On September 7, The Wall Street Journal reviewed a book entitled, Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future, by Dan Wang, a scholar at Stanford's Hoover History Lab. According to the review the author asks:

Can the success of China—with its dams and bridges, highways and high-speed rail networks, high-rise cities, world-altering factories and, increasingly, top-notch tech and military prowess—arouse or alarm America into rediscovering its soul and recovering the productive mojo that made the U.S. the most powerful nation in history?

According to the review, the author's thesis is:

Whereas the American elite is “made up of mostly lawyers, excelling at obstruction,” the Chinese state is run by a “technocratic class, made up mostly of engineers, that excels at construction.” China is “an engineering state,” Mr. Wang observes, “building big at breakneck speed, in contrast to the United States’ lawyerly society, blocking everything it can, good and bad.” (America, Mr. Wang notes, has 400 lawyers for every 100,000 people, three times higher than the European average.) China versus U.S. is therefore “a contest between a literal-minded dragon and lawyerly weenies.”

***

The author offers a tragicomic illustration to make this point. In 2008, both China and the U.S. initiated the construction of a high-speed rail link of some 800 miles, the former between Beijing and Shanghai, the latter between San Francisco and Los Angeles. China opened its line in 2011 at a cost of $36 billion. California—paralyzed by Nimby litigation, pork-barrel politics and soaring costs—has so far built only a small stretch of track in the Central Valley, and even that won’t be operational until at least 2030. The latest cost estimate? $128 billion. The U.S., laments Mr. Wang, “wasn’t always like this.” But Americans “live today in the ruins of an industrial civilization, whose infrastructure is just barely maintained and rarely expanded.” China’s poorest provinces have finer infrastructure than America’s richest states.

Any thoughts? Is the author's thesis reflected in the acquisition process? In the source selection/contract formation process? In the bid protest system?

If so, will the revolutionary FAR overhaul make things better?

37 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Is the author's thesis reflected in the acquisition process? I

Yes. The simple view, many WIFCON threads that lament folks being risk adverse, but that risk is failure of legal sufficiency not of any specific process for a procurement demonstrating that it would be successful.

39 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

In the source selection/contract formation process?

40 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

In the bid protest system?

Yes, a spin on the aforementioned comment.

40 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

If so, will the revolutionary FAR overhaul make things better?

Nope, as it is still being driven by a political governance system as opposed to, as the author notes, a technocratic system.

I think I have asked before in WIFCON but either way and posed a little differently are there any industry folks (not lawyers) sitting in on the whole rewrite effort, from the FAR revamp to practitioner albums, etc?

11 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Any thoughts?

I can't speak on China, but I think the characterization of the US as risk-averse and challenged to do big things is spot-on. Yes, the way most agencies conduct the Federal acquisition process exemplifies this characterization. I haven't been paying a lot of attention to the RFO. I expect it will result in marginal initial efficiency improvements as a result of fewer rules to follow and heightened attention on streamlining, but I think it's a matter of time before bureaucrats revert to their old ways.

I highly recommend listening to the March 27, 2025 episode of Jon Stewart's The Weekly Show ("Why We Can't Have Nice Things") in which Jon and Ezra Klein bemoan the inability of the US Government to effect tangible change on a reasonable timetable and the reluctance to empower officials to act. The prime example they reference in the podcast is the creeping rural broadband rollout under Biden's infrastructure bill. It really hit home for me as an 1102. I'd post a link here, but don't want to run afoul of any forum rules.

13 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Any thoughts? Is the author's thesis reflected in the acquisition process? In the source selection/contract formation process? In the bid protest system?

If so, will the revolutionary FAR overhaul make things better?

We're digging ourselves out of a hole. We won't just emerge all at once. At this point in the likely decade-long reforms needed to federal acquisition, aren't the reformers just restoring common sense? Their orders are literally Executive Order 14275, Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement. Common sense says less instructions and less prerequisite knowledge needed to read the remaining instructions will mean less complexity in execution. Then the buying guides can fill in the knowledge gaps without the onerousness of the Administrative Procedures Act. Then the culture will value risk aversion less and value efficiency and effectiveness more. Then the hiring will naturally improve. That latter activity will all be done in the agile sense of modular improvements based on current known needs. This might take a while.

The prerequisite knowledge of the law is the problem right now, so they're solving that.

11 minutes ago, Voyager said:

The prerequisite knowledge of the law is the problem right now, so they're solving that.

@Voyager Have you read the overhauled FAR Part 15?

Do you think it solves anything?

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

@Voyager Have you read the overhauled FAR Part 15?

Do you think it solves anything?

FAR Part 15 award procedures are for the COs with noncommercial requirements. In the U.S. Government's award data reported by COs in FPDS, if you look at the number of transactions, COs report that most transactions - and that means most of their work hours - use commercial procedures. It stands to reason, then, that the first place COs need reform is in the procedural burden of awarding commercial requirements. It's the low-hanging fruit.

