It appears that GSA posted an official announcement last week, but the links to it are now dead. There has been much mention of this elsewhere online. See, e.g., https://pubkgroup.com/transforming-procurement/gsa-announces-revolutionary-far-overhaul/.

I have received several emails about it, but no one can find anything on the GSA website. I suspect they posted something and then took it down. We'll see.

We are going to release it now, oops, never mind, and now, nope to soon, and now, nope we take that back.

This, supposedly, is what the now-missing GSA webpage said:

The Federal Government is indeed undertaking its most significant procurement rules update in over 40 years, with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul Initiative rewriting the FAR, led by OFPP in partnership with the FAR Council, DoD, GSA, & NASA. 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• FAR Overhaul Initiative:

  This initiative, led by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in partnership with the FAR Council, is rewriting the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). 

• FAR Council:

  The FAR Council includes representatives from the Department of Defense (DoD), the General Services Administration (GSA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

• Significance:

  This update is considered the most significant in over 40 years, indicating a major shift in how the federal government procures goods and services. 

• Purpose:

  The goal of the FAR Overhaul Initiative is to modernize and streamline the procurement process, making it more efficient and effective. 

• Executive Order:

  The initiative is being undertaken under Executive Order [Insert Number]. 

• Government Procurement:

  Government procurement, also known as public procurement, is the process by which governments acquire goods and services from commercial bidders. 

• Regulation:

  Government procurement is often heavily regulated, with statutes, rules, and regulations in place to ensure proper use of taxpayer dollars and to promote transparency to limit corruption. 

• FAR:

  The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the primary regulation used by all executive agencies in their acquisition of supplies and services with appropriated funds. 

Two new Executive Orders issued April 9:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/modernizing-defense-acquisitions-and-spurring-innovation-in-the-defense-industrial-base/

Directs SecDef and others to pursue for wholesale reform of DoD acquisition, including process, DFARS, other regulations, workforce, training, MDAPs, planning, etc. Several due dates before end of FY25.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/directing-the-repeal-of-unlawful-regulations/

Directs agencies to review every single regulation and repeal "unlawful" regulations without notice or comment. Examples might include any where there's no clear statutory basis (like the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case, #1 on the EO's list).

"We are going to release it now, oops, never mind, and now, nope to soon, and now, nope we take that back." << we talkin' about FAR overhaul or tariffs?

Here it is:

The White House

Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.  Purpose.

11 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Here it is:

The White House

Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.  Purpose.

with the other members of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), the heads of agencies, and appropriate senior acquisition and procurement officials from agencies

Sounds like this has gone from "not enough cooks" as Vern's source initially described it, to "way too many cooks" now. I'd be shocked if we see FAR 2.0 this calendar year, although I'm sure there will be lots of deviations along the way.

I will hold my hope but not my breath!

The OFPP Administrator better get on this!

Remind me again ...who is the Administrator?

5 hours ago, FrankJon said:

with the other members of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), the heads of agencies, and appropriate senior acquisition and procurement officials from agencies

This sounds like the implementation of FASA. Instead of having the needed changes be processed by the normal FAR Committees, ad hoc implementation teams were created to deal with specific topics. I was on a few of those teams. An interesting aside to this process was that the person coordinating these efforts in DoD was Terri Squillocote (?) an attorney sent by Pres. Clinton from the White House to DoD who was later convicted along with her husband of being East German spies.

Here's a screenshot from archive.org of the GSA's website that was removed.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250404214150/acquisition-staging.gsa.gov/far-overhaul

Nice work

2 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

This sounds like the implementation of FASA. Instead of having the needed changes be processed by the normal FAR Committees, ad hoc implementation teams were created to deal with specific topics. I was on a few of those teams. An interesting aside to this process was that the person coordinating these efforts in DoD was Terri Squillocote (?) an attorney sent by Pres. Clinton from the White House to DoD who was later convicted along with her husband of being East German spies.

Oh wow. That is super interesting! Wonder if the Soviets got anything actionable out of that process….

