My interest was piqued by a recent discussions in WIFCON and in other online media sources. So I wonder -

With the RFO defining at RFO Part 2 (2.1) Construction as a Commercial Service shall agencies subject to the RFO acquire construction using RFO Part 12 as the base standard yet incorporating appropriate and required terms and conditions from RFO Part 36? Stated another way can RFO terms and conditions from RFO Part 12 be left completely out of a solicitation/contract for construction?

I did some quick looking on SAM.gov and it appears there is a mixed bag as to what agencies are doing. Additionally even if using RFO Part 12 as the base standard what should an agency do to level RFO direction regarding terms and conditions. Example RFO 521.212-4 at paragraph (l) has a termination for convenience paragraph yet one could conclude that the clause should possibly be tailored to otherwise include with RFO 52.249-2, 3 or 4, correct? I say this pursuant to RFO Part 49.502.

In a full view it seems that while GAO has not specifically addressed such conflicts yet, GAO is voicing caution in decisions post RFO that agencies need to follow the RFO if an agency has adopted it. In other words not have conflicting RFO and FAR clauses and or processes.

Just wondering if the RFO has confused construction acquisition by calling it a service?

References -

Solicitations - 36C25226B0028, FA301026R0010, and 12445226Q0042

4 hours ago, C Culham said:

With the RFO defining at RFO Part 2 (2.1) Construction as a Commercial Service shall agencies subject to the RFO acquire construction using RFO Part 12 as the base standard yet incorporating appropriate and required terms and conditions from RFO Part 36? Stated another way can RFO terms and conditions from RFO Part 12 be left completely out of a solicitation/contract for construction?

See RFO FAR 12.204 (c):

(c) Forms and format. Agencies may use the following standard and optional forms or a similar agency form or automated format that conforms with the form to the maximum extent practicable.

(1) Issuing purchase orders. Issue purchase orders or blanket purchase agreement orders on the SF 1449 or the Optional Form (OF) 347, Order for Supplies or Services, and the OF 336, Continuation Sheet.

(2) Awarding contracts. Use the SF 1449 or the forms prescribed in part 14, 15, or 36, as applicable, when awarding contracts using the procedures in those parts. Use the Uniform Contract Format, but complete only those sections that are necessary.

Mandating use of the Uniform Contract Format is one of the best things in the RFO FAR.

I did some quick looking on SAM.gov and it appears there is a mixed bag as to what agencies are doing.

That is an understatement if ever there was one. The postings at SAM.gov reflect the utter chaos of today's contracting universe.

What you see there is shameful.

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

That is an understatement if ever there was one. The postings at SAM.gov reflect the utter chaos of today's contracting universe.

What you see there is shameful.

The chaos likely results from contract writing systems not being up to date with RFO. Few people now can prepare a solicitation or contract without technological help. They just don’t know where to go for guidance, cut and paste, or just copying so they wing it.

17 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Mandating use of the Uniform Contract Format

Agreed.

17 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

What you see there is shameful.

Narrowing back to construction as commercial services a conclusion I have reached is that the ideals FAR Part 12 and now RFO Part 12 have never been grasped. Example from one of the references.

Good - "This is a commercial construction acquisition. FAR 52.212-4 is amended as follows: (b) Inspection/Acceptance. Inspection and Acceptance will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.246-12, Inspection of Construction (Aug 1996). (d) Changes. Changes will be handled in accordance with the following FAR clause(s): ☒ FAR 52.243-4, Changes (Nov 2025)..." Yet bad in the quick view as the payments and termination for convenience paragraphs remain the same? To the former especially when this clause is in the solicitation - "452.232-71 Progress Payments for Commercial Construction Contracts (May 2026)" and the latter for not considering RFO Part 49.502.

14 hours ago, formerfed said:

The chaos likely results from contract writing systems

Agreed but maybe something more? Depending on those systems without reading the classics for understanding and thought - either FAR or the RFO.

23 hours ago, formerfed said:

Few people now can prepare a solicitation or contract without technological help.

That's as daming an assessment of the contracting workforce as I have ever read.

Why didn't the RFO gang move the duplicative coverage of the Uniform Contract Form in FAR Parts 14 and 15 and move it to FAR Part 4, where it properly belongs, and combine it with coverage of contract line items?

