45 minutes ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

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.

Better way? Such as... ?

For me, better would be waiting until the formal rule-making was complete. Better is not having agencies use FAR and RFO simultaneously. Better is not talking about acquisition bureaucracy and creating a so-called revolution that leaves the man in the arena similarly situated at best or even more burdened ant worst. Why not treat contracting like Other Transactions? Why not do contracting by negotiation like SAP or A-E? You want better? I don’t think there is a shortage of better ways.

Now, to be fair, I don’t know objectives or constraints of the people responsible. Maybe this is the best they could do. Only they know.

1 hour ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Now, to be fair, I don’t know objectives or constraints of the people responsible. Maybe this is the best they could do. Only they know.

Only they know?

Nonsense. A lot of people know.

The overhaulers tried to do what the president told them to do—complete an edit of the 2,000+ page FAR within 180 days after issuance of the executive order. The couldn't do it. None of the policy bureaucracy could have done it. But I think they did their best. Their mistake was making a big deal out of it. Ballyhoo is the style of all acquisition reformers.

I've been around a long time, 50+ years, and like other old timers I've lived through many acquisition "reforms". Every acquisition reform has ultimately been fruitless in terms of significant acquisition improvement. But in its time every one was declared the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Don has studied the RFO deeply, and the point of his questions was to try to show that the RFO did not really change much of substance. Like previous acquisition reforms it's mostly noise, "a disturbance, especially a random and persistent disturbance, that obscures or reduces the clarity of a signal."

Bottom line: The RFO will only increase the confusion of the hoi polloi. But it's the career opportunity of a lifetime for the smart set, the ones who know how to fill a vacuum.

For those seeking career advancement, not just a steady job, look around, size up the situation, decide what's needed, and seize the day.

OODA!

18 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

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.

Here is my view of the change.

The FAR left it to a determination, no structure, but something as you note would be in writing to document the file. As to GAO and rejecting after the fact determinations it does not look like it was an issue that needed fixing. My reference is a quick scan of GAO decisions regarding FAR 13.106-1(b) and this - https://www.wifcon.com/pd13_1061b.htm

The RFO now requires a Determination and Finding, something more prescriptive. Is doing so really more efficient and economical? Consider the discussion found elsewhere regarding bringing back 1105's. They will have a warrant up to the SAT and by experience of the days when 1105's were around the 1105's would not be left to making such a "determination" on their own. And then there is this, the example of one agency turning a "determination" into a full fleged JOFOC! https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/doing-business-with-fiscal-service/SF1009.pdf I would offer this agency is not the only one that applied FAR Part 6 prescriptions to FAR part 13.

I think the door was already open for class "determinations". Changing to "determination and findings" is a change of structure and prescription on how to do it not that it was not already allowed.

I have a concern that is based on the fact CICA does not apply to procurements equal to or under the SAT which both the FAR and now RFO validate at 6.001. Now it has been slipped in to RFO 13. The RFO now stretches to part 13 a requirement that which is common for RFO part 6 exceptions. This concern poses a question for me - Will agency's move away from JOFOC's with this change? I will not bet on what they do as they never "got it" before!

In the end the change is what it is but I personally do not view it as consistent with CICA or case law but something someone brought to the table because they think it is more efficient and economical to be prescriptive. Beyond common sense in my book!

12 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

For me, better would be waiting until the formal rule-making was complete. Better is not having agencies use FAR and RFO simultaneously. Better is not talking about acquisition bureaucracy and creating a so-called revolution that leaves the man in the arena similarly situated at best or even more burdened ant worst. Why not treat contracting like Other Transactions? Why not do contracting by negotiation like SAP or A-E? You want better? I don’t think there is a shortage of better ways.

Now, to be fair, I don’t know objectives or constraints of the people responsible. Maybe this is the best they could do. Only they know.

A strategy of waiting until rule making is done would result in delays measured in years. Then the likely result is something not much different than when revisions started. Take a look at the outstanding FAR and DFARS open cases. Some are several years old in themselves. Most even small proposed change involves large numbers of suggested revisions or flat out disagreement. Opposition comes from just about every possible segment of the public and government affected.

Since the Administration wanted something more immediate, an Executive Order was issued with a date of 180 days to complete. Contracting work is being accomplished using the RFO through deviations while rule making is ongoing. Public responses to the published FAR changes will take a very long time to review, analyze, and consider. The reality is those comments face an uphill battle for acceptance as the RFO will be firmly implemented by then.

