Interesting to note that the NIST SP 800-171 requirements for contractors is not directed by a statute.  NIST SP 800-53 is for government agencies but 800-171 for contractors not a statutory requrement as far as I can tell.

14 hours ago, formerfed said:

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.

 

Interesting! And, like many others here, I'll note that this kind of effort has been undertaken before. Parallel to Section 809 activities in the 2017-2019 timeframe, we did lots of analysis of statutory vs. non-statutory language in the FAR (and agency supplements). Not sure where that specific work stands now, as I've moved from the policy world to academia.

I've been told to watch for a big announcement in this regard on April 1. Possibly an executive order. They didn't mean it as a joke. (The FAR took effect on April 1, 1984.)

I have no idea what the announcement will say.

19 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

I've been told to watch for a big announcement in this regard on April 1. Possibly an executive order. They didn't mean it as a joke. (The FAR took effect on April 1, 1984.)

I have no idea what the announcement will say.

With the FAR's 40th anniversary/ birthday on 4/1/2025 my guess is its the forthcoming E.O. several have been tipped off to that will revise acquisition regulations. By their logic, an announcement on or near that day wouldn't surprise me. 

Edited March 25Mar 25 by TheFedSubK
Error in date referenced, typo, and editorial changes

18 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

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

The rule of two is not statutory.

The rule of two is not statutory.  However, Kingdomware was decided based upon the fact that VA is subject to the rule of two for SDVOSB set asides.  

Not simple stuff. And a revision of the FAR, if done well will not happen easily. 

22 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

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.

Just a related thought:  many times the NDAA has requirements that apply only to DoD, but the FAR Councils decided to apply them government wide.  Will those provisions be deleted from the FAR but DoD will be required to include them in the DFARS?

Is it safe to assume that they are also lining things out in the supplements (DOSAR, DFARS, etc.)? Whatever gets crossed out in the FAR will affect the supplements I would think. Maybe that gets done at the agency policy shop level?

6 minutes ago, Motorcity said:

Is it safe to assume that they are also lining things out in the supplements (DOSAR, DFARS, etc.)? Whatever gets crossed out in the FAR will affect the supplements I would think. Maybe that gets done at the agency policy shop level?

Supplements are handled at the agency policy shops. At some point I understand the CAAC will be given a copy of the FAR 2.0 with which to start their rewrites. I have not heard that agencies are doing their edits yet. For now I understand it is close hold. The CAAC has a meeting on the books for every Wednesday morning. The meetings have been cancelled for weeks now as this rewrite is going forward. Working group meetings on most open FAR cases have also stopped for the time being. 

31 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Hysteria.

There has always been direct political control of acquisition. If you don't know that, then you're ignorant of this country's acquisition history. Try reading a book instead of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

For the real pros among 1102s, what's happening now is the opportunity of a lifetime. A chance to improvise, adapt, and overcome, as the Marines would say, and build a reputation for know-how and a career for yourself.

There is no cause for despair, except among the people without a clue—the PWACs, as I call them. Only mastery can fix acquisition, not statutes and regulations.

I hope they cut the heck out of the FAR, the DFARS, and the DFARS-PGI. A 2,038-page regulation with a 1,458-page supplement with its own 610-page supplement is ridiculous, unless you're regulating idiots.

Fewer legal  constraints? Oh, please, let it be. But put thinking people in charge.

I'm looking forward to the removal of the noise and opening up the silence. I learned the FAR from a mentor who said "Work within the silence of the FAR. If it doesn't say you can't, go for it. Just make sure it makes good business sense." Those that know how to make good business decisions and are rooted in their professional ethics will not have a problem; those that don't and aren't will struggle. I'm looking forward to it. After sitting in FAR working group meetings where a dozen agencies would hang on a single sentence for a week or more debating its context and merit, yes, there is MUCH room for improvement. I'm here for it!  

4 hours ago, Subutai said:

• Purchase Card transactions need SES+ approval.  Yes, that purchase of $1,000 of printer paper needs sign-off from a senior executive.
• Sources sought, RFI, synopsis solicitation, amendments to that solicitation, awards - each and all need SES+ approval.  Yes, you read that right - a single competitive contract award needs five+ different SES approvals.
• Payments to contractors will need additional approvals - by an SES+.  This is in addition to the approvals invoices already need.

How long do you think it will be before the powers that be recognize that these requirements are grossly inefficient and unworkable?  I predict that agency heads who are failing in their missions will start screaming for relief in short order.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

 

I hope they cut the heck out of the FAR, the DFARS, and the DFARS-PGI. A 2,038-page regulation with a 1,458-page supplement with its own 610-page supplement is ridiculous, unless you're regulating idiots.

