On 3/20/2025 at 4:30 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 don't think I agree with this, Vern. It probably depends on what you mean by "thrive" and "struggle."

The majority of 1102s today don't "thrive" professionally (i.e., don't have a sound understanding of what they're doing or why), and many are flat-out unqualified for the role. In fact, many either can't or won't open the FAR--ever--outside of the classroom.

Despite this, most "get by" (i.e., maintain some level of output and receive passing assessments) through some combination of obedience, work-of-mouth knowledge, intuition, and "common sense" (real or perceived). 

I suspect even after the re-write the majority of practitioners will continue to operate in this manner. There would need to be some major new incentive or disincentive, or change in how 1102s are selected and trained, for this to change. Fewer rules would only mean that these folks run afoul of the rules less often.

4 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

I don't think I agree with this, Vern.

Okay. We'll see.

4 minutes ago, FrankJon said:

Despite this, most "get by" (i.e., maintain some level of output and receive passing assessments) through some combination of obedience, work-of-mouth knowledge, intuition, and "common sense" (real or perceived). 

I suspect even after the re-write the majority of practitioners will continue to operate in this manner. There would need to be some major new incentive or disincentive, or change in how 1102s are selected and trained, for this to change.

I agree with that, I'm sad to say. It also makes me sad to realize that so many citizens think that mediocrity and incompetence are hallmarks of government. 

We sit here, surrounded by our many degrees and all our accumulated knowledge, yet feeling more like children. It's become clear to us that what our grandparents, some with barely a high school education, knew was right, and we couldn't have been more ignorant. If we're fortunate enough to live long enough, we’ll see the world change before our eyes, often faster than we can process. I remember my grandmother, who passed away at 95 in Sykesville, MD. She spent her final days in a wheelchair, asking Alexa to play her favorite songs and Bible sermons. This was the same woman who, in the 1920s, lived above a grocery store in poverty, watching horse-drawn carts deliver goods to restock the general store beneath her quarters on Main Street.

Someone asked for my stab in the dark prediction: I think SEWP and NITAAC will fold and be absorbed by GSA GWACs.  GSA will move to transfer existing 13-15 level COs to process under a pilot for roughly four large agencies for which it will assume procurement.  The three-year plan will be to monitor the pilot in hopes that it is successful to bring more agencies under GSA for full cradle to grave procurements.  This is good and bad.  While GSA is known to be somewhat indifferent and unresponsive in the limited role they now play, the boon is that by making individual agencies go through another agency, it will reign in some of the egregious politics and influence of SESs that seem to dangle acquisition offices like marionets daring anyone to question them. 

Understand that CIOs began a migration off legacy in 1996 with a 5-year project plan.  It is now 29 years later.  The PALT keeps extending out and the project remains incomplete.  Unfathomable amounts of money have been spent.

36 minutes ago, Guardian said:

We sit here, surrounded by our many degrees and all our accumulated knowledge, yet feeling more like children. It's become clear to us that what our grandparents, some with barely a high school education, knew was right, and we couldn't have been more ignorant. If we're fortunate enough to live long enough, we’ll see the world change before our eyes, often faster than we can process. I remember my grandmother, who passed away at 95 in Sykesville, MD. She spent her final days in a wheelchair, asking Alexa to play her favorite songs and Bible sermons. This was the same woman who, in the 1920s, lived above a grocery store in poverty, watching horse-drawn carts deliver goods to restock the general store beneath her quarters on Main Street.

Someone asked for my stab in the dark prediction: I think SEWP and NITAAC will fold and be absorbed by GSA GWACs.  GSA will move to transfer existing 13-15 level COs to process under a pilot for roughly four large agencies for which it will assume procurement.  The three-year plan will be to monitor the pilot in hopes that it is successful to bring more agencies under GSA for full cradle to grave procurements.  This is good and bad.  While GSA is known to be somewhat indifferent and unresponsive in the limited role they now play, the boon is that by making individual agencies go through another agency, it will reign in some of the egregious politics and influence of SESs that seem to dangle acquisition offices like marionets daring anyone to question them. 

Understand that CIOs began a migration off legacy in 1996 with a 5-year project plan.  It is now 29 years later.  The PALT keeps extending out and the project remains incomplete.  Unfathomable amounts of money have been spent.

I can see GSA taking over most civilian side IT and staffing (domestic, at least). They may cherry pick the best 1102s from each civilian agency, especially the ones who have the DITAP certificate. I can't see this being a 4-agency pilot sort of deal, though. I think it's going to be a wholesale move and transfer of portfolios and duties to GSA. Automation will be doing a lot of the work.

