I'm seeking answers to the following questions--

1. What can contracting officers do post-RFO that they were prohibited from doing pre-RFO?

2. What are contracting officers not required to do post-RFO that they were required to do pre-RFO?

3. What are contracting officers required to do post-RFO that they were not required to do pre-RFO?

4. What are contracting officers prohibited from doing post-RFO that they were permitted to do pre-RFO?

I'm looking for noteworthy changes. If you can't think of responses for all four, that's fine. I'll take whatever answers you have. Please no AI-generated answers.

When conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15, they no longer need to evaluate professional employee compensation

When conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15, they must negotiate (bargain, engage in give-and-take) with all offerors in the competitive range, rather than merely conduct discussions. The word "discussions" has been dropped.

39 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

When conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15, they must negotiate (bargain, engage in give-and-take) with all offerors in the competitive range, rather than merely conduct discussions.

wow, that is great- if it actually happens!

@joel hoffman Why do you think it's great?

3 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

wow, that is great- if it actually happens!

Bargaining for better performance. I had numerous KO’s argue that it’s their Districts’ policy that if some aspect of a proposal meets the minimum technical requirements - even if it is objectionable or barely acceptable that they aren’t allowed to discuss that aspect with an offeror. They said they would have to issue a change after award to get what they want!!!

I’m certain that their supervisors from the pre- 1997 “FAR Part 15 rewrite” era never learned that bargaining for better performance was stressed in the rewrite”. So darned aggravating!!!

To clarify, these were design-build construction RFP’s.

I'm wonder what is the point of the OP's four questions. Aren't the answers available at the RFO section of Acquisition.gov? Don't the practitioner albums provide the answers?

15 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

What are contracting officers required to do post-RFO that they were not required to do pre-RFO?

Write a Determination and Findings pursuant to RFO 1.5 when soliciting from a single source for a noncommercial service or product that is valued at or below the SAT.

15 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

What are contracting officers not required to do post-RFO that they were required to do pre-RFO?

Determine only one source is "reasonably available" when restricting competition to one source for a commercial service or product at or below the SAT..

18 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

When conducting a source selection under FAR Part 15, they must negotiate (bargain, engage in give-and-take) with all offerors in the competitive range, rather than merely conduct discussions. The word "discussions" has been dropped.

What's the difference between discussions as used in the current FAR and competitive negotiations as used in the RFO?

1 hour ago, Don Mansfield said:

What's the difference between discussions as used in the current FAR and competitive negotiations as used in the RFO?

Excellent question! The current FAR says discussions are negotiations. But the RFP drops "discussions" and speaks only of negotiation.

I recently published an article and said that most 1102s have little real negotiating experience and that competitive negotiations involve very little if any bargaining. I said that I wonder what COs will do differently.

Only time will tell.

I don't think that contracting officers are required to do anything differently post-RFO when it comes to competitive negotiations. The minimum information that they must communicate hasn't changed.

@Don Mansfield

Thanks for sharing what you don't think. 😄

On 2/26/2026 at 3:57 AM, Vern Edwards said:

I'm wonder what is the point of the OP's four questions. Aren't the answers available at the RFO section of Acquisition.gov? Don't the practitioner albums provide the answers?

If the answers are readily available, I’ll take a cite.

I don’t think reading the 52 different practitioner albums will provide the answers. The RFO Strategic Acquisition Guidance (SAG) requires much more reading. Even if you read it all, it seemingly leaves much more room for various interpretations *cough, discretion*.

Has any tallied the SAG page counts and compared them the old FAR?

Oh wait, I skipped the agency deviations…we need to read all of those too. Maybe we will never able to fully answer these questions until formal rule-making is complete.

1 hour ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Maybe we will never able to fully answer these questions until formal rule-making is complete.

Exactly.

On 2/26/2026 at 6:21 AM, C Culham said:

Determine only one source is "reasonably available" when restricting competition to one source for a commercial service or product at or below the SAT..

I think you’re right. It’s even worse. Under RFO FAR 12.102(a), contracting officers must document the decision that only one source is available and the basis for the decision.

1 hour ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

If the answers are readily available, I’ll take a cite.

Ask a clear and specific question, and I'll see if I can provide a cite.

@Vern Edwards

Don asked the four questions virtually all practitioners are wondering. I’m open to answers others have curated or crowd sourcing answers to those questions. Carl offered a couple of examples.

22 minutes ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

@Vern Edwards

Don asked the four questions virtually all practitioners are wondering. I’m open to answers others have curated or crowd sourcing answers to those questions. Carl offered a couple of examples.

On 2/25/2026 at 2:23 PM, Don Mansfield said:

2. What are contracting officers not required to do post-RFO that they were required to do pre-RFO?

@Jamaal Valentine

See FAR Subpart 22.11, Professional Employee Compensation, and RFO 22.11. FAR 22.1103 provides as follows:

All professional employees shall be compensated fairly and properly. Accordingly, the contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, in solicitations for negotiated contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed $900,000 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional employees. This provision requires that offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. Plans indicating unrealistically low professional employee compensation may be assessed adversely as one of the factors considered in making an award.

