April 24Apr 24 Author comment_91989 On 4/23/2025 at 4:39 AM, FrankJon said: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…?FrankJon,I wrote from the west coast at around 3am. I am almost 80, and I have found that I do not sleep as regularly as I did when I was young. I tend to wake up in the middle of the night, read or get up and work, and then nap off and on later in the day. And I still have time to walk about 12,000 steps every day through mountainous countryside, sometimes with and sometimes without a dog. I read a book or two a week (usually on a Kindle, since my eyes are bad) and rarely watch television. I weigh ten pounds more than I did when I entered the Army as a skinny 17 year old and went to jump school and then to Vietnam. I'm lucky. I hope it lasts. Professor Nash is almost 100, has survived combat in Korea as a naval aviator, and cancer in his 90s, and is still reading and writing.Folks,Read, think, and seek professional mastery. Exercise. Get outside in all weathers.
April 24Apr 24 Author comment_91990 23 hours ago, WifWaf said: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?I don't know if "many"can. It depends on the why each one was made imperative."Shall" appears 8,579 times in the 2,034 pages of the current FAR. "Must" appears 1,152 times. It would take a lot of research to determine how many of them can be deleted or changed to another word.
April 24Apr 24 comment_91991 1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:Folks,Read, think, and seek professional mastery. Exercise. Get outside in all weathers.Exercise, particularly outdoors, is very important to me. My marathon and triathlon days are gone now. Sometime in my life I injured my spine and it gradually deteriorated to where one knee doesn’t support my weight and its hyperextends. Now I walk 5 miles a day in the neighborhood using a walker. I’m known as that crazy old man in the rain, heat, and snow with the red walker.But I’m happy.
April 25Apr 25 comment_91992 20 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:I don't know if "many"can. It depends on the why each one was made imperative."Shall" appears 8,579 times in the 2,034 pages of the current FAR. "Must" appears 1,152 times. It would take a lot of research to determine how many of them can be deleted or changed to another word.And some folks sometimes misuse and/or misunderstand the word "shall" in some cases.The Law DictionarySHALL Definition & Meaning - Black's Law DictionaryFind the legal definition of SHALL from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as...ShallDefinition and Citations:As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to “may,”) to carry out the legislative intention and In cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense. Also, as against the government, “shall” is to be construed as “may,” unless a contrary intention is manifest. See Wheeler v. Chicago, 24 111. 105, 76 Am. Dec. 736; People v. Chicago Sanitary Dist., 184 111. 597, 56 N. E. 9.”.:;: Madison v. Daley (C. C.) 58 Fed. 753; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Ilecht, 95 U. S. 170, 24 L. Ed. 423. SHAM PLEA. See PLEA. SHARE 1082 SHERIFF
April 25Apr 25 comment_91993 On 4/24/2025 at 12:11 PM, Vern Edwards said:I don't know if "many"can. It depends on the why each one was made imperative."Shall" appears 8,579 times in the 2,034 pages of the current FAR. "Must" appears 1,152 times. It would take a lot of research to determine how many of them can be deleted or changed to another word.It’s definitely a doable task for an experienced procurement analyst.STEP 1: Go to ecfr.gov, click Title 48, and find “shall” number 1 of 8,579, starting at FAR Part 1. STEP 2: Click the Federal Register link at the bottom of the imperative statement’s Subpart, Section, or Subsection to locate the promulgating Final Rule. STEP 3: find “Authority” or “Act” on that FR volume’s pages to locate the statute(s) being promulgated. STEP 4: Click the statute(s), and find all the “shall” words therein. STEP 5: Compare the plain language of the statute(s) to that of the Code of Federal Regulation that resulted, and decide what must change to decrease any non-statutory imperative burden, bearing in mind all regulatory and legislative history. This is the mysterious part, requiring judgment. The rest is just a puzzle to be solved.Most of this is legwork requiring little judgment till the final decision. A team of 10 experienced procurement analysts can do Steps 1-4, and four GS-15 analysts can do Step 5 from there. The 15’s can submit their toughest decisions to two SES deciders.