My simple anedotal view of what is going on based on experience.

The current FAR.  When it was brought forth I was a young and energtic contract specialist.  I spent hours reading and sent comments regarding its wording.  I had a very seasoned 1102 supervisor who told me that I was wasting my time on my efforts because the FAR would never happen.  It did but in my humble opinion the history since, fostered by the thinking of the never ending line of  seasoned 1102's, has turned it into something more cumbersome than what was ever intended via supplement, policy and additional guidance.  A long history of disappointment.

Rarely in my career had I ever seen a FAR part 12 procurement include a "tailored" provision and clause , FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-4 respectfully,  that took much of the paragraphs in each and turned them into dust to follow what happens in the commercial world. (And I was an offender myself.)   Even to today it still seems so.  Too bad a tool that  was not used to make everyones life easier.

My first simple answer in this thread still stands - I hope the current effort is one of revitalization, with the added hope that the current workforce embraces it as such and works very hard to make it the revitalization it can and should be. 

 

For those interested in some historical background and perspective, see "Presidential Power Over Federal Contracts Under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act: The Close Nexus Test of AFL-CIO v. Khan", by Kimberly A. Edgerton, Duke Law Review (1980).

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2735&context=dlj

The opening passage:

Quote

The United States government spends approximately $110 billion on goods and services each year. Since the depression of the 1930s, the government has with increasing frequency attempted to use the economic leverage provided by its purchasing power to achieve social and economic objectives. Most attempts to implement national policy goals through the procurement process have been expressly directed by statute. On a few occasions, however, the sole source of the procurement policy has been an Executive order. As Professor Arthur Miller points out, the Executive order method is available to the President when Congress will not act. This makes the process attractively flexible, yet subject to serious questions about the power of the President vis-a-vis Congress.

In the past, Presidents have used this process only sparingly. In AFL-CIO v. Kahn, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia may have opened the door to a substantial increase in executive use of procurement power....

 

Footnotes omitted. The article is 30 pages long. Keep in mind that the article is 40+ years old.

AFL-CIO v. Kahn is 618 F.2d 784 (1979) (en banc). You can get it by Googling. See also Commonweath v. Biden, 57 F.4 545 (2023).

19 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

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

See, 41 U.S.C. 1707

21 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?

What legal precedents do you have in mind?  The decisions of the ASBCA, CBCA and COFC are not applicable government wide.  In fact the COFC seems to be populated by independent contractors who do not feel bound by decisions issued by other judges on the court.  The only government wide procurement decisions that are precedential are those issued by the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court.  Even then, they may be interpreting regulations or statutes that do not apply to all agencies.  As it is now, the FAR Councils don't seem to pay attention to precedential court decisions.  For example, there are at least 3 CAFC decisions stating when interest starts to accrue on a claim that are contradictory to what is in the FAR.

 

21 hours ago, Hammurabis Heir said:

Executive Overreach? What is the extent of the executive branch's authority to unilaterally modify the FAR?

Every president since at least Lyndon Johnson has issued executive orders amending federal procurement regulations.  While the implementing regulations may have been subject to notice and public comment, that procedure was  meaningless since the decision had already been made in the XO.

 

21 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?

Again, presidents have historically issued XOs regarding procurement matters that were generated to satisfy some political base.  Do you remember Clinton's so called "blacklist" XO concerning grounds for suspension and debarment that was issued to satisfy labor unions?

 

22 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?

Wouldn't a procurement system built solely on statute be a legally sound system?  

 

22 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 publication requirement for procurement policies etc. is found in 41. U.S.C. 1707.  It is not clear from that statute that removal or cancellation of policies requires notice and comment.  In any event, notice and public comment may be a futile act if the revision to the FAR is a result of an XO as has been the result on several occasions before.  In any event, we do not know that FAR 2.0 will not be published for public comment.

2 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

See, 41 U.S.C. 1707

I actually referenced that back on page 1. Hammurabis missed it.

23 hours ago, FrankJon said:

Fewer rules would only mean that these folks run afoul of the rules less often.

How about exercising personal initiative and sound business judgement (FAR 1.202(d))?

Will the training for the 1102 workforce continue to be characterized by the approach of "Complete a step, earn a reward, proceed to the next step"?

Whatever happened to reading simply for the love of it and maintaining an insatiable curiosity about the world?  Often, what takes place beyond the contracting officer's office after hours is just as important, if not more so.

