helpful but non-regulatory content will be moved to new Buying Guides, designed to support smarter, faster acquisitions aligned with the overhauled/simplified FAR.

• Preview Buying Guide Content hosted on GitHub

Thanks for the update. But I do worry things like the Buying Guide will quickly put us back to where we’re at now. It can easily evolve into a very detailed policy and procedures document.

Not available again. Laughable that buying guides were on GITHUB at some point/in draft.

I have zero confidence in the people making the guidance, let alone rank and file staff who have to try to decipher it.

My center has been eight steps behind the news cycle. We've had a crying general, and then a Maj. General tell us an executive order was coming out regarding FAR 2.0 only for it to be crickets since.

It's kind of pathetic how many internal taskers/"opportunities," we're recently getting to "use AI in acquisition." The LLM's that we have available are even more pathetic. Teach your people how to price proposals from the vendors they work with. Less "throw something into NIPRGPT/ChatGPT," and claim success when it vomits the most breathtakingly horrible output.

There is an even greater problem in leadership than rank and file that fundamentally misunderstands how to simply buy something. Half of my job lately has been generating milestones for acquisitions that will never happen because they needed to be started six months ago to have any hope of being awarded in time. Every time someone peers over it and tries to find some fat only to understand the only time savings to be had is if the requirements are drafted on time, the technical evaluation is performed quickly and miraculously has no RFI's required of the vendor (HAH.)

If I have one more ask about whether a simple modification or effort that could be SAP could we use other transactions authority?! because some idiot wants an appraisal bullet I might just accept the DRP.

Self Employed said:

It's kind of pathetic how many internal taskers/"opportunities," we're recently getting to "use AI in acquisition." The LLM's that we have available are even more pathetic. Teach your people how to price proposals from the vendors they work with. Less "throw something into NIPRGPT/ChatGPT," and claim success when it vomits the most breathtakingly horrible output.

Or maybe tech evaluation panels and the individuals that compose them remain the starting point for all evaluations.  I see AI as a tool that can check work efficiently given its ability to sort through data and draw comparisons at phenomenal speeds.  The current benefit of LLMs is predicated on the specificity of what is inputed.  Thinking back to my earliest computer science education in the 1980s on DOS and Mac and with low level programming languages, my instructor use to remind us that the errors were always traceable back to the humans that programmed the machines, their firmware and software.  Certainly, this is more nuance in today’s day and age with narrow and generative AI, but the concept of “garbage in, garbage out, “ remains unabated.  AI is a tool intended to supplement and assist.  A thousand years ago, I might have plowed a field with a wooden crook, a hundred years back maybe I ran a mule to furrow hard tamped soil.  Today, I turn a key and drive.  In five years or less I will apply my creative skills away from the field as the machine drives itself making decisions based on a mix of optical sensors and complex layered algorithms.  Consider the following: a hundred years ago, the average person worked 70 hours a week.  They scrubbed clothes with arthritic hands along a corrugated metal board.  They hung clothes to dry; they contended with high infant mortality rates.  Today we work 40 hours a week.  In Iceland, they have cut a good ten hours from that and noticed sustained, if not improved production rates.  What’s the old adage?  If you have something you need done quickly, give it to the busiest person.  Never underestimate the capacity of human beings to procrastinate and create the appearance of work at the expense of real accomplishment.

Guardian said:

I see AI as a tool that can check work efficiently given its ability to sort through data and draw comparisons at phenomenal speeds.

Just how much do we want to rely on AI? Can you imagine the outcome of a bid protest challenging a source selection decision when the SSA says "I used AI to make the decision and just signed off on what it generated"?

Does an SSA have to be human? If AI produced a rational source selection decision that would otherwise withstand scrutiny at the GAO or COFC, what's the problem?

On 3/28/2025 at 1:14 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Simplified acquisition should not be addressed in the FAR. Simplified acquisition should be addressed in an entirely separate regulation,  the SAR. Not in a FAR supplement---a separate regulation.

I can see where it might help to have a separate regulation for simplicity sake (you only have to go to that regulation versus thumbing through the whole FAR). But what about all the references to other FAR parts that are included in SAP (FAR 13). FAR 19 is the biggest one that comes to mind but know it references FAR part 5 as well. Isn't FAR part 12 more of a separate stand alone, or even FAR 8.4, however both still reference multiple FAR parts such as FAR part 5 and 7. With all the referencing of other FAR parts not sure how you completely separate it out. Would you write it so it stands on its own versus referencing or referring to other FAR parts.

Retreadfed said:

Just how much do we want to rely on AI? Can you imagine the outcome of a bid protest challenging a source selection decision when the SSA says "I used AI to make the decision and just signed off on what it generated"?

People would remain the starting and end points for all such decisions. OpenAI might be helpful in cross-checking instructions to offerors and evaluation criteria against a company's response to an RFP. How about the simple act of using control-F as a function to search a .pdf or text-based document? What if I wanted to find all occurences of the term "best value" in the FAR. The "find" function would allow me to do this much more quickly than thumbing through the entire compendium. Still, I would need to read through the regulation and identify the specific paragraphs before and after each mention of the term to gain a more comprehensive understanding. Internet search engines are another example. I was raised on library card catalogs, the Dewey Decimal System, and microfilm—tools that were invaluable in shaping me into the researcher I am today. However, I wouldn't argue against the convenience of simply 'Googling' certain topics for market research or preparing for an upcoming presentation.