 

It gets worse working for Army where you have AFARS, AFARS PGI, and then most commands have an Acquisition Instruction (AI) which uses very little effort to marry up with the FAR/DFARS. 

Then we add more redundancies such as "Federal Acquisition Regulation: Small Business Participation on Certain Multiple-Award Contracts" which adds more determination and signatures which were already part of the process in FAR 7 "Acq Planning".

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/15/2025-00615/federal-acquisition-regulation-small-business-participation-on-certain-multiple-award-contracts    

21 minutes ago, Retreadfed said:

How long do you think it will be before the powers that be recognize that these requirements are grossly inefficient and unworkable?  I predict that agency heads who are failing in their missions will start screaming for relief in short order.

I don't think those are standard across all agencies, haven't heard of this in NGB which is under Army which is under DoD.

Is FAR 2.0 a necessary streamlining or a dangerous power grab? With talks of "striking out" non-statutory language, critical questions arise:

• Statutes vs. Precedent: Should the FAR, an acquisition legal framework, rely solely on statutes? Or, in alignment with the US Common Law system, should it also incorporate vital legal precedents and case law interpretations?
• Executive Overreach? What is the extent of the executive branch's authority to unilaterally modify the FAR? Are the current processes, or lack thereof, circumventing essential checks and balances?
• Partisanship or Prudence? Is partisanship clouding judgment, or are these genuine efforts to improve efficiency? How do we distinguish between necessary reform and potential political manipulation?
• What is the impact of Striking Out? What are the real-world consequences of removing regulations not explicitly mandated by statute? Will it lead to clarity or chaos for acquisition professionals?
• A New Legal Framework? If the FAR changes its current structure, how can we ensure a robust, fair, and legally sound acquisition framework that protects taxpayer interests?
• Where's the APA? We're discussing the following statutes, but are we ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)? Shouldn't changes to the FAR, a major federal regulation, be subject to its notice and comment requirements? What are the legal implications of bypassing this process?

On 3/22/2025 at 4:31 PM, joel hoffman said:

What “business judgement”…?

When you get to the AFARS it pretty much tells you how to do something versus what.  I would say it micro manages.  Example FAR 9.105-2(a)(1) says a contracting officers signing of a contract constitutes a determination.  But supplemental regulations make additional requirements such as AFARS 5109.103 requiring DORA to make the determination.  To me business judgement is being smart enough to know I have the documentation to make a determination (FAPIIS, Exclusions) and not have to document a separate "determination memo" when the FAR says my signature on the contract is sufficient for a responsibility determination.

1 hour ago, Hammurabis Heir said:

Where's the APA? We're discussing the following statutes, but are we ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)?

No, because the APA doesn't apply to the FAR System.

4 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

 

For the real pros among 1102s, what's happening now is the opportunity of a lifetime. A chance to improvise, adapt, and overcome, as the Marines would say, and build a reputation for know-how and a career for yourself.

There is no cause for despair, except among the people without a clue—the PWACs, as I call them. Only mastery can fix acquisition, not statutes and regulations.

I hope they cut the heck out of the FAR, the DFARS, and the DFARS-PGI. A 2,038-page regulation with a 1,458-page supplement with its own 610-page supplement is ridiculous, unless you're regulating idiots.

Fewer legal  constraints? Oh, please, let it be. But put thinking people in charge.

I’ve seen this several times before.  Change is introduced.  A few understand what it all means.  They proceed doing work the new way while a large share of coworkers are waiting for detailed guidance and instructions.  They are quickly recognized for their comprehension and initiative.  They advance while coworkers wonder why.

4 hours ago, Hammurabis Heir said:

Is FAR 2.0 a necessary streamlining or a dangerous power grab? With talks of "striking out" non-statutory language, critical questions arise...

Another avid reader of The New York Times and The Washington Post and "threat to democracy" opinion writer hysteria!

We need more "power" over acquisition and less bid protest "case law", which has led us to incompetence and uncertainty. If any part of our society has grabbed "power" over acquisition, business, and contracts it's the legal profession. That's why we have so many thousands of pages of regulation and "case law" to cope with.

It won't be pretty, and FAR 2.0 won't be great, but I can't wait.

Improvise! Adapt! Overcome!

Leaders of the future, Arise! The times, they are a-changin'! The career opportunity of a lifetime.