I revert to one of my favorite @Vern Edwards quotes, which is:

"The FAR was not written to be read like a narrative or topical exposition.  It was not written as a guidebook or handbook.  Rather, it was written to be consulted from time to time, as necessary.  When reading the FAR you must do so slowly, word-by-word, and carefully consider what you have read.  Seemingly ordinary words might be 'terms of art' that have a special meaning in the acquisition world.  Sometimes a passage will seem perfectly clear, but that apparent clarity might actually obscure a much deeper and more complex meaning.  Sometimes, in order to understand a particular passage, you must already be familiar with two or more other passages or with other government regulations." 

The current FAR is a hybrid of (1) statutory requirements, (2) legal requirements and considerations imposed by caselaw and (3) policy. The intent of the Administration seems to be to remove (2) and (3) and read the (1) statutory rules very narrowly. While removing policy arguably may have some merit, by increasing flexibility (doubtful), eliminating the portions of the regulation addressing caselaw requirements will be disastrous. 
the courts and BCA’s will continue to impose those requirements but most KO’s won’t know what they are. Just as the DOGE “willful ignorance” approach to personnel law has led to multiple lawsuits (almost all of which go against the government), the proposed rewrite will only spawn successful protests, CICA stays, injunctions and claims. Government procurement will become anything but “efficient” 

HHS's 1102 workforce: ~1,400 1102s.  I've run the numbers on the type of work they do.  In a given year:  

About 65% (~850) only do Low Complexity.  Very rarely to never use FAR 15.2, FAR 15.3, non-commercial, cost-reimbursement, competitive source selection using 'trade-offs' (however defined, under any FAR part) with >2 offers received.   This sort of CS often does 40-100+ actions per year.

Low complexity accurately describes the large majority of HHS's contracting work.  The median obligated amount on FDPS, for all of HHS, is about $42,000.  As far as I can recall, HHS as a Department did one IFB in FY23 and zero last year.  Less than half (a lot less) of FPDS reports indicate competitive procedures where 2 or more offers were received.

 10% (<150) do High Complexity work.  Have an acquisition that meets 3/4 of the FAR 7.102 criteria, is CR, using FAR 15.2 etc.  These are, presumably, your non-supervisory GS-14s and (if they exist) non-supervisory GS-15s (reminds of the rare and elusive WO5 from my Army days). 

I think a drastically descoped FAR has completely different implications for and effect on these two types of work and types of workers.  Maybe no to minimal change for the first group?

Simplified acquisition should not be addressed in the FAR. Simplified acquisition should be addressed in an entirely separate regulation,  the SAR. Not in a FAR supplement---a separate regulation.

I started with the DAR (sure there are posters that started before the DAR), then the FAR. FAR 2.0 just another stop on the contracting knowledge bus.

1 hour ago, Weno2 said:

I started with the DAR (sure there are posters that started before the DAR),

Yes, there are some old mossbacks like me on here.  I first got exposed to the ASPR in 1964.  At that time, it fit in one small 3 ring binder.

3 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

I first got exposed to the ASPR in 1964.

Retread! You old coot! That's 10 years before me. We need to have the Smithsonian interview you for the national archives!

On 3/24/2025 at 6:21 PM, 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.

I was a CAAC advisor in 2021-2022. My contacts said they are still waiting to see the FAR 2.0. Tomorrow (4/1/2025) is the 40th anniversary. You never know what might happen on April Fool's Day.

So far, other than 100 little bunnies placed all over my house, no big surprises.

The cat is slowly being let out of the bag.

Welcome to the FAR Overhaul Initiative | Acquisition.GOV - This is a link to a "staging" website for FAR 2.0. You may need to login to get access. To be clear, no revisions (or "model FAR deviation guidance") have been posted yet.

Versions of this website have been posted for well over a week (and occasionally showing up in search results on google). Prior versions were largely consistent with what is now posted, but with different feedback mechanisms and revised language describing the issuance of deviations.

Copy and pasted text of the landing page is below for those who have trouble accessing it.

Revolutionary FAR Overhaul

Under Executive Order XXXX, the Federal government is undertaking the first comprehensive overhaul of the FAR in over 40 years.

Led by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, this initiative will eliminate burdensome and outdated requirements, remove non-statutory rules, and replace them with practical buying guides and plain-language regulations.

The goal is clear: faster acquisitions, greater competition, and better results.

Revised FAR Parts

OFPP is issuing revised FAR parts as model FAR deviation guidance. These simplified parts can be adopted immediately by agencies until the FAR is revised during the formal rulemaking process.