All this has me thinking about a couple books I recently read, from which I will quote:

"Teenagers today have to get greasy by working on old cars whose engines are simple enough for an amateur tinkerer to understand. Even professional mechanics have been heard to complain that they don't fix cars anymore; they just replace the modules that their computer tells them to replace" (The Knowledge Illusion: Why We never Think Alone; Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach; p.27)

"Modern airplanes are so complicated that no one person completely understands them. Rather, different people understand different aspects of them. Some are experts on flight dynamics, others on navigation systems; several are required to understand jet engines; and some understand the ergonomics of seating well enough that companies are able to pack people into economy class with the same efficiency that Pringles are packed into a can." (Id., p.28)

"...computers do a much better job than judges at making bail decisions. The computer can't see the defendant. Judges can, and it seems logical that that extra bit of information ought to make them better decision-makers. Solomon, the New York State judge, could search the face of the person standing in front of him for evidence of mental illness—a glassy-eyed look, a troubled affect, aversion of the eyes. The defendant stands no farther than ten feet in front of him and Solomon has the chance to get a sense of the person he is evaluating. But all that extra information isn't actually useful. Surprised people don't necessarily look surprised. People who have emotional problems don't always look like they have emotional problems." (Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About The People We Don't Know; Malcolm Gladwell; p.163-4)

Don Mansfield said:

Does an SSA have to be human? If AI produced a rational source selection decision that would otherwise withstand scrutiny at the GAO or COFC, what's the problem?

That's a good question, @Don Mansfield.

Anyone who has used AI and attempted to incorporate it knows exactly how far away the technology is. Sure, at some point in the distant future there may be room for augmentation, but pretending like A.I. is a panacea or some wonder technology that people simply aren't using because they don't like change or don't want to become a horse is garbage. Every agency has Contracting Officers and Specialists who would love nothing more than to press the envelope because doing so would further their career

Yet the best you get are hilarious missives begging people to "just play around in GPT and see how it can help you! PLEASE FIND SOMETHING....ANYTHING...PLEASE!!"

Yet, crickets.

Even ACQbot churns out garbage. Are we going to be eliminating synopsis requirements because AI generated a list of potential vendors so why bother?

The reality is the technology can't even generate veritable requirements documentation (see:create,) let alone evaluate source selection information. The best it can do right now is write five bullets. Maybe it can write CPARS garbage that typically was copy/pasted in the past.

The days when the robo-GAO IS auditing SkyNet isn't likely in the next 30 years.

We can quote million books or articles about change but when the technology is oversold the discussion is pointless.

For the love of God, bring on FAR 2.0. Please. My username is from when I first started as an 1102 and after reading through the FAR, and all the ridiculous Supplements left me wondering, "why?" Let's even cut statutes. Example, the Small Business Act. Why is the Government in today's environment in the business of propping up "small businesses?" Hell, even the definition of a small business is not really describing a small business. 1,400 employees is small? Ha! Cut all of FAR Part 19, to include the non-manufacturing rule.

I worry for a lot of my peers when hopefully the fat gets cut and we are left with a fillet. Let us innovate and cook like Alton Brown does in a kitchen. My counterparts all want checklists and a repetitive process. Even for simple things like task orders below the MPT where we could train a crow to process those requests.

You gain experience through time or through reading about someone else's time. People need to pick up books and read more.

Self Employed said:

Anyone who has used AI and attempted to incorporate it knows exactly how far away the technology is. Sure, at some point in the distant future there may be room for augmentation, but pretending like A.I. is a panacea or some wonder technology that people simply aren't using because they don't like change or don't want to become a horse is garbage. Every agency has Contracting Officers and Specialists who would love nothing more than to press the envelope because doing so would further their career

Yet the best you get are hilarious missives begging people to "just play around in GPT and see how it can help you! PLEASE FIND SOMETHING....ANYTHING...PLEASE!!"

Yet, crickets.

Even ACQbot churns out garbage. Are we going to be eliminating synopsis requirements because AI generated a list of potential vendors so why bother?

The reality is the technology can't even generate veritable requirements documentation (see:create,) let alone evaluate source selection information. The best it can do right now is write five bullets. Maybe it can write CPARS garbage that typically was copy/pasted in the past.

The days when the robo-GAO IS auditing SkyNet isn't likely in the next 30 years.

We can quote million books or articles about change but when the technology is oversold the discussion is pointless.

I have sat through demos of several procurement-focused AI platforms in recent days (some have yet to be released to the market). I was absolutely stunned at how accurate the output was. Whether it was an SOW or a certain kind of D/F, the docs weren't garbage at all. This is absolutely going to change how we do business. It's here. It's arrived.

Don Mansfield said:

Does an SSA have to be human? If AI produced a rational source selection decision that would otherwise withstand scrutiny at the GAO or COFC, what's the problem?

Yes, an SSA has to be human. The duties and responsibilities of an SSA as described in 15.303(b) are inherently Governmental per 17.503(c)(12).

Motorcity said:

I have sat through demos of several procurement-focused AI platforms in recent days (some have yet to be released to the market). I was absolutely stunned at how accurate the output was. Whether it was an SOW or a certain kind of D/F, the docs weren't garbage at all. This is absolutely going to change how we do business. It's here. It's arrived.

Can confirm. It's not ready to "take over" but it is absolutely a viable tool to help reduce rote tasks. Now, to train the workforce so that we have a strong cadre of high level critical thinkers. A lot has been lost in favor of volume and "fast."

ricroy said:

Yes, an SSA has to be human. The duties and responsibilities of an SSA as described in 15.303(b) are inherently Governmental per 17.503(c)(12).

Neither of those say anything about an SSA being human.

Do you think all award decisions are currently made by humans?

