Quote

The Federal Acquisition Regulations System is established for the codification and publication of uniform policies and procedures for acquisition by all executive agencies. The Federal Acquisition Regulations System consists of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which is the primary document, and agency acquisition regulations that implement or supplement the FAR. 

The item above is from Subpart 1.1 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in case anyone is new to Federal Contracting.  

This week The Coalition for Government Procurement has a blog entry called Happy 40th Birthday to the FAR, but has it Gone too FAR?   I think it is important to read it and see the mess you are given that directs much of your work.

In the article the Coalition talks about appointing a FAR champion to fix it.  That won't work because that would be treating the symptom and not the disease.  The DISEASE is the United States Congress and its committees that have jurisdiction over each and every one of the government agencies.  If they have jurisdiction over a goverment agency they have juridiction over the agency's contracting even if they have no idea about government contracting.  That's ridiculous.  

Here's my opening salvo to the contracting mess of laws, GAO decisions, and court opinions.  When you look at the FAR, remember, it is based on laws, GAO decisions, court opinions and who knows what else. 

1. Create one Senate and one House committee that have complete jurisdiction of all government contracting laws and regulations.  And that is all they do.  
2. Each of those two committees creates a subcommittee dedicated to reviewing ALL contracting laws for the purpose of streamlining or abolishing them.
3. Each of those two committees creates a subcommittee with total jurisdiction over defense contracting and a subcommittee with total jurisdiction over civilian agency contracting.

After the laws have been dealt with the FAR system can be overhauled.  There no longer will be title VIII 8s of the National Defense Authorization Acts since the Armed Services Committees will not have jurisdiction over any contracting.

I’ve had to deal with a several Federal contracting initiatives as a member of a Design-Build Institute of America Committee that deals with Federal laws and Regulations as part of its subject matter jurisdiction.

As an Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) active employee and  and rehired annuitant, I also was involved with those issues, general construction and Architect Engineering contracting legislation, FAR/DFARS/Agency regulations and Policy and Procedures.

From those experiences. I can tell you that the Congress members and their staffers know very little about the implications or impacts to contracting or the technical subject matters that they propose legislation for. There are many single issue advocacy groups constantly raising issues (often rightly so) that proposed solutions to them often add complications, additional cost, complexities or other impacts to contracting. 

7 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

their staffers

 

9 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

single issue advocacy

Combined they are in my view the biggest problem by my experience so I am not sure "committes" will be the fix.   Why not let the career field itself guide the fix?

1 hour ago, bob7947 said:

who knows what else

Executive Orders. Usually not significat but all the same in the mix too.

11 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Combined they are in my view the biggest problem by my experience so I am not sure "committes" will be the fix.   Why not let the career field itself guide the fix?

Executive Orders. Usually not significat but all the same in the mix too.

The only way that laws can be streamlined and abolished is by Congress itself.  That is why you need committees assigned to propose it and to stop new bad laws from getting out of committee.  The first competition rule was passed in 1792 so the committees will take years finding all the nonsense.  Of course, they would still have to go through the full Congress to get their recommendations passed.

In the end, Congress should state in law what is best for government contracting.  It's their responsibility.  They shouldn't end up writing unnecessary "design" laws.  They should state the goals they want achieved.  The "FAR" councils should write regulations to achieve those goals and accomplish the goals through the efforts of the "career filed."  Congress, through the committees, would maintain oversight of the work of the "FAR" councils and the "career field" in achieving the goals it sets."

Executive Orders are a different thing.  However, they are more general and the future "FAR Councils" will write the regulations for them.  The Councils can work within the Executive branch to work out the regulatory details.

3 hours ago, bob7947 said:

The only way that laws can be streamlined and abolished is by Congress itself. 

I understand.  Yet committees equals staffers by my experience.

Test

On 4/6/2024 at 1:27 PM, bob7947 said:

In the end, Congress should state in law what is best for government contracting.  It's their responsibility.  They shouldn't end up writing unnecessary "design" laws.  They should state the goals they want achieved.  The "FAR" councils should write regulations to achieve those goals and accomplish the goals through the efforts of the "career filed."  Congress, through the committees, would maintain oversight of the work of the "FAR" councils and the "career field" in achieving the goals it sets."

That seems ideal.  But it requires a major cultural shift with the FAR Councils.  They are used to bureaucratic lengthy processes (see the current open FAR cases with a couple going back to 2015) and accomplished with insufficient resources.  Unless major changes took place including sufficient staffing, I could see drafting FAR revisions taking much longer than they presently do. 

If it's ideal and necessary, put in the United States Constitution.  Or don't, and watch the power dynamics of Washington twist and manipulate the intent to each passing fad's whims.

I know we're mostly talking about regulations, but since congress came up it seems like a good time to trot out this quote I carry around:

“The principal acquisition statutes […] reflect congressional responses to various issues that have annoyed politicians from time to time.” –Vern Edwards “Frictionless Acquisition” Nash & Cibinic Report Sep 2020 Volume 34 Issue 9