April 26Apr 26 comment_91996 Interesting discussion. On 4/25/2025 at 5:33 AM, Motorcity said:And some folks sometimes misuse and/or misunderstand the word "shall" in some cases.But considering the reference one would think that "somtimes" is not applicable to the use of "shall" in the FAR because "shall" as an imperative is manifest in the FAR.14 hours ago, WifWaf said:It’s definitely a doable task for an experienced procurement analyst.I guess I disagree based on my past experience as a 1102, 1101, warranted Contracting Officer and even within the historic bounds of WIFCON over the years wherein shall as an imperative was debated and/or abused (maybe even by me). Everyone has their own view.I do wonder what "shall"s and "must"s will disappear. After all "shall" appears eleven times in this EO “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement”
April 27Apr 27 comment_92002 23 hours ago, C Culham said:I do wonder what "shall"s and "must"s will disappear. After all "shall" appears eleven times in this EO “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement”🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤪
April 30Apr 30 Author comment_92024 @MotorcityAfter checking commercial law dictionaries, check the FAR.FAR 2.101: "Shall denotes the imperative."Please provide real example of misuse of shall as defined by FAR 2.101.
April 30Apr 30 Author comment_92025 On 4/25/2025 at 2:55 PM, WifWaf said:It’s definitely a doable task for an experienced procurement analyst.Emphasis added.I disagree.
May 1May 1 comment_92050 I posted earlier I don’t have a lot of hope for FAR 2.0. We just love bureaucracy and want compete buyin before doing anything. Also we as a community are risk adverse. As evidence, I just looked at open FAR and DFARS cases. There are currently 48 open FAR cases. Two are from 2018 and three from 2019. Not to be outdone, there are 55 open DFARs cases with one from 2016, one from 2017, and three from 2018. Instead of just deciding and doing something, cases go back for more discussion to avoid controversy. In light of this, I can just see FAR 2.0 ending up like the current FAR.
May 1May 1 comment_92052 13 minutes ago, formerfed said:I posted earlier I don’t have a lot of hope for FAR 2.0. We just love bureaucracy and want compete buyin before doing anything. Also we as a community are risk adverse. As evidence, I just looked at open FAR and DFARS cases. There are currently 48 open FAR cases. Two are from 2018 and three from 2019. Not to be outdone, there are 55 open DFARs cases with one from 2016, one from 2017, and three from 2018. Instead of just deciding and doing something, cases go back for more discussion to avoid controversy. In light of this, I can just see FAR 2.0 ending up like the current FAR.On the other hand this administration hasn’t shown much interest in following precedent or rules.
May 2May 2 comment_92063 Rewrites of FAR Parts 1 & 34 officially posted. https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guidehttps://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/Part-1_LineOut.pdfhttps://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/Part-34_LineOut.pdf
May 2May 2 Author comment_92065 I have been told:that Matt Blum, a long time OFPP staffer, and a smart guy, is now the acting OFPP Administratorthat their goal is the make the FAR shorterthat they plan to take non-statutory "guidance" material out of the FAR and put it in separate publicationsthat they plan to implement the changes via FAR deviations, but will give the public a chance to comment after the factthat the first deviations will come in about 30 daysthat they know it will take more than 180 days.I have been told that, but I don't know that it's true.
May 2May 2 Author comment_92066 29 minutes ago, Bender Bending Rodriguez said:Rewrites of FAR Parts 1 & 34 officially posted.https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guidehttps://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/Part-1_LineOut.pdfhttps://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/Part-34_LineOut.pdfThanks, Bender!
May 3May 3 comment_92069 A lot to digest, but this is what stuck out most for me initally: In the line out draft of Part 1 they struck out FAR 1.104 Applicability which used to read "The FAR applies to all acquisitions as defined in part 2 of the FAR, except where expressly excluded." As far as I could tell on my initial read through, they did not replace or reword that text anywhere.
May 5May 5 comment_92094 On 5/2/2025 at 9:21 PM, Matthew Fleharty said:A lot to digest, but this is what stuck out most for me initally: In the line out draft of Part 1 they struck out FAR 1.104 Applicability which used to read "The FAR applies to all acquisitions as defined in part 2 of the FAR, except where expressly excluded." As far as I could tell on my initial read through, they did not replace or reword that text anywhere.That jumped out at me, too. I'm going to submit a comment on the importance of that statement.
May 7May 7 comment_92143 On 5/4/2025 at 10:33 PM, Don Mansfield said:That jumped out at me, too. I'm going to submit a comment on the importance of that statement.It's the kind of thing that just instills confidence in what might come out the other end of this process...
May 7May 7 Author comment_92145 FAR 1.104 is misleading and must be revised. The FAR does not apply to all acquisitions.