AI is well-suited to decision-making and will get better. It may already be better at making decisions than humans.

Look at the history of human decision making. The Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations were staffed by some of the best foreign policy and military minds in the world, and yet they decided to make war in Vietnam, even though some very experienced military advisors told them it would be mistake. And they decided to stay there for years, even after they realized by 1967 that we could not prevail militarily with the means we were willing to employ.

Ask the dead about the quality of human decision-making.

AI for source selection? Piece of cake.

Vern Edwards said:

AI is well-suited to decision-making and will get better. It may already be better at making decisions than humans.

Look at the history of human decision making. The Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations were staffed by some of the best foreign policy and military minds in the world, and yet they decided to make war in Vietnam, even though some very experienced military advisors told them it would be mistake. And they decided to stay there for years, even after they realized by 1967 that we could not prevail militarily with the means we were willing to employ.

Ask the dead about the quality of human decision-making.

AI for source selection? Piece of cake.

Yes, that is the thing - AI can learn and improve by adding quality documents/templates/samples to the pool of information. I suppose it will be up to humans to determine what is and what isn't a quality document. We may get to a point where the system is able to take in garbage and spit out gold. If it is going the way I think it will, we will need far fewer 1102s in the direct years ahead.

ricroy said:

Yes, an SSA has to be human. The duties and responsibilities of an SSA as described in 15.303(b) are inherently Governmental per 17.503(c)(12).

Is there a statute that speaks to "inherently governmental functions"? Isn't FAR 7.5 derived from OFPP Policy Letters?

Oh, the humanity! Why couldn't a government official with delegable procurement authority delegate that authority to a computer program?

I don't advocate for automating away the 1102 series, but the question is interesting.

Just now, MBrown said:

I don't advocate for automating away the 1102 series, but the question is interesting.

The automation of some key 1102 functions is inevitable.

You will have to be a master in order to survive and prosper.

Vern Edwards said:

AI is well-suited to decision-making and will get better. It may already be better at making decisions than humans.

Hmmm. AI was invented by humans but can make a better decision than a human? I will always question the decision of humans whose track record for the purposes of AI are what create an AI decision. From the eye of this beholder.

Don Mansfield said:

Neither of those say anything about an SSA being human.

Do you think all award decisions are currently made by humans?

15.303(a) states, "The contracting officer is designated as the source selection authority, unless the agency head appoints another individual for a particular acquisition or group of acquisitions." An individual is defined as a "a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family." So as currently described in the FAR, an SSA is a human. Perhaps the new and improved FAR 2.0 will redefine "Contracting Officer" or "individual" as other than human.

--

The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 defines an inherently Governmental Function as "a function that is so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by Federal Government employees," (emphasis mine) so this is based upon statute rather than any policy or regulation.

I also do not think that computer software could yet be considered a "Federal Government employee."

--

The question of whether or not all award decisions are currently made by humans is unimportant as the law requires humans to perform this work.

C Culham said:

Hmmm. AI was invented by humans but can make a better decision than a human? I will always question the decision of humans whose track record for the purposes of AI are what create an AI decision. From the eye of this beholder.

I think in the realm of procurement, yes AI will be able to make solid and effective decisions. These are complex systems and while the FAR is complex, it certainly isn't rocket science.

ricroy said:

15.303(a) states, "The contracting officer is designated as the source selection authority, unless the agency head appoints another individual for a particular acquisition or group of acquisitions." An individual is defined as a "a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family." So as currently described in the FAR, an SSA is a human. Perhaps the new and improved FAR 2.0 will redefine "Contracting Officer" or "individual" as other than human.

--

The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 defines an inherently Governmental Function as "a function that is so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by Federal Government employees," (emphasis mine) so this is based upon statute rather than any policy or regulation.

I also do not think that computer software could yet be considered a "Federal Government employee."

--

The question of whether or not all award decisions are currently made by humans is unimportant as the law requires humans to perform this work.

Where did you get your definition of individual?

FAR 7.503(c)(12) doesn't include selecting sources.

AI reality check.

OMB, today "Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust" Chief AI Officers. Within 60 days of the issuance of this memorandum, the head of each agency must retain or designate a Chief AI Officer (CAIO). CAI Os will promote AI innovation, adoption, and governance, in coordination with appropriate agency officials. Agency heads may choose to designate an existing official, such as a Chief Information Officer, Chief Data Officer, Chief Technology Officer, or similar official...For CFO Act agencies, the CAIO must hold a position at the Senior Executive Service, Scientific and Professional, or Senior Leader level, or equivalent.

The administration seems to be working at cross purposes here. My agency recently fired its Chief Information Officer, Chief Data Officer, Chief Technology Officer, along with their offices and much more - maybe half of our 30 SESs. My agency has also been told to plan for a 40% reduction in IT contract expenditures, which I understand is typical for other agencies within my department. So AI isn't happening for us.

Didn't you hear? AI in its current form is a magical buzzword that solves all issues so you need less staff. You'll just click the right NAIICS/FSC/PSC and AI will handle all contracts flawlessly while you're in your flying car. Any changes to specifications or interaction with the lowly humans bidding on your efforts will be flawlessly adjudicated by NOPEGPT. NOPEGPT additions will also be added to handle customer interaction/education/changes, with retina-scans so you can record in real time the exact moment they lose faith in actually getting what they want. NOPEGPT will also be programmed to negotiate directly with LM/Boeing bots, and you will now book travel for the bots to meet in person so they can argue with each other on the same network to reduce latency -- instead of protests/claims we'll solve it all with battlebot matches. There won't ever be any issues as we roll out to staff who struggle with excel and everything that can go wrong and currently needs human eyes/ears to resolve will simply be consolidated to two or three curmudgeons made available in-between their hourly cans of Brawndo. Be on the lookout for J&ABot, where you can check in real time as useless revisions/bloat are added now by bots instead of people.

