A search for "procurement reform" in the Heinonline database yielded 4,501 results.

A search for "acquisition reform" yielded 6,846.

Have such reforms ever produced anything other than churn, complexity, and confusion?

Have they ever made government contracting more successful? Simpler? Easier? Faster?

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

Have they ever made government contracting more successful? Simpler? Easier? Faster?

I quickly came up with a dozen examples but can’t say any were truly successful. It seems like whenever anything new or different is introduced, we try to make it fit within the established scheme of the way we currently do business and/or what we are comfortable with. That quickly negates any possible benefits. A large share of the workforce just doesn’t like or want change. But even when a few want to adopt an idea, they get pushback from management, policy, oversight, existing procedures, etc.

6 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Have such reforms ever produced anything other than churn, complexity, and confusion?

6 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Have they ever made government contracting more successful? Simpler? Easier? Faster?

In my lifetime the part of FASA regarding commercial item was a success. In my view churn while it existed was not great, complexity moderate (the definition part) as well as confusion in applying was moderate.

I would rate the reform when codified into the FAR as successful, simpler, easier and faster.

I personally liked the FAR Part 15 rewrite of 1996/1997. it helped me learn to bargain for better performance, especially when a proposal met the minimum performance requirements but contained features that we and our client organization didn’t care for.

formerfed hit the nail on the head when saying that (many) legacy management and Contracting workforce practitioners just didn’t get it.

I’d get arguments from KO’s in other Districts on site visits and in teaching Design-Build construction that we essentially couldn’t discuss anything with an offeror that met the minimum requirements but was less than desired- that it was “technical leveling”.

Even after I told them that the Rewrite eliminated reference to technical leveling and encouraged bargaining, they’d say that was the way their organization operates and that they would have to issue changes to improve the designs or material selections…. The old forces passed on the old ways and methods to the new forces. “That’s the way we’ve always done it”.

And I’ve seen time after time when KO’s and their negotiating team didn’t have a clue how to determine why prices were higher than the budget. They couldn’t find a way to modify the RFP to eliminate or reduce contingencies or otherwise negotiate prices with offerors in competitively negotiated acquisitions.

They would usually simply go back for additional funding.

I joke (?) that productive reform will only come once we enter another World War. Frenzies of letter contracts, emergency acquisitions, etc. Freedom's Forge, Part II. But it'll be temporary. Lawmakers and lawyers will eventually bring us back to business as usual.

What do you think of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984?

Is "full and open" competition a sound policy? Is it better than, say, three chosen competitors?

10 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

What do you think of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984?

Is "full and open" competition a sound policy? Is it better than, say, three chosen competitors?

I would classify CICA as a failure in 2026. It seems to follow an axiom (competition will increase value) that, 40+ years later, hasn't aged well. Protest law is an absolute killer. Plus, I would argue the pace of technology, especially among our adversaries, keeps us fighting with one arm tied behind our back. It's a statute borne out of a very different time.

Yes, speed isn't always a good thing. And yes, we don't want a corrupt process. However, I'd rather see fast failures and rapid iteration that keep us ahead of our adversaries.

Let's stop overthinking it. Mimic the commercial marketplace.

10 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

What do you think of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984?

Wow, this made me think. In the context of the original post and its two questions as applied to the above question I had to go back and look at where I was in my career as an 1102 when CICA came into play.

Fragmented memory of "back then" but I do think CICA did produce chaos, churn and confusion in the beginning but in time it's mandates became a part of the process. I do not think it made things simplier, faster, easier, As to success the adage "in the eye of the beholder" comes in to play. For those contractors that complained about an inability to participate in the Federal sector, yes. For those within the Federal bureacracy having to get things done in a timely manner, no. As a catalyst that promoted quality and cost-effectiveness these views were and are still debateable to this day.

11 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Is "full and open" competition a sound policy? Is it better than, say, three chosen competitors?

Full and open is not as it doesnot achieve timely, cost effective effort. A bureaucratic quagmire. This is evident in all kinds of ways. As to producing quality results I have not seen where there is overwhelmning evidence that the CICA in and of itself has. I believe any quality gains came not only with possible CICA advantages but with inroads in depending on the commercial marketplace's own efforts.

As the argument goes if say the three chosen are similiar to that of the current Brooks Act process, which works, why would it not work for other procurements as well.

Interesting initial question, but responses seem mostly anecdotal.

How would one begin to formulate a data driven/quantitative response?

