Is the Hill AFB FAR site down?

I have not been able to get in for several days.

Thank you!!

I just now was able to access the FAR there on my iPhone. Through WIFCON.

I just now was able to access the FAR there on my iPhone. Through WIFCON.

Likewise, using the DFARS website link.

It is now 0730 Wed morning and I was able to get in directly (on an Air Force computer, did not have to go through anything).

Use the GSA FAR site:

http://www.acquisition.gov/far/

For DFARS use the DPAP site:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/index.html

I have found that the Hill AFB FAR site is unreliable and not always up to date.

I was finally able to get into the site this morning from my office.

I have always wondered what the advantage of using the Hill AFB site is over the official FAR site that has the FAR in both HTML and PDF formats. Can anyone provide good reasons I should use Hill AFB. I am a non DoD FED.

There is no good reason.

You will notice that Hill carries other FAR Supplements also. What do they need with Education, Agriculture, etc.? When did they become part of the DoD?

Its time to cut their budget.

For DoD, one advantage is that the FARsite embeds the DoD class deviations in the text of the FAR/DFARS. Another advantage is that you can access both the FAR and DFARS from one site. Lastly, the DFARS on the FARSite is easier to navigate than the DFARS on the DPAP site.

For DoD, one advantage is that the FARsite embeds the DoD class deviations in the text of the FAR/DFARS. Another advantage is that you can access both the FAR and DFARS from one site. Lastly, the DFARS on the FARSite is easier to navigate than the DFARS on the DPAP site.

I agree with Don. For quick lookups and for checking the FAR supplements I prefer using the Hill AFB site. The "keypad" on the left side of the screen and list of supplements are particularly convenient for this reviewer.

Also - The eCFR site accessed through the WIFCON Regulations page, although it has many choices, is clunky compared with the Hill AFB site. I have tried the Acqnet link on the iPhone since yesterday, only to get a blank page with a vertical line on the left half of the screen.

I just now tried the AcqNet link at the Regulations page, using an Apple computer with the same result (Friday, 14 March at 0923 PDT)

It may be because the site has an https URL, perhaps?

We should have one official FAR site for all of the government, with all of the agency FAR supps, the CAS, the court,board, GAO and other admin. tribunal decisions, and regulatory archives. If OFPP were worth the cost of its stationary, the Administrator would see to it that we have such a site. It's a needless expense to have two sites, and it can lead to missed updates and textual conflicts. There are ways to accommodate agency class deviations. And we could use a better search engine.

Our government is getting to be as clunky as the government of some third rate country.

For me, there are 3 personal preference reasons I prefer the Hill site.

1. The Hill site has better font size (helps as I get older)

2. I prefer the FARSearch on the Hill site to that of the acquisition.gov site.

3. The Hill site is better kept up-to-date than the acquisition.gov site. For example, there were some changes made to FAR Part 8 that were effective in January of this year. These changes showed up the first week in February on the Hill site and it wasn't on the acquisition.gov site for a couple of weeks after that.

I couldn't agree more with Vern.

Maybe it’s just me, but does the idea seem like a satire that belongs in the jokes thread vice here?