This is the first article that provides at least a few details including various increases and processes. I am curious to know about this user guide that they plan to release (plus all the threshold increases).

Washington Technology

Plan for sweeping FAR changes nears release

The General Services Administration, NASA and Office of Federal Procurement Policy are working to create a leaner acquisition framework that could attract more companies to the market.

On 4/8/2025 at 11:53 AM, Vern Edwards said:

The automation of some key 1102 functions is inevitable.

You will have to be a master in order to survive and prosper.

Any system whether in the federal government or outside of it that requires everyone to be a master is unrealistic and doomed to fail. The existence of masters presumes the existence of nonmasters otherwise the word would have little meaning.

Should we shoot for mastery? Yes. Should the FAR be rewritten such that only masters can be effective in using it? Human nature and the history of the world say the answer is No.

TakeAWalkontheFARSide said:

Any system whether in the federal government or outside of it that requires everyone to be a master is unrealistic and doomed to fail.

@TakeAWalkontheFARSide

I agree.

Hopefully, no one expects the FAR to be rewritten so that only masters can be effective. (Masters are more than just effective.)

Most of the people on the DAR Council and the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council are not maters. I had a friend on the DAR Council, now dead, who told me that there was not a person on the DARC who could write a decent English sentence. But the FAR should be written so that journeymen can effective.

But I would like to think that all contracting officers with unlimited warrants are masters, though even that is expecting too much from the government.

I'm working on an article about mastery for publication later this year. I hope it will be posted at Wifcon. It's an interesting topic.

Is the FAR being updated specifically so that much of the procurement process can be automated? I do wonder if automation was even taken into consideration during the streamlining of the FAR. I guess what I am asking is will the updated version of the FAR be automation friendly?

Motorcity said:

I guess what I am asking is will the updated version of the FAR be automation friendly?

Don't know.

Motorcity said:

first article that provides at least a few details

From article "Work is also underway on Part 34..."

I am looking forward to this. For such a short Part, it needs a lot of work.

Part 34 describes "acquisition policies and procedures for use in acquiring major systems consistent with OMB Circular No. A-109." The elusive OMB Circular A-109. I challenge you to find this document online and provide a link to it. Go head, search for it. Spoiler: It is very hard to find. Nobody has read this circular in decades. Wasn't it superseded by A-11 in, like, the 1990s (A-11 has a 75-page guide titled "PLANNING, BUDGETING, AND ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS", which surely is the correct citation)? Why wasn't the FAR updated long ago?

Why is EVM required, ever? Does anyone actually do EVM? Maybe they do and find it very useful. I honestly don't know, but doubt it.

Why is there a section about competition in FAR 34? Isn't this covered elsewhere, like, for example FAR Part 6?

Why does my department tell me I must discuss the non-applicability of pre-award IBR for every contract action over the SAT, most of which are a few orders of magnitude removed from being 'major'? Why especially given my department has de facto outlawed pre-award IBRs?

General.Zhukov said:

Part 34 describes "acquisition policies and procedures for use in acquiring major systems consistent with OMB Circular No. A-109." The elusive OMB Circular A-109. I challenge you to find this document online and provide a link to it. Go head, search for it. Spoiler: It is very hard to find.

It's not hard to find. You just have to know how and where to search. Google Books:

Hearings on Office of Management and Budget Circular A-109, Major system Acquisition Policy, before the Research and Development Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session, November 2, December 1, 1977, Second Session, April 6, 10, and 14 and September 18, 1978.

https://books.google.com/books?id=6Gvef5JFImUC&pg=PA545&dq=hearings+on+OMB+Circular+A-109+major+systems+acquisition+policy&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRnafZgs6MAxVpATQIHct2IaoQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=hearings%20on%20OMB%20Circular%20A-109%20major%20systems%20acquisition%20policy&f=false

The full text of the 15-page circular begins on page 4.

I thought everybody knew that. 😂

General.Zhukov said:

Nobody has read this circular in decades.

That's not true. I had a discussion about it with a DAU professor not too long ago. It has been mentioned in the Federal Register twice since 2021.

To the best of my knowledge OMB A-109 has never been rescinded. In 2000, OMB proposed the "recission" of A-109, see 65 FR 51045-01, August 20, 2000, but apparently did not follow through.

In 2006 the FAR councils confirmed the continuing applicability of OMB A-109:

Comment: Some commenters suggest removing references to OMB Circular A-109 in FAR Part 34.000. No reason was provided.

Response: The Councils believe that OMB Circular A-109 continues to apply. OMB Circular A-11, Part 7 supplements OMB Circular A-109, which has not been rescinded by OMB, and is still available. Therefore, a reference to OMB Circular A-11 has been added to FAR 34.000.

71 Fed. Reg. 38238-02, July 5, 2006.

@General.Zhukov

General.Zhukov said:

Part 34 describes "acquisition policies and procedures for use in acquiring major systems consistent with OMB Circular No. A-109." The elusive OMB Circular A-109. I challenge you to find this document online and provide a link to it. Go head, search for it. Spoiler: It is very hard to find. Nobody has read this circular in decades.

Georgy,

As a favor to you, the webmaster has posted OMB Circular A-109, Major System Acquisitions, 5 April 1976, to the Wifcon Bulletin Board in downloadable pdf format under the heading Rules.

