On 5/8/2025 at 12:11 AM, Vern Edwards said:

we'd been patrolling and sleeping outside in the rain for a month in a place they told us was called Bồng Son.

Vern, off topic but I thought you might be interested in this little nugget since you mentioned Bong Son. In '68 the Air Cav had a parody of Petula Clark's song Downtown. A line in it went "Listen to the rhythm of the AK 47. You can win a Purple Heart of even go to Heaven when you go to Bong Son."

Much of the word count of FAR 16.505 is due to sections that mirror other parts of the FAR. Take FAR 8.405-6 Limiting sources.

Items peculiar to one manufacturer, aka FAR 8.405-6 (b) - 339 words

Exceptions to the fair opportunity process, aka FAR 8.405-6 (a), (c) & (d) - 1,246 Words

Thats...roughly 50% of the word count.

I assume that these things are in FAR 16.505 because (for my example) competition-related rules should be the same regardless of which FAR Part you are using, but 16.505 cannot simply refer to those other parts of the FAR. Items peculiar to one manufacturer is restated in FAR 6.302, 8.405-6, 11.106, 13.106-1, and 16.505.

Interested to know if and how FAR 2.0 will address brand name / peculiar items in particular. No statuatory basis for it, so far as I can tell. Seems to me that you have to overhaul all of it or it or none. Ideally it all goes in one place, and one place only, and is substantially descoped. Striking brand name and items peculiar to one manufacturer from the whole FAR is fine. Removing it from 16.505, but keeping it in, say, 8.405-6 - so different authorities have significantly different rules about an important part of competition - that would be worse.

“Interested to know if and how FAR 2.0 will address brand name / peculiar items in particular.”

How about the Competition in Contracting Act as a statutory basis? Admission - didnt read CICA sources today. Too busy at the moment…

18 hours ago, General.Zhukov said:

Interested to know if and how FAR 2.0 will address brand name / peculiar items in particular.

Or maybe it won't change that much....

Reference - PUBLIC LAW 114–328—DEC. 23, 2016 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017, "Sec. 888. Requirement and review relating to use of brand names or brand-name or equivalent descriptions in solicitations."

I don't know how seriously to take Linked-In posts, but GSA's SPE posted a short article on reforming part 33. (Although calling it an article is generous, because it has almost no content.) In a comment, Don aptly pointed out that Vern wrote an article on that topic a year ago. It worries me that the SPE appeared to have no sense of how to reform part 33 and basically asked the Linked-In community for help. It could be that I'm being ungenerous, but it doesn't give me confidence that they know what they are doing. I don't want to be overly critical, because this is a tough job. But part of the job would be to review the relevant literature and talk to experts--basic research stuff. It doesn't sound like that's happening.

23 minutes ago, KeithB18 said:

I don't know how seriously to take Linked-In posts, but GSA's SPE posted a short article on reforming part 33. (Although calling it an article is generous, because it has almost no content.) In a comment, Don aptly pointed out that Vern wrote an article on that topic a year ago. It worries me that the SPE appeared to have no sense of how to reform part 33 and basically asked the Linked-In community for help. It could be that I'm being ungenerous, but it doesn't give me confidence that they know what they are doing. I don't want to be overly critical, because this is a tough job. But part of the job would be to review the relevant literature and talk to experts--basic research stuff. It doesn't sound like that's happening.

“Rethinking the ‘late is late language’” is what really gets me. Nah! Let’s continue operating under conflicting interpretations for just a little while longer!

Seems to me this LinkedIn post is a way to talk with industry and government experts.

2 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

I don't know how seriously to take Linked-In posts, but GSA's SPE posted a short article on reforming part 33. (Although calling it an article is generous, because it has almost no content.) In a comment, Don aptly pointed out that Vern wrote an article on that topic a year ago. It worries me that the SPE appeared to have no sense of how to reform part 33 and basically asked the Linked-In community for help. It could be that I'm being ungenerous, but it doesn't give me confidence that they know what they are doing. I don't want to be overly critical, because this is a tough job. But part of the job would be to review the relevant literature and talk to experts--basic research stuff. It doesn't sound like that's happening.

4 hours ago, KeithB18 said:

It worries me that the SPE appeared to have no sense of how to reform part 33 and basically asked the Linked-In community for help.

I haven't read the article, but Part 33 covers bid protests and CDA claims. In regard to protests, other than agency protests why not just reference the bid protest rules of the GAO and COFC? If any further guidance is needed, that could be added much like the FAR has done with the CASB rules in Part 30.

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

Seems to me this LinkedIn post is a way to talk with industry and government experts.

I give him credit for soliciting informal feedback on LinkedIn.

1 hour ago, Don Mansfield said:

I give him credit for soliciting informal feedback on LinkedIn.

Perhaps I am being too hard on him.

You’re not.

10 hours ago, formerfed said:

Seems to me this LinkedIn post is a way to talk with industry and government experts.

Experts? Talking?

The biggest problem with the FAR is that it implements laws that reflect 19th Century government ideas. After the “revolution” it will still implement laws that reflect 19th Century government ideas.

Published today - FAR 18 Emergency, 39 IT, 43 Modifications

FAR Overhaul - FAR Part Deviation Guidance | Acquisition.GOV

In Part 43, they deleted 43.000(a), writing "FAR part 43 now applies to contract modifications for orders for supplies or services not otherwise changing the terms of contracts or agreements (e.g., delivery orders under indefinite delivery contracts). This aligns the FAR to practice."

That explanation doesn't make sense to me. A delivery order is not a modification. The revised text makes sense, because I always sort of read it as "well, of course that doesn't apply because a delivery order is not a modification."

Thoughts?

18 hours ago, GeoJeff said:

In Part 43, they deleted 43.000(a), writing "FAR part 43 now applies to contract modifications for orders for supplies or services not otherwise changing the terms of contracts or agreements (e.g., delivery orders under indefinite delivery contracts). This aligns the FAR to practice."

That explanation doesn't make sense to me. A delivery order is not a modification. The revised text makes sense, because I always sort of read it as "well, of course that doesn't apply because a delivery order is not a modification."

Thoughts?

They changed it becasue the current FAR did not make sense (bold added)!

"43.000

This part prescribes policies and procedures for preparing and processing contract modifications for all types of contracts including construction and architect-engineer contracts. It does not apply to-

(a)Orders for supplies or services not otherwise changing the terms of contracts or agreements (e.g., delivery orders under indefinite-delivery contracts);..."