I think she spied for South Africa.

https://www.acquisition.gov/content/revolutionary-far-overhaulWhite House Announces Revolutionary Fed...pdf

On 4/16/2025 at 4:58 PM, Vern Edwards said:

I think she spied for South Africa

You are correct. My bad.

Prof. Ralph C. Nash, Jr., attorney James Nagle, Don Mansfield and I filmed a one-hour conversation about the FAR Reform project. A video of the conversation will be posted to Wifcon in a day or so. In the meantime, here is a link to a 1980 Naval Postgraduate School master's thesis entitled, ""How is the federal acquisition regulation going to affect future acquisition managers." The author's conclusion:

The result of this research indicates that the impact on acquisition' managers in the way they conduct business will be minor to moderate at most. The FAR will not radically change the way procurement is being done, it will provide those involved with a better regulation with which to do their job. Those that are familiar with the current acquisition regulations will have no problems in transitioning to the FAR since the basic procedures and policies have not been changed, only improved and made more comprehendable.

https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/cf64867a-d5f1-40d6-bb22-83d6ee8cb184/content

Did that turn out to be true?

Did the publication of the FAR change acquisition?

Will the FAR reform change acquisition?

24 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Did that turn out to be true?

Did the publication of the FAR change acquisition?

Will the FAR reform change acquisition?

1. Maybe at the outset the conclusion was true, but I suspect not over the ensuing 40 years.

2. I assume that practitioners are far more risk-averse today than in 1980, and that misinformation is far more prevalent due to an increase of rules for practitioners overlook and misinterpret.

3. In the short-term I expect that it will make life easier for your average paint-by-numbers practitioner. Fewer rules to run afoul of. Fewer review findings. For more capable practitioners there may be potential to move the needle for the better by exploiting efficiencies, although this will depend greatly on how much change one’s leadership will tolerate.

   Over the medium and long term the number of rules will increase via amendment. Without change to how the workforce is incentivized or disincentivized I don’t foresee an enduring impact.

42 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Prof. Ralph C. Nash, Jr., attorney James Nagle, Don Mansfield and I filmed a one-hour conversation about the FAR Reform project. A video of the conversation will be posted to Wifcon in a day or so. In the meantime, here is a link to a 1980 Naval Postgraduate School master's thesis entitled, ""How is the federal acquisition regulation going to affect future acquisition managers." The author's conclusion:

https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/cf64867a-d5f1-40d6-bb22-83d6ee8cb184/content

Did that turn out to be true?

Did the publication of the FAR change acquisition?

Will the FAR reform change acquisition?

Looking forward to the discussion! I notice you posted this at 3 am Pacific time, which leads me to think you may have travelled to DC for it…?

The acquisition field is risk adverse. Somebody needs blamed when problems occur. That can range from issues that make nightly network news and headline stories, to GAO protest decisions, to a supervisor overseeing employees work. Over time regulations, policies, and procedures expand and become more detailed to address these situations with the notion that more instructions will remedy them and keep them from happening again.

That’s why the FAR grew so much in coverage and size since it was first published. That’s likely what will happen with FAR 2.0.

I was hopeful when word of FAR 2.0 first came out. I thought maybe abbreviated and minimalistic rules would empower contracting people. But my optimism dropped with early/mid April release went without anything coming out and the Order giving 180 days to produce new regulations. What that delay ultimately means to me is all the government agency players, constituency groups, Congress, and general public will have a chance to influence the newest version. That’s partially to ensure their own turf is unaffected. The chances of dramatically streamlined processes just dropped.

Then after the new FAR comes out, every Department, agency, office, and even individual supervisor will come up with their own supplemental rules. But they will be careful at first and not call them by the wrong name as rules. Maybe something like operational guides or procedures. It’s that that bureaucracy can’t allow different ways of accomplishing the same goals. Everything must look and feel the same. Over time, we end up again with 2,000 page FAR. I just hope I’m wrong on this.

24 minutes ago, formerfed said:

their own turf

In order to deconstruct a bureaucracy, each agent of the government given any power must daily vanquish his own desire for “turf”. We all have a little “power” - over the purse. We have to die to our desire for more power. Recognizing that desire is the first step. Admit it - you’re human!