Vern

In light of recent comments in this discussion, a pdf of OMB Circular A-109 has been posted to the Wifcon Bulletin Board.

Thank you for posting the circular! I appreciate the response, and this is why wifcon is great.

New EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-common-sense-to-federal-procurement/

Can anyone hypothesize (predict? project? get a ouija board answer? put together a well-engineered ChatGPT prompt?) on what might be the effect on signed contracts already in place if certain "clauses incorporated by reference" end up getting stricken from the FAR, or moved to the Guidebook, thus invalidating the incorporation mechanism?

I guess I can envision some scenarios:

• Such clauses will still be in force and remain in the contract, but all contracts are changed so that the reference points to the supplemental Guidebook instead of to the FAR

• Such clauses are simply removed wholesale from the contracts, and mods are issued accordingly

• Such clauses are removed through negotiation in a piecemeal fashion, contract by contract, CO by CO, vendor by vendor, contract by contract...

• Any such clauses are just ignored, and it’s up to us as a contractor to request the government to remove them because the "incorporation mechanism” is no longer valid

• Any such clauses are left intact, but there will be a blanket superseding rule or clause that describes how to treat clauses incorporated by reference where there are now invalid references

• Any such clauses are just ignored, and we all wait for case law to develop for when someone decides to ignore an incorporated clause and the government attempts to enforce it but finds out they cannot

• COs will learn to use AI to rewrite contracts to, wholesale or piecemeal, to simply change the incorporation mechanism and instead of incorporated-by-reference make each clause incorporated-by-full-text.

Any other implementation scenarios anyone can think of? Any of these that can reasonably be ruled out? Thanks!

@Drew Of all the scenarios you envision, the correct one is missing...a change to the FAR does not suddenly invalidate the clauses on the contract, even when incorporated by reference. Previous versions of the FAR are still available online and, presumably, will be following this rewrite (see the archives section: https://www.acquisition.gov/archives?type=FAR).

Just now, Drew said:

Can anyone hypothesize (predict? project? get a ouija board answer? put together a well-engineered ChatGPT prompt?) on what might be the effect on signed contracts already in place if certain "clauses incorporated by reference" end up getting stricken from the FAR, or moved to the Guidebook, thus invalidating the incorporation mechanism?

No effect! None whatsoever!

The clauses in existing contracts will continue to be in effect and available in regulatory archives. You do know that there are regulatory archives, right?

I must say that inquiries of this sort are utterly unjustified.

Nope, sorry, did not know that there were regulatory archives and that they would be referenceable and enforceable. This was a newbie question. I don't agree that these questions are utterly unjustified, but appreciate posters directing me to the correct references and structure. Not everyone is approaching the master or journeyman levels of competence, and discussions which include apprentice-level questions help apprentices learn. @Matthew Fleharty, thank you for your gentle guidance.

Now I would ask for any hypotheses and speculations on intentions, and possibly gaming out some what-ifs. (Maybe, unstated, that's what my OP assumed and really intended.) If current administration policy means to make contracting simpler and more effective today, then it could be that as regulations are removed the administration also intends to remove the enforcement and enforceability of such regs. To have a real-world effect on what's happening with current contracts, rather than just future contracts. Maybe not, and maybe that's where the guidebook and archives will come into play. But it seems that at this policy and political inflection point if a given reg is removed from the FAR, then the administration would intend not only for it to become inoperative for future solicitations, but also non-operational for current contracts.

If that's the case - and I admit this is a speculative question - is the administration hamstrung by any constraint that would force it to just default to archival references and leave all such clauses in place in existing contracts? Or could we see a further step to somehow remove the effectivity of these clauses from current contracts? If the latter, how would (could) that manifest itself?

If a what-if or speculative question of this sort is not justified, then my apologies to the group.

Section 1 of this Executive Order states "Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation), established that the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds and to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.  Reforming the FAR will advance this objective." (emphasis added).

Therefore, Section 2 of this Executive Order states that it is the policy of the Unites States to work toward "removing undue barriers, such as unnecessary regulations, while simultaneously allowing for the expansion of the national and defense industrial bases is paramount."

Assuming the re-write occurs in the next year and, for example, FAR 52.222-62 Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706 is eliminated from the FAR,  do we believe that the buying agency will expect a reduction in contract price in future contracts covering similar work to reflect the removal of an "undue barrier" that was in one contract and not in a future contract? Will they expect consideration (reduction in price) in exchange for removing that clause from an existing contract?

Of course, there are likely similar state local law requirements in some jurisdictions, but perhaps not all, and I do understand the example is simple and there may be dozens of clauses in the aggregate that are removed.

If a company opts to keep a policy that was eliminated from the FAR, might that be considered an unallowable cost under FAR 31.201-2(a)(4)? Agree, it is a reach and a strained read but it would possibly fit within the policy outlined in the Executive Order.

Just now, User 34 said:

Assuming the re-write occurs in the next year and, for example, FAR 52.222-62 Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706 is eliminated from the FAR,  do we believe that the buying agency will expect a reduction in contract price in future contracts covering similar work to reflect the removal of an "undue barrier" that was in one contract and not in a future contract? Will they expect consideration (reduction in price) in exchange for removing that clause from an existing contract?

I think it would be reasonable to anticipate that possibility,. But they would not (or should not) consider a price reduction to be a matter of "consideration." They would just expect you to propose a lower price because your costs are lower than they were.

You might want to look up the meaning of "consideration" in the context of contracting.

Just now, User 34 said:

If a company opts to keep a policy that was eliminated from the FAR, might that be considered an unallowable cost under FAR 31.201-2(a)(4)? Agree, it is a reach and a strained read but it would possibly fit within the policy outlined in the Executive Order.

