55 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

If the state law prohibits texting while driving, that likely is already a contract requirement. No need to duplicate it…

Narrow view?  The prescription for 52.223-18 says "all".  So what about contracts to be performed in foreign countries, military bases, or even reservations on routes that are not under state jusisdication?  It is not necessarily duplication is it?

56 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Narrow view?  The prescription for 52.223-18 says "all".  So what about contracts to be performed in foreign countries, military bases, or even reservations on routes that are not under state jusisdication?  It is not necessarily duplication is it?

As of Sep 2023: “Text messaging ban: 49 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands ban text messaging for all drivers”. See, for instance: https://www.ghsa.org/state-laws/issues/distracted driving

I believe that there are contract clauses that require conformance to State, local and installation laws and regulations.

See, for instance, 52.236-7 Permits and Responsibilities applicable to construction contracts. “The Contractor shall, without additional expense to the Government, be responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, and for complying with any Federal, State, and municipal laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the performance of the work.”

I’m not going to research it tonight but I’d bet that every installation specifically prohibits texting while driving, either directly or by citing applicability of state driving laws to driving on base.

See also : https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/us-transportation-secretary-ray-lahood-announces-federal-ban-texting-commercial-truck

Ok, so there has been at least one executive order directing all agencies to include language in contracts to ban or encourage contractors to ban texting while driving for performance of contracts. I didn’t read the prescription and background for the clause mentioned in this thread:

But here one by Obama:from 15 years ago in 2009:

“Executive Order 13513 --Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                        October 1, 2009

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
FEDERAL LEADERSHIP ON REDUCING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING“

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-federal-leadership-reducing-text-messaging-while-driving 
 

EDIT: ok, looks like this is the source for the new FAR coverage to “encourage contractors to implement policues banning texting while driving.

looks like this is more wishywashy than actual state, local and federal laws, regulations and policies…🤠

 

8 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

Ok, so there has been at least one executive order directing all agencies to include language in contracts to ban or encourage contractors to ban texting while driving for performance of contracts. I didn’t read the prescription and background for the clause mentioned in this thread:

But here one by Obama:from 15 years ago in 2009:

“Executive Order 13513 --Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging while Driving

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                        October 1, 2009

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
FEDERAL LEADERSHIP ON REDUCING TEXT MESSAGING WHILE DRIVING“

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-federal-leadership-reducing-text-messaging-while-driving 
 

EDIT: ok, looks like this is the source for the new FAR coverage to “encourage contractors to implement policues banning texting while driving.

looks like this is more wishywashy than actual state, local and federal laws, regulations and policies…🤠

 

Elimination of the specific clause  is a 6 to 7 year old argument in which another created bureaucracy that spun off of legislation has attempted to eliminate it. https://discover.dtic.mil/wp-content/uploads/809-Panel-2019/Interim-Report/Recommendation_IR4.pdf

To the specifics of texting heck, it is a hollow FAR mandate as Tik Tok and everything else that is discussed in the Forum.  

To the subject of the original post, it is a pipe dream to think the FAR will not grow.  I agree.   Yet there are days I simply say who cares as it is clear many deviate from the application and administration of the FAR's guiding principles every day.  And then there are days, especially evidenced by my own posts, that I try to help in the understanding and application of the guiding principles with hope.  The latter will continue.  My responses to the texting subject were to an extent an exhibit of frustration about understand and application.   In truth texting is low hanging fruit of both EO or legislative action.  There are much bigger issues that hamstring Federal procurement that are contained in the FAR and will continue to be.

PS - There are wishy washy state laws on texting as well.  My research shows that Montana and Missouri allow texting.   Further one state Nebraska has it as a secondary offense which means it has to be combined with another primary moving offense, it does not stand on its own as a offense. 

.

Why talk about banning texting? That's nothing. FAC 2024-05, Sustainable Procurement, is one of the most complicated acquisition rules I have ever read. The Federal Register version is 39 pages long. (All of the socio-economic rules are complicated. Think of small business subcontracting.)

The average 1102 will need extensive training just to understand the meaning of "sustainable products and services".

FAC 2024-05 affects 19 FAR parts. See the first part of the new 23.103, Policy: "(a) Agencies shall procure sustainable products and services (as defined in 2.101) to the maximum extent practicable."