Shorter Procurement Acquisition Lead Times (PALTs) for same/similar items, lower prices, fewer protests?

Maybe a problem with all the reform is the inability to set the questions and the corresponding measurements of success properly (What problem are we trying to fix and how will we know we're successful?) before moving into action.

We all want "Better/Faster/Smarter", but what does it look like and how do I know when I see it?

39 minutes ago, Mike Twardoski said:

Let's stop overthinking it. Mimic the commercial marketplace.

I like that. But is it possible?

Congress launched the modern era of government procurement with the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 (actually enacted in 1948).

Since then Congress has been perennially dissatisfied with the conduct of procurement. We've had commissions, panels, studies, reports, statutory reform, regulatory reform, and regulatory revision, all of which bring have brought uncertainty, doubt, confusion, hesitation, scandal, and litigation.

TINA, CICA, FASA, FARA... just to name the ones with a big impact.

According to Federal News Network, more procurement legislation is pending before Congress, including:

• FIT Procurement Act (H.R. 4123)

• Value Over Cost Act (H.R. 1118 / S. 2118)

• Stop Secret Spending Act of 2025 (H.R. 2069)

• FY27 National Defense Authorization Act

• Ensuring Federal Purchasing Efficiency Act (H.R. 7283)

• Contract Our Veterans Act of 2026 (H.R. 7534)

The general consensus among critics is that acquisition/procurement/contracting reform consistently failed.

Want to understand the state of procurement today? Just spend a couple of hours perusing SAM.gov contracting opportunities.

Chaos.

What's wrong?

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I like that. But is it possible?

Immediately? No, barring a catastrophe. Long run, in times of peace? Yes. I think SpaceX was the first major non-traditional to show what's possible. More Andurils and Palantirs have helped. The flow of VC toward these companies is shifting the landscape, albeit incrementally. Industry needs more demand signals. Munitions acceleration efforts are an interesting development. The momentum toward speed and incentives is there. My fear is whether this evolving architecture is durable enough to withstand failures, and whether those failures force a regression to more risk-averse, check-the-box procurement.

9 hours ago, LifeLongLearner said:

We all want "Better/Faster/Smarter", but what does it look like and how do I know when I see it?

This statement brings Performance Based Service Acquisition up in my mind. A reform driven by three statutory edicts as I understand - Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Federal Acquisition Streamling Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001. It might be the poster child for (non)measurement of success via a data driven/quantative analysis.

Go to Google Scholar and search for:

<federal procurement reform AND failure>

An interesting point is the first three sources shown on the Google search are dated two decades ago. Very little has changed since then. If anyone is interested, the first article written by Steve Schooner is available at no cost online in case you don’t have a subscription to the shown reference.

Almost everyone agrees the current contracting system isn’t working well. CICA is over forty years old, outdated, doesn’t reflect the current marketplace and best methods to acquire technology, and the way most organizations outside the government purchase. But the reality is we have the current system with legislative history, and it’s unlikely Congress would permit major revamping at least in the near term. It’s going to take a long time and a lot of work to convince an Administration and Congress that a substantial overhaul is needed.

In addition, there are many influential organizations that like the status quo. These include large defense and other contractors who are receiving the big contracts, small business constituency groups, legal offices that specialize in contracting, and even employee unions. All this means there’s more resistance to changes than on the surface.

Back to Vern’s question on whether full and open competition is sound policy - one of the founders of the company I worked for used to say “the government believes 40 proposals are ten times better than 4.”

16 hours ago, formerfed said:

It’s going to take a long time and a lot of work to convince an Administration and Congress that a substantial overhaul is needed.

The U.S. Congress and Executive Branch, such as they are today, are not capable of producing a substantial and effective overhaul of the acquisition/ procurement/ contracting system and process. The statutory and regulatory history of procurement since enactment of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 proves that.

I asked AI "Are the U.S. Congress and Executive branch, such as they are today, capable of producing substantial and effective reform of the Federal procurement system and process?" Here is the answer I got:

The capacity of the U.S. Congress and the Executive branch to produce substantial and effective procurement reform is severely constrained by systemic political polarization, deeply entrenched bureaucratic inertia, and a risk-averse institutional culture, though incremental progress remains possible through targeted legislative vehicles.

In short: No.

Heck, they cannot even produce an annual appropriation without causing a system-wide breakdown.

I'm curious about the thoughts of those who've witnessed previous reforms: what aspects of the current form make you either more optimistic, or more pessimistic, about the future of federal procurement?