• Revised FAR Parts and Agency Deviations

• We welcome informal input on revised FAR parts: Submit feedback here

Buying Guides

As the FAR is overhauled/simplified, helpful but non-regulatory content will be moved to new Buying Guides, designed to support smarter, faster acquisitions aligned with the overhauled/simplified FAR.

• Preview Buying Guide Content hosted on GitHub

Thanks for the update. But I do worry things like the Buying Guide will quickly put us back to where we’re at now. It can easily evolve into a very detailed policy and procedures document.

Not available again. Laughable that buying guides were on GITHUB at some point/in draft.

I have zero confidence in the people making the guidance, let alone rank and file staff who have to try to decipher it.

My center has been eight steps behind the news cycle. We've had a crying general, and then a Maj. General tell us an executive order was coming out regarding FAR 2.0 only for it to be crickets since.

It's kind of pathetic how many internal taskers/"opportunities," we're recently getting to "use AI in acquisition." The LLM's that we have available are even more pathetic. Teach your people how to price proposals from the vendors they work with. Less "throw something into NIPRGPT/ChatGPT," and claim success when it vomits the most breathtakingly horrible output.

There is an even greater problem in leadership than rank and file that fundamentally misunderstands how to simply buy something. Half of my job lately has been generating milestones for acquisitions that will never happen because they needed to be started six months ago to have any hope of being awarded in time. Every time someone peers over it and tries to find some fat only to understand the only time savings to be had is if the requirements are drafted on time, the technical evaluation is performed quickly and miraculously has no RFI's required of the vendor (HAH.)

If I have one more ask about whether a simple modification or effort that could be SAP could we use other transactions authority?! because some idiot wants an appraisal bullet I might just accept the DRP.

19 hours ago, Self Employed said:

It's kind of pathetic how many internal taskers/"opportunities," we're recently getting to "use AI in acquisition." The LLM's that we have available are even more pathetic. Teach your people how to price proposals from the vendors they work with. Less "throw something into NIPRGPT/ChatGPT," and claim success when it vomits the most breathtakingly horrible output.

Or maybe tech evaluation panels and the individuals that compose them remain the starting point for all evaluations.  I see AI as a tool that can check work efficiently given its ability to sort through data and draw comparisons at phenomenal speeds.  The current benefit of LLMs is predicated on the specificity of what is inputed.  Thinking back to my earliest computer science education in the 1980s on DOS and Mac and with low level programming languages, my instructor use to remind us that the errors were always traceable back to the humans that programmed the machines, their firmware and software.  Certainly, this is more nuance in today’s day and age with narrow and generative AI, but the concept of “garbage in, garbage out, “ remains unabated.  AI is a tool intended to supplement and assist.  A thousand years ago, I might have plowed a field with a wooden crook, a hundred years back maybe I ran a mule to furrow hard tamped soil.  Today, I turn a key and drive.  In five years or less I will apply my creative skills away from the field as the machine drives itself making decisions based on a mix of optical sensors and complex layered algorithms.  Consider the following: a hundred years ago, the average person worked 70 hours a week.  They scrubbed clothes with arthritic hands along a corrugated metal board.  They hung clothes to dry; they contended with high infant mortality rates.  Today we work 40 hours a week.  In Iceland, they have cut a good ten hours from that and noticed sustained, if not improved production rates.  What’s the old adage?  If you have something you need done quickly, give it to the busiest person.  Never underestimate the capacity of human beings to procrastinate and create the appearance of work at the expense of real accomplishment.

3 hours ago, Guardian said:

I see AI as a tool that can check work efficiently given its ability to sort through data and draw comparisons at phenomenal speeds. 

Just how much do we want to rely on AI? Can you imagine the outcome of a bid protest challenging a source selection decision when the SSA says "I used AI to make the decision and just signed off on what it generated"?

Does an SSA have to be human? If AI produced a rational source selection decision that would otherwise withstand scrutiny at the GAO or COFC, what's the problem?

On 3/28/2025 at 1:14 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Simplified acquisition should not be addressed in the FAR. Simplified acquisition should be addressed in an entirely separate regulation,  the SAR. Not in a FAR supplement---a separate regulation.

I can see where it might help to have a separate regulation for simplicity sake (you only have to go to that regulation versus thumbing through the whole FAR). But what about all the references to other FAR parts that are included in SAP (FAR 13). FAR 19 is the biggest one that comes to mind but know it references FAR part 5 as well. Isn't FAR part 12 more of a separate stand alone, or even FAR 8.4, however both still reference multiple FAR parts such as FAR part 5 and 7. With all the referencing of other FAR parts not sure how you completely separate it out. Would you write it so it stands on its own versus referencing or referring to other FAR parts.