Here's one of the new definition2:

Quote

Sustainable products and services means products and services that are subject to and meet the following applicable statutory mandates and directives for purchasing:

(1) Statutory purchasing programs.

(i) Products containing recovered material designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (42 U.S.C. 6962) (40 CFR part 247) (https://www.epa.gov/smm/ comprehensive-procurement-guidelinecpg-program#products).

(ii) Energy- and water-efficient products that are ENERGY STAR® certified or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)-designated products (42 U.S.C. 8259b) (10 CFR part 436, subpart C) (https://www.energy.gov/ eere/femp/search-energy-efficientproducts and https:// www.energystar.gov/products?s=mega).

(iii) Biobased products meeting the content requirement of the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the BioPreferred® program (7 U.S.C. 8102) (7 CFR part 3201) (https:// www.biopreferred.gov).

(iv) Acceptable chemicals, products, and manufacturing processes listed under EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, which ensures a safe and smooth transition away from substances that contribute to the depletion of stratospheric ozone (42 U.S.C. 7671l) (40 CFR part 82, subpart G) (https:// www.epa.gov/snap).

(2) Required EPA purchasing programs. (i) WaterSense® labeled (water efficient) products and services (https://www.epa.gov/watersense/ watersense-products). (ii) Safer Choice-certified products (products that contain safer chemical ingredients) (https://www.epa.gov/ saferchoice/products). (iii) Products and services that meet EPA Recommendations of Specifications, Standards, and Ecolabels in effect as of October 2023 (https:// www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/ recommendations-specificationsstandards-and-ecolabels-federalpurchasing).

And there are a host of other new definitions.

And here is what the rule says about "maximum extent practicable":

Quote

Maximum extent practicable. If the requiring activity submits a written justification addressing the reasons described in 23.103(a)(1), the contracting officer may consider it not practicable to procure sustainable products or services. A written justification may be for a specific product or service or at the line item or contract level. The contracting officer shall maintain the written justification in the contract file.

Prospective offerors will be able to protest those justifications before the proposal due date. You COs better bone up.

Texting? That's nothing. And there will be more to come. According to the May 6 Wall Street Journal the current administration is accelerating the publication of new rules before the election.

Quote

The past few months have seen a frenzy of regulatory activity. In April, government agencies finalized nearly three dozen economically significant regulations, more than during any single month of Biden’s presidency, according to the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. New policy announcements from the White House are being rolled out multiple times each week on issues ranging from tighter environmental rules to new restrictions on noncompete agreements. 

😂

Concerned or distressed about all the new rules? Well, here's something for pros to read:

Dooling, Bridget C.E. and Potter, Rachel Augustine, Rulemaking by Contract (June 22, 2022). 74 Admin. L. Rev. 703 (2022), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4146590.

From the abstract:

Quote

Contractors have become a ubiquitous presence in the administrative state. How these private
sector entities intersect with the rulemaking process, however, is not well understood. Unpacking
contractors’ role in rulemaking is important, not least because rulemaking is the executive branch’s
core lawmaking function. It is also important because there is a potential accountability blind
spot when it comes to contractors in rulemaking. The web of law and policy surrounding
contractors is complicated. Protections in place relating to procurement, ethics, recordkeeping, and
disclosure are broadly conceived and not readily applied to the nuances of rulemaking.

Remember when President Obama said, "I have a pen and a phone"? Well, so do contractors.

Vern, I don’t disagree with you. And a specific texting ban is just an example of the insatiable need to add regulations , many of which are already covered by state, local laws, regulations, etc. that many contract administrators don’t enforce anyway. This would be a specific one which probably wouldn’t be enforced either.

As an example, yesterday on the WIFCON Homepage, there was an article citing a GSA OIG Report regarding lack of administration and oversight of the actual performance of building maintenance contracts. Doesn’t surprise me in the least.

https://www.oversight.gov/report/GSA/Building-Maintenance-Contractors-Are-Not-Complying-Their-GSA-Contracts-Due-Poor

“Building Maintenance Contractors Are Not Complying with Their GSA Contracts Due to Poor Performance and Ineffective Oversight”.

 

 

 

The Government is huge and its operations are extensive. Full compliance with all of the rules simply is not feasible.

A colleague told me this morning that the IGs are going to have a field day assessing compliance with sustainable procurement.

BTW, note the councils' use of the word "procurement" instead of "acquisition."