The RFO deleted that requirement, FAR Subpart 22.11 is now RESERVED.

Does that satisfy your need for a cite? Need more?

See FAR 37.6, Performance-Based Acquisition, Section 37.601(b)(1) and (2) states that solicitations for services "shall include... (1) A performance work statement (PWS)" that "shall include— (2) Measurable performance standards (i.e., in terms of quality, timeliness, quantity, etc., and the method of assessing contractor performance against performance standards.

The RFO moves that coverage to 37.102-1(a)(3), which says that performance work statements must include measurable standards only to "the maximum extent practicable." In other words, not always, but only when you can.

Does that satisfy your need for a cite?

Need more? If so, READ!

You don't need "crowd sourcing." You need only one person with a brain and diligence.

1102s are supposed to be the FAR experts, the FAR know-it-alls. It's our job to STUDY and MASTER those parts of the FAR that affect the work we must do for our clients. If we don't do it, who will? And can we really expect to have mastery handed to us?

STUDY, STUDY, STUDY. I have preached that to 1102s since I first became a supervisor in the late 1970s. For professionals there are no days off. That's what is supposed to distinguish us from mere clerks.

We didn't need an RFO to make procurement faster and better. We needed to know how to do our jobs. But too many of us didn't, don't, and never will. Many of the things that made some of our processes cumbersome and slow weren't mandated by the FAR. They were just the way amateurs did their jobs.

While I agree we don’t “need” crowd sourcing, I’m a fan of Ecclesiastes 4:9.

2 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

While I agree we don’t “need” crowd sourcing, I’m a fan of Ecclesiastes 4:9.

I have never believed in study groups.

6 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

We didn't need an RFO to make procurement faster and better. We needed to know how to do our jobs.

Exactly.

@Jamaal Valentine Sticking just a minute to RFO 12 I forsee another issue with regard to the final rule making. Even with study, reading and thinking to accomplish the full grasp of what the changes are by a CO (broad term for agency acquisition folks) what about those outside of the loop. Those that have been trained, counseled, informed or whatever as to what is needed to make an acquisition happen. Consider my example offered - If it is non-commercial item at or below the SAT give me a D&F as to why only one source is reasonably available. Pursuant to the FAR something never required before now it is! I know some agencies did require the D&F but not all.

How about breaking a procurement into smaller elements to avoid statutory requirements. A no-no it seems that has been preached. Not a hard rule when it comes even the (old) FAR but now how about this interpretation in the "FAR Companion Version 2.0" (page 31) - "FC 12.201 Modular acquisition strategies. Consider breaking large, complex requirements into smaller, independently procurable components that align with how commercial markets naturally organize products and services." In truth FAR to RFO wording of 12.201 has not changed but it just struck me that the implied allowance put forth by the Companion interpretation has. But then again if I was a true practioner I would have carried this interpretation with me since day one of the FAR part 12.

Leaves me wondering again about the strategy of FAR to RFO to Deviations to Final Rule. Just give me the final new rule(s) and as noted let me read, study and apply because does it really matter about what I could not do or do in the past just let me concentrate on the here and now and future.

2 hours ago, C Culham said:

How about breaking a procurement into smaller elements to avoid statutory requirements. A no-no it seems that has been preached. Not a hard rule when it comes even the (old) FAR but now how about this interpretation in the "FAR Companion Version 2.0" (page 31) - "FC 12.201 Modular acquisition strategies. Consider breaking large, complex requirements into smaller, independently procurable components that align with how commercial markets naturally organize products and services."

FAR parts 7 and 19 permitted and even discussed dividing procurement requirements into separate solicitations suitable for award to small business concerns. RFO seems to be encouraging more reasons to consider dividing requirements. This makes sense since the general prohibitions were to prevent splitting requirements merely to avoid thresholds.

3 hours ago, C Culham said:

Just give me the final new rule(s) and as noted let me read, study and apply because does it really matter about what I could not do or do in the past just let me concentrate on the here and now and future.

The presumption is that a professional knew what they could and couldn’t do in the past so identify the differences is the point of reading and studying. Why not make that easier? Someone changed it and presumably changed it for a reason. What did they want stopped? What did they want started? Tell us that part.

Alternatively, play a game and waste taxpayer dollars forcing more than 400K federal acquisition workforce employees to individually do the same work to figure it out. How much time and money is that costing? What is the mission impact?

@Jamaal Valentine

26 minutes ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

The presumption is that a professional knew what they could and couldn’t do in the past so identify the differences is the point of reading and studying. Why not make that easier? Someone changed it and presumably changed it for a reason. What did they want stopped? What did they want started? Tell us that part.

Alternatively, play a game and waste taxpayer dollars forcing more than 400K federal acquisition workforce employees to individually do the same work to figure it out. How much time and money is that costing? What is the mission impact?

Most 1102s conduct certain types of acquisitions covered mainly by a few FAR parts, not all 53. Very few know or need to know the entire FAR. The 1102s who know their business will hot have a problem finding or recognizing the changers that affect them. The others, the PWACs, will just ask the pros.