May 7May 7 Author comment_92147 Thinking about FAR applicability... Well, it does not apply to the FAA, which was exempted by Congress in 1996. Why? Because the FAA claimed that its efforts to modernize the air traffic control (ATC) system had been hampered by federal procurement rules.I remember watching the "Today" show in 1996 before going off to teach a class and laughing out loud when the Secretary of Transportation (or the FAA administrator, I'm not sure which) told a reporter that freedom from the FAR would solve their ATC modernization problems.Well, 29 years later, have you read about our "modernized" air traffic control system? Did you see the news about Newark airport yesterday? Read the explanations?FAA acquisition free of FAR has been no better than it was under the FAR, which was bad. The GAO warned congress that freeing the FAA from FAR would not solve the problem.https://www.gao.gov/assets/rced-96-27r.pdfpage 1:In summary, our work over the past decade does not support the conclusion that the cost and schedule problems encountered by FAA were caused primarily by federal procurement regulations. Rather, we found that these problems were caused primarily by technical and managerial factors, such as underestimating the complexity of developing systems and inadequate oversight by management. Another factor has been the lack of continuity in top management. Between 1982 and the appointment of the present Administrator, the Administrators' average tenure was less than 2 years.People conduct acquisitions, not rulebooks. And competence, much less mastery, is not about college degrees and "certified" professionalism based on exams.Yes, yes, there are too many rules and the FAR is too big and badly written. But the time and effort spent editing the FAR and writing manuals should instead be devoted to figuring out how to properly educate and train the acquisition workforce. It does no good to put a manual in front a person who does not understand fundamental concepts, principles, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques, and who won't study, either in a class or on their own time.Our government's incompetence, from top to bottom, which long predates the current president, is going to be the end of us if we don't come to grips with it.INVEST IN PEOPLE! Invest wisely, and demand high-yield returns.
May 7May 7 comment_92148 On 5/2/2025 at 6:53 PM, Bender Bending Rodriguez said:Rewrites of FAR Parts 1 & 34 officially posted.https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guidehttps://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/Part-1_LineOut.pdfhttps://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/page_file_uploads/Part-34_LineOut.pdfDon't get tripped up by the "line-out" documents. The line-out documents do not fully reflect the new RFO language. They only "identify high level changes. The portions of the regulation that are proposed for removal are struck through."
May 7May 7 comment_92149 15 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:Yes, yes, there are too many rules and the FAR is too big and badly written. But the time and effort spent editing the FAR and writing manuals should instead be devoted to figuring out how to properly educate and train the acquisition workforce. It does no good to put a manual in front a person who does not understand fundamental concepts, principles, processes, procedures, methods, and techniques, and who won't study, either in a class or on their own time.Our government's incompetence, from top to bottom, which long predates the current president, is going to be the end of us if we don't come to grips with it.INVEST IN PEOPLE! Invest wisely, and demand high-yield returns.As I see it, there are 3 prongs to meaningful acquisition reform:People -- As described by Vern. This includes CORs.Rules -- Fewer of them, written more clearly. Structure -- In most agencies, the Federal Acquisition System doesn't work as envisioned. True teamwork across acquisition stakeholders is minimal; in fact, these relationships are often adversarial. In addition, team members often lack authority to make decisions within their areas of expertise, or face so much resistance to making them that they voluntarily relinquish this authority. As the system is currently structured, even the greatest practitioners working under the most enlightened rules would lack means to overcome an agency bureaucracy that is uninterested in supporting the acquisition system.
May 7May 7 comment_92150 58 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:INVEST IN PEOPLE! Invest wisely, and demand high-yield returns.Are your AI tools listening, OPM?
May 7May 7 comment_92151 1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:INVEST IN PEOPLE! Invest wisely, and demand high-yield returns.Do your web crawlers look for repetition of citations, like Google does, OPM?
May 7May 7 comment_92152 43 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:INVEST IN PEOPLE! Invest wisely, and demand high-yield returns.I agree in the invest. A lack of investment that ripples to 2.0 effort as well in my view as the intent is less of the FAR will produce less need of an acquisition workforce instead of realigning "the manual" to make it a better one. And while I am at it, I wonder if the 2.0 rewrite has some industry folks sitting in, afterall the basic tenant of Federal acquisition is that it is suppose to be a team effort that embraces industry.Is it much ado about nothing or will it be of substance, time will only tell.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.