Revolutionary FAR Overhaul part 1 Guiding Principles

Why do we [HAVE TO] “award contracts to contractors who demonstrate a superior ability to perform” ??

I searched Google for the current fiscal deficit and found this - through May 2025…

“The current fiscal year (2025) has seen a federal deficit of $1.36 trillion, as of the latest data, meaning the government has spent $1.36 trillion more than it has collected in revenue, according to the U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data. This deficit has increased by $162 billion compared to the same period last year (October 2023 - May 2024), according to the U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data. “

Definition of Superior from Meriam Webster:

“one that surpasses another in quality or merit…”

From Collins:

“Definition of 'quality'

quality

uncountable noun B1

The quality of something is how good or bad it is. [...]”

“Definition of 'superior'

superior

adjective

If one thing or person is superior to another, the first is better than the second. [...]”

Why would we have to pay for more quality performance than necessary to meet the mission or contract requirements, if it can be purchased from someone who can meet our requirements at a lower price ?

This doesn’t seem to be totally consistent with the proposed language in FAR 1.102 (a) (2):

“(2)Ensure the most effective use of taxpayer dollars in ways that recognize the value of time, encourage innovation, promote merit, satisfy the customer, and balance these interests and objectives;”

Or perhaps, (2) encourages best value with more stress than economy of purchases.