No. It would not be a matter of cost allowability. But some contracting officers might think that it makes your price too high in comparison with the prices of other competitors.

Drew said:

To have a real-world effect on what's happening with current contracts, rather than just future contracts. Maybe not, and maybe that's where the guidebook and archives will come into play. But it seems that at this policy and political inflection point if a given reg is removed from the FAR, then the administration would intend not only for it to become inoperative for future solicitations, but also non-operational for current contracts.

Okay, so what you want to know is whether making a past policy, like EEO, inapplicable to future contracts might prompt the government to also renegotiate existing contracts to which the policy now applies, the goal being to educe their prices and claim savings. Is that a correct interpretation of what you want to know?

If that is correct, then I think that is a possibility. (What isn't under the current administration?)

However, that is very speculative. The government will either do that or it won't, and if it does we'll all hear about it. It would create a considerable workload, which might preclude that course of action.

A more interesting question is how people will do their jobs without the rules to which they have become accustomed and dependent.

"Okay, so what you want to know is whether making a past policy, like EEO, inapplicable to future contracts might prompt the government to also renegotiate existing contracts to which the policy now applies, the goal being to [r]educe their prices and claim savings. Is that a correct interpretation of what you want to know?"

Let's leave the goal part out of it, but yes. (User34 brings up the idea of cost reduction. But frankly, as we all recognize, anything's possible. And one possible goal could be to give a windfall profitability increase to those companies who are on contract today. Certainly not in the taxpayer's best interests, of course, but ... Another goal could simply be to eliminate social regulation, or mandated social responsibility, and if it reduces costs or increases profitability, then those are side benefits.)

And yes, the question is admittedly speculative. It's the forecasting of the "considerable workload" that I am interested in and how it might be managed or mitigated.

And yes, too, the more interesting question is definitely how people will do their jobs without the rules they've become accustomed to. For those of us in industry it could have whipsaw effects as a population of COs unevenly learn (as would any population of individuals) to navigate the new uncharted, undocumented terrain.

https://www.acquisition.gov/content/revolutionary-far-overhaul

"The goal is clear: faster acquisitions, greater competition, and better results."

They're not going to get that through FAR reform. That just shows how foolish and clueless they are.

Vern Edwards said:

"The goal is clear: faster acquisitions, greater competition, and better results.

Those three points also could be at odds with each other

Three more Executive Orders to watch:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/ensuring-commercial-cost-effective-solutions-in-federal-contracts/

Quick summary: Requires agency senior procurement executive review and approval of all non-commercial purchases. No military exemption. This will affect DoD, DoE, and other specialized technical requirements especially. Very aggressive timelines (next 30-60 days).

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reducing-anti-competitive-regulatory-barriers/

Quick summary: Directs agencies within 70 days to identify any regulations that create monopolies or barriers to entry, including those that "unnecessarily burden the agency’s procurement processes, thereby limiting companies’ ability to compete for procurements".

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-common-sense-to-federal-office-space-management/

Quick summary: Revokes Carter-era EO requiring locating agency buildings in central business districts and seeks immediate amendment of related federal regulations. Agencies will likely use this authority to relocate offices in the name of cost savings, then require employees to move or quit as their position has relocated. When combined with the recent EOs on FM-LR (which exempted most federal agencies and their employees from labor protections) and consolidating procurement (moving common goods/services and IT acquisitions to GSA), a significant reshaping of the federal workforce is likely coming beyond firing temporary employees--especially for those living in DC or blue states.

And one Presidential Memorandum:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/directing-the-repeal-of-unlawful-regulations/

Quick summary: I posted earlier, but this is perhaps the most important document recently published. It directs expediting the rescinding of regulations that the Administration deems "illegal" (example: claims of non-statutory regulations, like the first Supreme Court case listed in the EO). This is the legal justification that agencies will most likely rely on to support class deviations from current regulations to bypass the public notice-and-comment period required by federal law (the APA and related laws). The self-imposed 10-to-1 reduction rule (10 rules eliminated per 1 new rule added) is the policy vision, but this Memorandum provides the power and justifying defense to accomplish it.

Finally, a few personal thoughts on FAR 2.0.

It is one thing to say regulations must be cut back (I think most of us would agree). It is another, however, to cut nearly everything except statutes, leaving the FAR much worse off than most state procurement regulations.

Federal statutes do not provide comprehensive rules and rights like state UCC commercial codes (for goods) or the common law of contracts (for services). There's a reason state-level procurement regs are shorter--they already have a decades-old foundation of state goods and services law as a starting point, and contract types are less complex. Federal law doesn't have that. Instead, we've relied for years on the FAR to fill those gaps.

It is unlikely that DOGE or even senior agency procurement executives will understand this lack of foundation, as few have substantial state or private goods/services contracts experience. It is even less likely that Congress will step in and fill this void.

Contract law is also not "uniform" across the states--each one has its own peculiar rules. (Fun fact: I asked ChatGPT to build a chart showing the percentage that each state's laws deviate from the model UCC ... it told me it was too hard and AI couldn't do it ... and contract common law for services varies even more across states.) So which state or states should serve as the model for new federal procurement law?)

Court, Board, and GAO decisions often decide cases based on regulations. If most regs are eliminated, cases interpreting them may be out the window, with not much left to anchor on or interpret. But its not like disputes will just stop occurring with contractors. They'll have to create new rules, probably with more disputes filed under FAR 2.0.