I agree with @FrankJon above that it is only natural for bureaucrats to revert to their old ways, and I venture to guess that might be why this increment of change did not attempt to take them on and change their ways all at once. In this way, even the current increment of change is agile. The early adopters of the overhauled FAR procedures will instead be the COs with commercial requirements, and they have nearly all of the reformers' collective focus on them now. The "revolution" is occurring in their world, as evidenced by the obliteration of FAR Subpart 8.4 - a law you used to have to know.

I think the author's thesis is mistaking correlation for causation. There isn't much need for lawyers in an autocracy. Lawyers represent the interests of the many. I don't think the article is an argument for acquisition reform.

I'm a big fan of moonshot procurements. Operation Warp Speed is a highlight of moonshot procurement where the U.S. was at the forefront. Sometimes it ends in a slow failure such as California's high speed rail. I liked the California rail idea. Maybe it was executed without sufficient acquisition planning, i.e., will farmers sell their land? what are the environmental costs? is there sufficient demand for the train? Lawyers fill the gap when there isn't sufficient acquisition planning; see the above issues. All of those "marginal interest" issues are run over in an autocracy. There is a social price that is paid for that type of governance, and it is likely a higher price than California's high speed rail project.

My mind goes to DoD moonshot procurements when I hear acquisition reform. It is the supposed answer to how can we get emergent technology out in the field quicker (see OTA, MTA, revolutionary FAR overhaul, etc.) Assuming a certain failure rate in moonshot procurements, I think it is better that failures are exposed through a slow(er) acquisition process than out in the field.

3 hours ago, Voyager said:

COs report that most transactions - and that means most of their work hours - use commercial procedures

This is faulty logic - transaction count does not automatically mean most of the work hours are spent on those activities - it just means there are more of those transactions.

• For example, if we have 100 sprinters run 400 meters and it takes each of them 60 seconds to run that distance, the total aggregated time spent running is 100 minutes.

• If we have 1 person run a marathon and it takes that runner 3 hours (180 minutes) to run that distance, despite considerably fewer runners (only one!), the total aggregated time spent running is longer.

You cannot draw any sound conclusions on where most work hours are spent (FAR Part 15 vs. Commercial...to say nothing of contract administration) based solely on the FPDS data you allude to in your post.

2 hours ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

This is faulty logic

It might be flawed another way. Just because it is a commercial transaction does not mean FAR Part 15 was not used. I did not take time to rummage through everything on SAM.gov today but I have to guess there are many, if not most for services, FAR Part 12 actions where FAR Part 15 procedures are used either veiled or actually.

You guys are probably right. Does it matter? Common sense says we do a lot of commercial transactions. Business sense says we should make those less lawyerly (take procedures out of the law) and less onerous (make the APA inapplicable).

I believe that the biggest and singularly most important acquisitions, the ones that account for big dollars, competitive and noncompetitive, are not commercial.

FAR Part 15 is crucially important to the big picture.

8 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

FAR Part 15 is crucially important to the big picture.

Vern, I’m curious to know your opinion on the following:

1. What, in specific terms, do you consider to be the biggest “missed opportunity” in the part 15 rewrite? (I would guess it’s the continuation of the competitive range requirement.)

2. Do you expect the current version of the rewrite to survive the regulatory process largely intact? (My gut says no. Between the lengthy timeline to finalize a regulation, the number of errors I think I see each time I look at the rewrite, and the generally underwhelming reaction to the rewrite, I expect some big changes. Then again, maybe those considerations would only matter in “normal times.”)

Just now, FrankJon said:

1. What, in specific terms, do you consider to be the biggest “missed opportunity” in the part 15 rewrite? (I would guess it’s the continuation of the competitive range requirement.)

2. Do you expect the current version of the rewrite to survive the regulatory process largely intact? (My gut says no. Between the lengthy timeline to finalize a regulation, the number of errors I think I see each time I look at the rewrite, and the generally underwhelming reaction to the rewrite, I expect some big changes.

1. I think the current draft of Part 15 is badly organized and badly written. Frankly, I'm shocked by what they have produced. And it reflects many missed opportunities. If I had to choose one, I would choose the failure to adequately address the concepts and rules about discussions (now called "negotiations") in competitive procurements.

2. No. I know they are reviewing their draft and want comments. (You should send some.) The version that will be published in the Federal Register will likely reflect their review and some of the comments they receive. But at this point, and given their deadline, I doubt we will see major changes.

Keep in mind that they were charged with deleting stuff from the FAR, making it shorter, not making it better written and easier to understand. They were not given an easy task.

I have believed from the start that FAR Part 15 would be the ultimate test of their success. But, let's be hopeful. There is still time. Not much, but some.

Thanks, @Vern Edwards . (Another restless night for you, eh?)

On 10/15/2025 at 12:25 PM, Voyager said:

FAR Part 15 award procedures are for the COs with noncommercial requirements.

This statement is not correct. IAW FAR 12.102(b), FAR 12 is used with FAR 13, 14, or 15. FAR 12 and 13 are used together when value is under $9M (FAR 13.500)(a)). FAR 12 acquisition values over $9M use FAR 15.

FAR 12 cannot stand alone on procedures from pre-award to award It needs the FAR 13, 14, or 15 procedures as the vehicle to acquire the commercial item.