You have to renew your mind daily that you are a civil servant, not a chieftain warring with hostile tribes anymore, despite your brain’s anthropology. In fact, each of our own “tribes” (families) will be harmed if the bureaucracy doesn’t end. Self-sacrificial societal norms are the way out of this bureaucracy. Not more turf wars.

5 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Will the FAR reform change acquisition?

I have two hopes for the reform. I foresee it changing for the better if:

1. Each non-statutory “shall” becomes a “should”, and plain language is added to identify when the “should” becomes obligatory; and

2. DOGE produces a method of governmentwide communication demonstrating each Office’s success or failure A) Meeting statutory requirements, and B) Negotiating prices and terms and conditions strategically.

Do you agree that many of the FAR’s imperative statements can be converted to suggestive obligations with clearly stated predications for when the suggestion becomes operative? Do you agree this government can increase stewardship accountability to the Taxpayer through new technology?

A down-in-the-weeds example of what FAR 2.0 means: FAR 16 has minimal statutory basis, so far as I can tell. Say it is dramatically reduced or goes away entirely. Is that what we are talking about with FAR 2.0? Here are two immediate implications.

1) Given >50% of all 'contracts' in the civilian federal government use FAR 16.505 procedures (I think), the impact could be large if there is no 16.505. In particular, say 'items peculiar to one manufacturer' goes away - so far as I know this isn't statutory, & FAR Part 6 doesn't apply to task orders and delivery orders. But the identical 'brand name only/or equal' would apply under other FAR authorities. Well, that would quite the loophole, wouldn't it? Maybe FAR 2.0 just do away with brand name or equal entirely. Great. That will save a tremendous amount of time and paperwork.

2) Contract Types are hard coded into our contract writing and financial execution systems, so we will continue to use what's in FAR Part 16, version 1.0, for the foreseeable future. We couldn't do something new here even if the FAR allows us to.

On 4/23/2025 at 2:55 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Did that turn out to be true?

No. Why? My view is while there is an element of risk aversion the biggest reasons are individual bureaucratic discreation and the continued meddling of legislative intent. I was around when the FPR became the FAR and have always viewed it as Federal Contracting For Dummies or as the quoted resource states better regulation of how to do the job. Legislative meddling often tells the practioner how to do their job because of some special interest(s) or otherwise unknowing legislative staffer thinking they know better how something should be done. I point to a subpart of a FAR Part already mentioned 16.505 and mulitple award IDIQs and fair opportunity. FASA demanded it in 1994 because contractors felt locked out of single award IDIQs. My personal view a complication added to a contract type that was working just fine. I would add here, in light of previous post, that FAR Part 16 carries 14 references to the USC. I have not researched in detail but it would seem per my reference to FAR 16.505 and a total of 14 USC references that FAR Part 16 does have some statutory context.

To individual bureaucratic discreation in my view agency management and their CO's are always looking for something to work around a FAR requirement rather than just taking it in stride and making it work. Think mandatory sources and the Committee for Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped. I do not believe that the intention that 100% of all needs of an Agency that can be satisified by a purchase via the manadtory source of the Committee is actually practiced because of individual bureacratic manipulation that is fueled by intended or unintended bias.

Additionally there is the complication of the FAR supplements that moved individual discreation to agecny discreation because they think they know better or otherwise have acquisitions that support their missions muddled by legislative intent.

On 4/23/2025 at 2:55 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Did the publication of the FAR change acquisition?

Yes, as already implied it turned a muddled huge FPR into Federal Contracting For Dummies. In the beginning it was welcome relief, today it is equal to the FPR when it was tossed aside.

On 4/23/2025 at 2:55 AM, Vern Edwards said:

Will the FAR reform change acquisition?

How is "change" implied? A reformed FAR will hopefully shed much that is not needed, including its supplements and policy intended as psuedo supplements, and get back to the basics that provides the opportunity to everyone to compete for the almighty Federal dollar in an easily understood Federal Contracting for Dummies.

Prof. Ralph Nash, Jim Nagle (author of The History of Government Contracting), Don Mansfield and I filmed podcast in which we discuss the president's FAR Reform order. It will be posted to Wifcon.com in th next few days.