Contractors are especially at risk. I doubt most folks on the rewrite team will be considering procedural protections against government abuses, for example the right to comment on negative evaluations. I've worked for both government and contractors for many years, and the reality is those abuses do sometimes happen. Not all the time, not most of the time, but enough that protections are needed.

Finally, and nearest the front lines where most work gets done, most of FAR Parts 4, 12 to 17, 31, and 42 to 49 are non-statutory procedures, but critical to fairness, transparency, orderliness, and predictability. Imagine 1102s and contractors without those Parts, or statutes or other rules to guide them on the most common day-to-day matters. I suspect some sections will survive (for example, hard to have statutorily required FPDS, FAPIIS, or CPARS without consistent contract numbering or any guidance whatsoever on what to report). But for sections cut, will it be a thoughtful discussion or made based on lack of knowledge, fear of reprisal, exhaustion and pick-your-battles, or a political edict?

The small details matter to the front lines. I hope for their sake common sense survives.

@6K Petunias

Great post! Thanks!

On 3/20/2025 at 2:30 PM, Vern Edwards said:

They are not going to add anything. Instead, they are going to "line out" all text that is not required by statute. They may also line out text that is related to a statute but not essential to implementing the statute. Text based on executive orders will be lined out, since it is not based on statute.

Rewrites of FAR Parts 1 & 34 officially posted.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide

https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/Part-1_LineOut.pdf

https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/Part-34_LineOut.pdf

Good yet slightly different view from LinkedIn. I really like her perspective on mission first and time matters. This will be a shocking awaking for those that are hesitant to do things quickly and want to be absolutely sure everything is perfect before proceeding.

Mission First, Time Matters: No...

Mission First, Time Matters: No More Hiding Behind the Rules

Let's be honest: when you hear " Revolutionary FAR Overhaul," (RFO) does your heart sink a little? We've all been promised simpler, faster, better acquisition processes before, only to be met with...

It. Will certainly be interesting.

In my over forty years in the military and government I found that very few in the military or the government mission or in acquisition treat the taxpayer’s money like their own. They generally weren’t interested in economy or saving money.

The mission users and program managers simply “wanted it all” and wanted to spend up the budget so they wouldn’t face future budget reductions for failure to spend it all.

—-————————————————————

The Air Force in particular had Rolls Royce tastes, desires and demands even when on Yugo budgets, when it came to acquiring facilities.

When I was in the Air Force in the early 1970’s, the USAF was essentially broke. We only had enough money to use the xerox machine in our office for about the first 15 days of each month. If I need to contact any commercial business or any non-DOD entity by phone that wasn’t a local call to an installation with Autovon, I would have to charge calls to my personal phone number.

In my opinion, the desire for Ferrari quality, features and grandeur was realized after Ronald Reagan tripled the Defense Budget over three years, faster than DOD could fully define programs to spend it all. The strategy was to essentially bankrupt he Soviet Union in attempting to keep up with the US DOD. It worked.In my opinion,

But once the trend was established there was no retreat from unbridled desires.

For many years, almost every new USAF construction project contract was awarded well above 100% of the Programmed Amount. They were crafty though. Every year they put enough lower priority projects in the AF MILCON Program to fund the overruns to award new contracts or pay for changes. I forget what the statutory limit on individual project costs was (maybe 125% of the Programmed amount?) but it wasn’t uncommon to get close to the statutory limit.

Many organizations, including those I worked for tend to be self perpetuating bureaucracies. They need to come up with new requirements to justify their existence.

This is an interesting comparison of FAR part 1 with the replacement deviation version. I know Don did this earlier but it’s easier to post using the GSA site. The new version is roughly 14 pages compared to 45. While some material is new, the replacement wording for the same subject area is succinct. The original demonstrates preparation by committee without involvement of an editor whose job is ensuring conciseness without losing context. I know the strikeout excludes language not required by statue but this still shows how the government loves lots of words.

@formerfed That's just the line-out version. It doesn't show the additions. I can't attach the line-in line-out version here because it's too big, but you can see it here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/donald-mansfield-181b6425_compare-docs-version-of-current-and-proposed-activity-7325645767174410240-oB6w?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAVVFfEBGwwV9lul0QXOYxogw54s42KVA9c

On 4/16/2025 at 1:28 PM, Drew said:

Okay, so what you want to know is whether making a past policy, like EEO, inapplicable to future contracts might prompt the government to also renegotiate existing contracts to which the policy now applies, the goal being to [r]educe their prices and claim savings. Is that a correct interpretation of what you want to know?"

You might keep in mind that contractors can take the position that government desire to negotiate FAR/Agency clauses of a fully executed contract without a change notice requires consent of the contractor.

@Don Mansfield Got it. Thanks for clarifying

I have to laugh at the interest in the early work of the FAR overhaulers. So far they've taken about a month to publish revisions of low-hanging fruit like Parts 1, 10, and 34.

Let's see what they do with Part 7, Subparts 9.4 and 9.5, Part 12, Parts 15, 19, 22, 25, 27, 32, 42, 44, and 45, and, of course, Subpart 52.2.

There's a long and winding road ahead.

And who are the people working on this? What are they qualifications? How are they organized? What is their process? Who are their consultants?

It is said that acquisition personnel are professionals. Well, would any true profession𑁋such as engineering, law, or medicine𑁋go along with unknowns working on something as important as, say, a new edition of the Restatement of Contracts?

Vern Edwards said:

And who are the people working on this? What are they qualifications? How are they organized? What is their process? Who are their consultants?

I would pose that this is the same situation as the legislative process that created new and wonderous acquisition statute, the codification of any such legislation into the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the extended resulting policy of the multitude of agency's since 1984.