41 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Most 1102s conduct certain types of acquisitions covered mainly by a few FAR parts, not all 53. Very few know or need to know the entire FAR.

I agree in part and disagree in part. I agree if we were talking about day-to-day operations. You learn the general content of the FAR Subchapters and master key concepts and principles. From there you tend to revisit a fewer number of parts to get something done.

The problem is getting there and this is where I disagree. With little thought, I counted more than 20 parts an ordinary commercial acquisition touches. Everything has changed so we need to read virtually everything. You can’t rely on the old construct because things have been moved. For example, things in 13 are now in 12.

My frustration changes nothing and amounts to sport b*%@ching. I’ll roll up my sleeves like everyone else and keep getting after it. That’s not to say there isn’t a better way.

@C Culham

5 hours ago, C Culham said:

Even with study, reading and thinking to accomplish the full grasp of what the changes are by a CO (broad term for agency acquisition folks) what about those outside of the loop. Those that have been trained, counseled, informed or whatever as to what is needed to make an acquisition happen. Consider my example offered - If it is non-commercial item at or below the SAT give me a D&F as to why only one source is reasonably available. Pursuant to the FAR something never required before now it is! I know some agencies did require the D&F but not all.

Currently FAR 13.106-1(b) states:

(b) Soliciting from a single source.

(1) For purchases not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. (i) Contracting officers may solicit from one source if the contracting officer determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand-name or industrial mobilization).

Emphasis added. So a determination is required.

RFO FAR 13.101 would say:

(b) Contracting officers may solicit from a single source based on a determination and findings (see subpart 1.5) that only one source is reasonably available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand-name or industrial mobilization).

Emphasis added.

RFO FAR subpart 1.5 would say:

SUBPART 1.5 - DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS 1.506

Subpart 1.5 - Determinations and Findings

1.500 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes general policies and procedures for using determinations and findings (D&Fs).

1.501 Definition.

Determination and findings (D&F) means a special form of written approval by an authorized official that is required by statute or regulation before taking certain contract actions. The determination is a conclusion or decision supported by the findings. The findings are statements of fact or reasons essential to support the determination, and must cover each requirement of the statute or regulation.

1.502 General.

(a) (1) Ordinarily a D&F applies to an individual contract action. Unless otherwise prohibited, agencies may execute class D&Fs for classes of contract actions (see 1.503). The approval granted by a D&F is restricted to the proposed contract action(s) reasonably described in that D&F. D&Fs may provide for a reasonable degree of flexibility.

(2) Unless the D&F states otherwise, reasonable variations in estimated quantities or prices are permitted.

(b) When an option is anticipated, the D&F shall state the approximate quantity to be awarded at first and the extent of the increase the option permits.

1.503 Class determinations and findings.

(a) A class D&F provides authority for a class of contract actions. A class may consist of contract actions for the same or

related supplies, services, or other contract actions that require essentially identical justification.

(b) (1) The findings in a class D&F must fully support the proposed action either for the class as a whole or for each action. A class D&F must be for a specified period, with the expiration date stated in the document.

(2) When a solicitation has been furnished to prospective offerors before the expiration date, the authority under the D&F will continue until award of the contract(s) resulting from that solicitation.

(c) The contracting officer must ensure that individual actions taken under the authority of a class D&F are within the scope of the D&F.

1.504 Content.

At a minimum, each D&F must include the following information:

(a) Identification of the agency and the contracting activity and specific identification of the document as a Determination and Findings.

(b) Nature and/or description of the action being approved.

(c) Citation to the appropriate statute and/or regulation upon which the D&F is based.

(d) Findings that detail the particular circumstances, facts, or reasoning essential to support the determination. Necessary supporting documentation shall come from appropriate requirements and technical personnel.

(e) A determination based on the findings that the proposed action is justified under the applicable statute or regulation.

(f) For class D&Fs, an expiration date.

(g) The signature of the official authorized to sign the D&F (see 1.506) and the date signed.

1.505 Replacement and modification.

(a) If a D&F is replaced by another D&F, that action will not invalidate any action taken under the original D&F before

the date of its replacement. The contracting officer is not required to cancel the solicitation if the modified D&F supports the contract action.

1.506 Signatory authority.

When a D&F is required, the appropriate official according to agency regulations must sign it. Authority to sign or delegate signature authority for the various D&Fs is shown in the applicable FAR part.

Most of that is merely descriptive and explanatory. The substantive text is in 1.504, Content. I presume that agencies generally require that such determinations be written and filed in light of the fact that (1) they can be protested (see the attachment) and that (2) the GAO typically rejects after-the-fact justifications. The new D&F requirement and content instructions seem helpful. And I would assume that contracting officers that conduct simplified acquisitions would scan Part 13 to look for changes.

Might it open the door to "one source" class determinations?

But I could find nothing in the RFO materials that explains the change.

Matter of Assessment and Training Solutions Consulting Corporation.pdf