Here are the open FAR and DFARS cases as of 2/27/2026. Note current status.

Open FAR Cases 2:27:2026.pdfOpen DFARS Cases 2:27:2026.pdf

Here is the overhaul Executive Order.

Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement – The White House.pdf

Here is the OMB overhaul guidance.

M-25-26-Overhauling-the-Federal-Acquisition-Regulation-002 (1).pdf

Nine-tenths of the acquisition workforce will not read the proposed rules or the final rules. They would wait to be told what to do by the local policy folks. I remember when the FAR was published. Same thing.

1 hour ago, C Culham said:

I have a concern that is based on the fact CICA does not apply to procurements equal to or under the SAT which both the FAR and now RFO validate at 6.001. Now it has been slipped in to RFO 13. The RFO now stretches to part 13 a requirement that which is common for RFO part 6 exceptions. This concern poses a question for me - Will agency's move away from JOFOC's with this change? I will not bet on what they do as they never "got it" before!

In the end the change is what it is but I personally do not view it as consistent with CICA or case law but something someone brought to the table because they think it is more efficient and economical to be prescriptive. Beyond common sense in my book!

@C Culham Do you believe that requiring a D&F to support a single source procurement under Part 13 somehow brings CICA and full and open competition into the simplified acquisition process?

44 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

@C Culham Do you believe that requiring a D&F to support a single source procurement under Part 13 somehow brings CICA and full and open competition into the simplified acquisition process?

Not statutoryly.

Yes regulatory and by ill-advised policy. My example. Currently a if solicitation and its processes talk like and look like FAR part 15 even though to be claimed to be otherwise by calling it a quote, GAO by case law history usually views it as a RFP. Make a single source look like a CICA exception by use of D&F, JOFOC, and possibly higher level approval its no longer a determination. It becomes as defined by the now RFO as a D&F and what agencies do beyond.

My question outside of Don's query is - What common sense has the RFO brought to Federal acquisition? Time will tell I guess.

Vern wrote: "Don has studied the RFO deeply, and the point of his questions was to try to show that the RFO did not really change much of substance. Like previous acquisition reforms it's mostly noise, "a disturbance, especially a random and persistent disturbance, that obscures or reduces the clarity of a signal."

I agree with that, although I note the RFO 12.102(a) "...only one source is available..." vice the legacy "...reasonably available..." seems significant, as does the explicit construction as a commercial service business (which I think is silly).

Jamaal commented on agencies using FAR and RFO simultaneously. That's really ridiculous and disruptive. RFO Part 12 was issued 08/14/2025 and some agencies still have not deviated. Why not?

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

A strategy of waiting until rule making is done would result in delays measured in years. Then the likely result is something not much different than when revisions started.

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

Since the Administration wanted something more immediate, an Executive Order was issued with a date of 180 days to complete. Contracting work is being accomplished using the RFO through deviations while rule making is ongoing. Public responses to the published FAR changes will take a very long time to review, analyze, and consider.

Which is better? Was there not good cause for an APA exception? Which would the warfighter prefer? Which would the taxpayer prefer?

Just now, C Culham said:

Not statutoryly.

Yes regulatory and by ill-advised policy. My example. Currently a if solicitation and its processes talk like and look like FAR part 15 even though to be claimed to be otherwise by calling it a quote, GAO by case law history usually views it as a RFP. Make a single source look like a CICA exception by use of D&F, JOFOC, and possibly higher level approval its no longer a determination. It becomes as defined by the now RFO as a D&F and what agencies do beyond.

@C Culham

Your argument does not make sense. A D&F is just a determination with specific content and format. It's not especially associated with CICA. The concept has been around since at least the late 19th century. It's just a kind of syllogism, a structured argument, which all sound determinations should be. I think it's a helpful change, especially if a determination might be challenged. A D&F makes the argument clear to lawyers who might have to judge it.

But I know better than to pursue this further with you. So thanks for your response to my question. I'm moving on.

Just now, Jamaal Valentine said:

Which is better? Was there not good cause for an APA exception? Which would the warfighter prefer? Which would the taxpayer prefer?

Oh, come on, Jamal. The warfighter couldn't care less. Neither could the taxpayer.

The RFO isn't rocket science. I'm surprised that this is coming from you.

Are you having operational problems because of the RFO? Care to be specific? Maybe someone can help.

@Vern Edwards

You’re right. I’m not being productive. It is what it is and it’s far from insurmountable. Complaining is contagious and I know better.