I saw online posts from a couple people who I guess are working on the overhaul. Both have solid backgrounds and are knowledgable. Polly Hall has also posted with a title indicating she’s the executive sponsor of at least part of the development. I know her and have the most upmost respect for her expertise and abilities. Regardless of who’s on the team, their work is subject to review by others including the FAR Council.

The overall task is monumental. Is the current strategy of just getting something out there quickly, using it immediately, and adjusting as experience is gained and public comment provided after initial implementation wrong? Or is it better to produce something by the very best subject experts over a long period and after receiving, analyzing, and incorporating comments better? I don’t know. But I do know things like this take on a much longer timespan than planned. The first scenario likely will take twice the six month period. The second scenario probably will take several years.

Also none of the overhaul will remain static. Changes are a given.

formerfed said:

their work is subject to review by others including the FAR Council.

According to Acquisition.govL

The FAR Council membership consists of the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, the Administrator of General Services, the Secretary of Defense, and the Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space.

@formerfed

The FAR Council isn't going to review anything, because, with the exception of the acting OFPP Administrator, they don't know enough about it to review it. At best some unknown(s) on their staffs are going to review it.

Maybe.

All the overhaulers are going to accomplish in the short term is to cast the system into chaos while people try to figure out how to do things under the stripped down (Oops! I meant streamlined) FAR. They're going to replace some parts with some used and ready to fail parts.

I've been around long enough to remember the chaos after previous "reforms". So have you, formerfed.

But this will be good for laughs.

Vern Edwards said:

All the overhaulers are going to accomplish in the short term is to cast the system into chaos while people try to figure out how to do things under the stripped down (Oops! I meant streamlined) FAR. They're going to replace some parts with some used and ready to fail parts.

"Going to", have they not already via the deviation route?

It would appear at this point in time that some agencies have directed their workforce to adopt the deviations going forward. So if you work for GSA you now refer to the FAR, the multiple agency deviations that exist, the rewrite deviations, possibly some individual deviations, the GSAM and agency policy. It just seems the rush to change via the deviation route might just be starting the chaos as opposed to simply rewriting and issuing a "new" FAR at some future time.

And not that it is a big deal in the context of FAR definitions but I do find it interesting where the current FAR Part 1 has 21 "must"s and 69 "shall"s and the deviation has 41 "must"s and 2 "shall"s. One could conclude I guess that the imperative is now less but the shift to must over shall is of note. This shift seems to continue to the deviation for Parts 10 and 34 as well.

@Vern Edwards Eventually order happens as chaos diminishes. The reformed process leaves out detail which too many are accustomed to seeing and using as their cookbook. But with time, experience, and examples from the 1102 leaders at each agency actually conducting initial actions, others learn.

Yes, I remember the previous chaos. I think I’ve been around even longer than you. Perhaps retrofed is the old timer here and I might be second. I started as an intern with the Army Material Command in August 1970.

formerfed said:

Eventually order happens as chaos diminishes.

Uh... I think you may have it backwards. Ever hear of the the concept of entropy? The second law of thermodynamics? Disorder, randomness, and uncertainty?

😀

Vern Edwards said:

Uh... I think you may have it backwards. Ever hear of the the concept of entropy? The second law of thermodynamics? Disorder, randomness, and uncertainty?

😀

I was thinking of Nietzsche when he said “from chaos comes order.”

Whoa! Nietzsche! 😯

Anyone else completely underwhelmed at the "released," FAR changes?

It really does feel like instead of an opportunity for change/improvement we are literally getting "make it have less words!"

My cautious optimism is slowly being replaced with the feeling that nothing of substance is changing.

The Part 10 update includes a "Practitioner Album" the highlights the challenges. We have a great opportunity to not only see something built from the ground up but also understand the underpinning philosophy and logic. It is easy to be discouraged by some of the changes taking place. Yet, for the motivated contracting officer / specialist, this moment presents an opportunity for incredible knowledge gain and advancement.

Josh Mx said:

The Part 10 update includes a "Practitioner Album" the highlights the challenges.

Glad to see the variety of methods in the Album, especially one-on-one sessions. This is an extremely powerful tool in understanding the marketplace and crafting a beneficial strategy.

In order to market research to achieve its potential, the acquisition workforce needs training and readjustment of its outlook. For a large share, market research is simply issuing an RFI to either support a proposed noncompetitive action or to locate small businesses at insistence of a small business specialist.

Josh Mx said:

discouraged by some of the changes taking place.

In my part of the federal civilian government, our acquisition personnel have been cut by 50% to >90%% (depending on the office and how you measure it). For the foreseeable future, out acquisitions, including our market research, will strive to be legally sufficient. Making use of the FAR overhaul is going to have to wait.

Enough about that. To simplify only slightly, everything is commercial. Even this missile is (mostly) commercial. The FAR's emphasis on the commercial vs. non-commercial is obsolete, and I am glad to see it go from FAR 10.

formerfed said:

small business specialist.

Unless, like us, there is no small business specialist anymore.

As I understand the process, the FAR Councils roll out overhauled parts of the FAR. Agencies then can issue class deviations to the FAR and use the overhauled parts when issuing solicitations and contracts. My question is are agencies publishing the class deviations and if so where?

@Retreadfed here you go

https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide

Thanks. I see there is a variety in the number of deviations the agencies have issued. A rhetorical question, I wonder if agencies are in the process of issuing more deviations or whether they do not intend to use the new FAR sections but stick with the old?

The number is mostly dependent on the date revisions are issued. It takes time for agencies to review, decide, and act with publishing.