On 3/25/2025 at 4:17 PM, Hammurabis Heir said:

Is FAR 2.0 a necessary streamlining or a dangerous power grab? With talks of "striking out" non-statutory language, critical questions arise:

• Statutes vs. Precedent: Should the FAR, an acquisition legal framework, rely solely on statutes? Or, in alignment with the US Common Law system, should it also incorporate vital legal precedents and case law interpretations?

• Executive Overreach? What is the extent of the executive branch's authority to unilaterally modify the FAR? Are the current processes, or lack thereof, circumventing essential checks and balances?

• Partisanship or Prudence? Is partisanship clouding judgment, or are these genuine efforts to improve efficiency? How do we distinguish between necessary reform and potential political manipulation?

• What is the impact of Striking Out? What are the real-world consequences of removing regulations not explicitly mandated by statute? Will it lead to clarity or chaos for acquisition professionals?

• A New Legal Framework? If the FAR changes its current structure, how can we ensure a robust, fair, and legally sound acquisition framework that protects taxpayer interests?

• Where's the APA? We're discussing the following statutes, but are we ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)? Shouldn't changes to the FAR, a major federal regulation, be subject to its notice and comment requirements? What are the legal implications of bypassing this process?

Do you think we currently have "clarity" in the current system or a "robust, fair, and legally sound acquisition framework that protects taxpayer interests"?

Before answering, remember this is the same acquisition system where:

• the Army took from 2004 until 2017 to award a contract for a new pistol.

• the KC-46, despite utilizing "commercial contracting" (as the "innovators" would have us believe is a panacea), has delays of a least 7-years and still lacks necessary capabilities

• the Sentinel program, which started in 2017, has yet to test a missile or build a launch facility almost 8 years later and recently suffered a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach

• & everyday acquisition practitioners engage in insanity like this (https://www.wifcon.com/articles/The Nash & Cibinic Report-May 2022-Contracting Process Inertia.pdf) - just check the many current solicitations floating around sam.gov and you'll see plenty of them demanding offerors "demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirements and/or provide convincing rationale" (i.e. essay writing contests)

 

EDIT/UPDATE: I listened to a conversation this week between Jon Stewart and Ezra Klein on his Weekly Show podcast that, while not about contracting directly, was certainly contracting adjacent - they talked about how we (government broadly) became too focused on measuring dollar amounts or compliance and that's distracted us from getting things done. They reference the rural broadband initiative (also referenced in a NYT Op-Ed by Jennifer Pahlka: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/opinion/democrats-elon-musk-doge.html) where despite a $42B program and being passed under the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it has not connected a single household to date. So while I understand in this environment there are many concerns, the question front of mind for me is whether FAR 2.0 will help us get good things done for the American people.

4 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Another avid reader of The New York Times and The Washington Post and "threat to democracy" opinion writer hysteria!

We need more "power" over acquisition and less bid protest "case law", which has led us to incompetence and uncertainty. If any part of our society has grabbed "power" over acquisition, business, and contracts it's the legal profession. That's why we have so many thousands of pages of regulation and "case law" to cope with.

It won't be pretty, and FAR 2.0 won't be great, but I can't wait.

Improvise! Adapt! Overcome!

Leaders of the future, Arise! The times, they are a-changin'! The career opportunity of a lifetime.

While I appreciate your response, and as someone who, like many in federal procurement, has followed your advice for nearly 15 years—learning a great deal from your discussions and the Government Contract Reference Book you co-authored—I'm still concerned that you've chosen to resort to personal attacks rather than addressing the substantive questions I raised. Labeling me a reader of specific publications doesn't invalidate the concerns about the legal implications of FAR 2.0. Could we please focus on the actual issues? Furthermore, it's interesting that you seem to advocate for less 'case law' and more 'power' in acquisition. That's precisely what I'm concerned about, and honestly, your response seems to be proving my point.

5 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

No, because the APA doesn't apply to the FAR System.

I understand that some FAR changes might be considered interpretative or procedural, and therefore exempt from the full APA requirements. However, given the potential significant impact of FAR 2.0, I believe a thorough legal analysis is warranted. Could you provide specific examples of how these changes fall under APA exemptions?

Could you please provide legal references to back that statement up? 

Most of the standard A-E and construction specific contract clauses are long-standing, standardized assignments of risk and responsibilities between the parties. Not sure why they would be candidates for streamlining contracting or otherwise controversial.

There are varieties of commercial construction contract formats and terms and conditions, generally written in the interest of the proponent organizations that formulate and issue them. Similarly, the professional architecture and engineering organizations promote their own versions of those type contracts. 

15 hours ago, Hammurabis Heir said:

Is FAR 2.0 a necessary streamlining or a dangerous power grab?