That's the Jamal I know. 👍

6 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

All the RFO is doing is requiring that a determination to procure from a single source have a specific content presented in a specific order. I think it's a helpful change, especially if your determination might be challenged.

But I know better than to pursue this further with you. So thanks for your response to my question. I'm moving on.

Thanks. I understand your view.

History shows as well that agencies turned a determination into a JOFOC. Time will tell if they feel compelled to make more of a D&F than there needs to be. RFO 1.5 allows them to.

And we have not even touched on the other change noted in my original comment. RFO 12.102. No D&F, not even a determination just "document". If a D&F is good standard for RFO 13 then I would think a good one for RFO 12.

I am moving on too.

Here is the article by Don Mansfield about the RFO. We apologize for the earlier attachment error.

NCR_40_3_17.pdf

22 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Which is better? Was there not good cause for an APA exception? Which would the warfighter prefer? Which would the taxpayer prefer?

FYI, APA does not apply to the FAR System. The relevant statute is 41 USC 1707.

Don is quite right.

According to the Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (1947), page 28, the act exempts:

Contracts. All rules relating to public contracts are exempt from section 4. The exemption extends to wage determinations made by the Labor Department under the Davis Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.) and the Walsh Healey Act (41 U.S.C. 35-45), as conditions to construction and procurement contracts entered into by the Federal Government. See Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U. S. 118 (1940).

Although the AG's Manual is quite old, it is still cited by the Federal Courts. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. National Institutes of Health, et. al., 770 F.Supp. 3d 277, 312, United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

6 hours ago, Don Mansfield said:

FYI, APA does not apply to the FAR System. The relevant statute is 41 USC 1707.

Thank you, @Don Mansfield . I should have asked @formerfed about a waiver under 41 U.S.C. 1707(d).

2 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

Thank you, @Don Mansfield . I should have asked @formerfed about a waiver under 41 U.S.C. 1707(d).

Still the RFO is still undergoing a public comment process and seeking public input. It’s the same long drawn out process that will take years to come to conclusion. Hard to imagine the magnitude of responses received and how long it takes to consider it all. Think of the time likely saved operating under perhaps interim rules.

21 minutes ago, formerfed said:

Still the RFO is still undergoing a public comment process and seeking public input. It’s the same long drawn out process that will take years to come to conclusion.

Well, maybe not years.But here's the thing...

The goal of the the RFO is to speed up the procurement process by cutting unnecessary rules and procedures.

But if Chiefs of Contracting Offices and COs would think things through and redesign their processes for speed they could dramatically reduce the time from acquisition planing, through solicitation and proposal evaluation. They could do that now, without waiting for the final RFO, and without violating statute or regulation.

Consider one of the most famous mottos in the history of American business, IBM's: THINK.

According to IBM: "The "Think" motto comes from a quote from our company's founder: 'All the problems of the world could be settled easily if men were only willing to think.'"

Don't wait for the RFO. Think now!

18 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Well, maybe not years.But here's the thing...

I’m betting on years. OFPP has a very small staff and I think responses from government and industry numbers in the thousands. Plus OFPP has many other things to deal with and I doubt many agencies will agree to detail employees there to help. So it all is a huge undertaking. If I’m not so old to remember when it’s all done, I’ll say I was right. 😃

1 hour ago, formerfed said:

Still the RFO is still undergoing a public comment process and seeking public input. It’s the same long drawn out process that will take years to come to conclusion. Hard to imagine the magnitude of responses received and how long it takes to consider it all. Think of the time likely saved operating under perhaps interim rules.

My question was about using an exception (and now waiver) to that process. I don’t think you answered.

9 hours ago, formerfed said:

I’m betting on years. OFPP has a very small staff and I think responses from government and industry numbers in the thousands. Plus OFPP has many other things to deal with and I doubt many agencies will agree to detail employees there to help. So it all is a huge undertaking. If I’m not so old to remember when it’s all done, I’ll say I was right. 😃

Maybe so.

10 hours ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

My question was about using an exception (and now waiver) to that process. I don’t think you answered.

I think the Administration is looking for feedback, suggestions, and new ideas. Despite issuing an EO initially to get things going, it appears they are looking for a process that continuously evolves and improves. They know industry has lots of constructive thoughts and are open to adopting those that are beneficial. They also don’t want to keep things that don’t help as well as evidenced by the four year sunset provision.

This looks like a great idea. They can quickly scan through suggestions and perhaps adopt promising ones soon

https://www.acquisition.gov/content/far-overhaul-community-crowdsourcing-campaign