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.

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

 

4 hours ago, 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. 

21 hours ago, 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.

1 hour ago, 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.  

1 hour ago, 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?

4 hours ago, 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.

48 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

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

The rule of two is not statutory.

Thanks, Vern!

56 minutes ago, 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. 

13 minutes ago, 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.

Edited April 9Apr 9 by dragon2eden
Later found the backing statute.