3 hours ago, Mike Twardoski said:

[W]hat aspects of the current form make you either more optimistic, or more pessimistic, about the future of federal procurement?

I am pessimistic, because changes in laws and regulations are not enough.

Much of what hampers in procurement is attributable to workforce behavior rather than rules. Smart people can work around dumb rules. What we need is to (1) restructure the system and then (2) properly educate and train the workforce, and I don't think either of those things is going to happen. Even they did, it would take years to have an effect. The problems are inherent in the natures of our politics and government, and those natures are not going to change any time soon if ever. Incompetence is obvious and widespread. To see it, spend a few hours at SAM.gov looking at contracting opportunities with a critical eye.

But what could happen is that individuals in the system would work devotedly to pursue and achieve mastery in their field. Then they could lead the way by example through small incremental achievements and improvements. That's the best that we can realistically hope for.

Much of reform efforts start out with good intent. But they never reach their potential for a large number of reasons, one being implementation by practitioners and associated lack of training. A great example is use of simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items. But if you look at many solicitations supposedly using simplified procedures, it’s often hard to distinguish it from a FAR 15 procurement. I assume either they don’t know how to do it properly or just reverting to something they know or can copy from another action.

I appreciate the perspectives, @Vern Edwards @formerfed . As a relative newcomer to the environment (less than 10 years), I'm trying to gauge whether we truly are set up for success this time around.

Re-reading you thoughts, my mind wanders towards Accelerate: Building Strategic Agility for a Faster-Moving World by John Kotter. A wonderful book for anyone interested in how large organizations (even governments) can/have leveraged transformation efforts to respond to external forces. Not saying the advice and insights combine to form a silver bullet, but food for thought, nonetheless.

@Mike Twardoski I ran across this article by Steve Kelman. While it doesn’t address your issue of whether we are set up for success this time, it provides good insight of what transpired over the last three decades.

https://www.publicspendforum.net/blogs/steven-kelman/2017/12/06/reinventing-government-public-procurement/

I find it interesting that, according to a Adobe Reader search, Kelman mentions "workforce" only six times and only in terms of its size. He makes no mention of workforce in terms of education, training, quality, and mangement. In my opinion, workforce quality and management have been the biggest problems in procurement. A bigger problem than rules.

The rules are a problem, yes, but a much bigger problem is the manner in which they are implemented. If source selection takes too long, it's primarily because of the way it's being done, not the rules that govern its conduct.

But Kelman did not have authority over workforce quality and management, and I don't recall that he made education, training, and CO appointment issues to be addressed.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

The rules are a problem, yes, but a much bigger problem is the manner in which they are implemented. If source selection takes too long, it's primarily because of the way it's being done, not the rules that govern its conduct.

So true.

On 8/2/2026 at 12:57 PM, Vern Edwards said:

But Kelman did not have authority over workforce quality and management, and I don't recall that he made education, training, and CO appointment issues to be addressed.

While now rescinded and supposedly enhanced OFPP Policy Letter 97-01 was issued by Kelman. Having experienced the era of its release and the evolution to OFPP Policy Memo 05-01 your expressed view regarding source selection seems to apply. Workforce quality and management has not been successful because "its primarily because of the way it's being done, not the rules that govern its conduct."

19 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Workforce quality and management has not been successful because "its primarily because of the way it's being done, not the rules that govern its conduct."

On 8/2/2026 at 2:57 PM, Vern Edwards said:

In my opinion, workforce quality and management have been the biggest problems in procurement. A bigger problem than rules.

The rules are a problem, yes, but a much bigger problem is the manner in which they are implemented. If source selection takes too long, it's primarily because of the way it's being done, not the rules that govern its conduct.

I agree with both of you, in principle.

For source selections, I didn’t have a problem with any of the ones that I conducted or most that I participated in after the FAR Part 15 Rewrite.

However, on some of those that I participated in with other USACE Districts or observed problems with other Districts’ finished projects, I found that those organizations weren’t able to negotiate to obtain better technical and/or pricing.

Those problems weren’t due to the FAR. They often didn’t understand that they could bargain. They also simply didn’t know how to evaluate pricing or find out what caused high pricing - problems with our requirements? Contingencies?, etc. Some had no clue how to negotiate mutually acceptable solutions. As a result, they either simply asked for more funds to award and/or resorted to correcting undesirable aspects of proposals (e.g., design-build) by change order. Some didn’t use available technical or pricing resources during discussions. The problems were systematic and widespread.