@Hammurabis HeirThat's the comment that prompted my response. Leave the politics ("dangerous power grab") out of it. Is FAR 2.0 necessary streamlining? Yes. The FAR is 2,034 pages long and is further swollen by thousands of pages of supplemental regulations. We cannot afford the acquisition system as currently regulated and operated. It's literally a danger to the country.

Here are my responses to your questions:

15 hours ago, Hammurabis Heir said:

Statutes vs. Precedent: Should the FAR, an acquisition legal framework, rely solely on statutes? Or, in alignment with the US Common Law system, should it also incorporate vital legal precedents and case law interpretations?

Precedents of the Federal courts that interpret statutes, yes. But GAO "case law", no. GAO bid protest decisions are not binding on the Executive Branch, they never have been.

15 hours ago, Hammurabis Heir said:

Executive Overreach? What is the extent of the executive branch's authority to unilaterally modify the FAR? Are the current processes, or lack thereof, circumventing essential checks and balances?

I would say its authority is unlimited, as long as the modifications are consistent with the Constitution and statute.

15 hours ago, Hammurabis Heir said:

Partisanship or Prudence? Is partisanship clouding judgment, or are these genuine efforts to improve efficiency? How do we distinguish between necessary reform and potential political manipulation?

Partisanship is as American as apple pie. ("dangerous power grab"). Whether it "clouds" judgement or informs judgement is a matter of debate. I presume that the current desire to cut regulation is prompted by a partisan desire for less government and less regulation. I also presume that it reflects a genuine desire to improve efficiency.

15 hours ago, Hammurabis Heir said:

What is the impact of Striking Out? What are the real-world consequences of removing regulations not explicitly mandated by statute? Will it lead to clarity or chaos for acquisition professionals?

Striking out non-statutory text will cause confusion among those members of the workforce that are not steeped in acquisition concepts, principles, rules, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques and that do not know how to business without "guidance". It will be up to management to provide that guidance. Expect some chaos and confusion. The emergence of clarity and stability will depend on the senior procurement executives, heads of the contracting activities, chiefs of contracting offices, and contracting officers. How well do you expect them to perform?

15 hours ago, Hammurabis Heir said:

A New Legal Framework? If the FAR changes its current structure, how can we ensure a robust, fair, and legally sound acquisition framework that protects taxpayer interests?

Demand that senior procurement executives, heads of contracting activities, chiefs of contracting offices, contracting officers, and contract specialists do their jobs, and fire them if they don't.

15 hours ago, Hammurabis Heir said:

Where's the APA? We're discussing the following statutes, but are we ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)? Shouldn't changes to the FAR, a major federal regulation, be subject to its notice and comment requirements? What are the legal implications of bypassing this process?

The notice and public comment provisions of the APA do not apply to procurement regulations. See 5 USC 553(a)(2).

Without standardized design and construction contracting approaches, the do it your own way approach would, in my opinion, produce chaos and confusion for both industry and government agencies.

We conducted nationwide Town Hall meetings with the design and construction community in the late 1990’s as we developed the $50 billion MILCON/BRAC/Grow the Army Transformation Program acquisition approach. In those meetings and feedback, the industry made it clear that they wanted uniform design criteria, contract formats, source selection approaches and after award contract management procedures.

The Army was standardizing the organizational (Brigade Combat Teams) functional and technical design criteria for 40 plus standard facilities types that would be replicated across the Army in the hundreds and some in the thousands.

Industry said they couldn’t afford to and wouldn’t compete in multiple, individual Districts and Installations for the same types of standard facilities if there would be individual installation design standards,  individual Corps District RFP/competition standards and individual District project after-award execution/contract admin procedures. They strongly advocated standardization and streamlining all these facet approaches across the Army.

Inasmuch as the Army’s annual construction program grew to as much as six times the normal MILCON volume for five to six years, its goals were to drastically shorten the acquisition, design and construction timelines, to reduce initial costs (award 100% of the annual programmed projects, get awards of 100% of project scope within 100% of the programmed budget)  and reduce life cycle costs (operation and maintenance) for the many facility types, most of which  had commercial counterparts.

That and the industry input were big lessons learned to save money, foster industry interest and participation and drastically streamline and shorten the time to obtain the new facilities. 

17 hours ago, Motorcity said:

Is it safe to assume that they are also lining things out in the supplements (DOSAR, DFARS, etc.)? Whatever gets crossed out in the FAR will affect the supplements I would think. Maybe that gets done at the agency policy shop level?

Traditionally, agency supplements are the domain of the agency-level policy shop.