I asked AI about the UCF placement. It said UCF instructs on the process of preparing solicitations and contracts and belongs in part 15 as well as 14. Part 4 addresses administrative matters.

That’s similar to what three different AI tools said. I guess that answer is reasonable. In reality, I just bet the RFO group didn’t think about it.

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

I asked AI

Maybe AI did not "think" about it!

RFO subpart 4.00 "This part prescribes policies and procedures relating to the administrative aspects of contract execution, contractor-submitted documents, reporting, retention, and files."

My prompt to AI - "Does the Uniform Contract Format relate to administrative aspects of contract execution, contractor-submitted documents, reporting, retention, and files."

AI response - "Yes, the Uniform Contract Format (UCF) directly relates to the administrative aspects of contract execution, administration, and management."

I still find VE to be a trustworthy source. AI will get there if it pays more attention to VE!

I know. AI needs Vern’s input to become better. But in looking for an answer to Vern’s question earlier, here’s the complete response from Claude.

Good context — the UCF (Uniform Contract Format) is codified at FAR 15.204-1, in Part 15 (Contracting by Negotiation), not Part 4 (Administrative Matters). The reasoning behind that placement:

• FAR Part 4 covers general administrative matters — things like contract execution, distribution, paper vs. electronic contracting, unique identification numbers, taxpayer ID, records retention. It’s about how contracts are administered and processed, not how they’re structured or negotiated.

• FAR Part 15 governs the negotiated procurement process itself — solicitation, proposal evaluation, discussions, and award. The UCF is a structural template (Sections A–M) specifically for how solicitations and negotiated contracts are organized and presented to offerors, which is a substantive part of how the negotiation-based acquisition is conducted, not just an administrative housekeeping rule.

So the logic is one of subject-matter placement: the UCF isn’t a general administrative requirement that applies government-wide the way Part 4 topics do — it’s a format tied directly to the negotiated-contract process, which historically only mattered for Part 14 (sealed bidding, since folded in) and Part 15 acquisitions. Part 12 (commercial) and Part 13 (simplified acquisitions) are explicitly exempted from having to use it, which underscores that it’s a Part 15-specific structural tool rather than an administrative rule of general applicability.

36 minutes ago, formerfed said:

the complete response from Claude.

Claude is misleading or wrong here. RFO Part 12.204 Use the Uniform Contract Format, but complete only those sections that are necessary.

This is pretty much why I am leery about the LLMs, they make subtle mistakes and judgement calls.

My only opinion here is that for anything other than a simple replacement or installation of a piece of equipment or other single trade simple work, etc., the use of the UCF for construction as a commercial service purchase order or contract isn’t consistent with commercial construction contracting practice. And the order of precedence clause for UCF is inconsistent too.

The standard FAR construction clauses cover the specific orders of precedence between drawings and specs as well as other standardized aspects of the drawings and specs.

Architect and Engineering professionals use one or more standard design specifications and contract organization formats, such as AIA, ASPE, AGC, CSI, DBIA (Design-Build Institute of America) , etc. for multi-disciplinary construction projects.

The Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format covers the formats for design-build, construction specifications and for construction contract sections.

If the intent is to maximize use of commercial contracting practices, then use the professional design and construction industry formats, not the UCF and its mandatory (Dis)Order(ed) Precedence clause.

In fact, the DoD and NASA use the CSI format for the contract and technical Specifications.

On 8/26/2026 at 5:33 AM, joel hoffman said:

isn’t consistent with commercial construction contracting practice

One could argue that the UCF is not consistent with commercial contracting practice in general. But leaning way back to the FAR the intent as I understood for UCF was to have all contracts foramted in the same manner so when folks picked one up they could find stuff in the same place if they held an array of agency contracts. Federal governement contracting practice if you will.

On 8/26/2026 at 5:33 AM, joel hoffman said:

The standard FAR construction clauses cover the specific orders of precedence

Clauses are a different matter are they not? Remember FAR Part 12 allows tailoring.

On 8/26/2026 at 5:33 AM, joel hoffman said:

technical Specifications.

Again a different matter than UCF. By example consider the Federal Highway Administrations "FP-24". It would fit into the UCF in Section C, right? As could the CSI for technical specifications could they not?

On 8/26/2026 at 5:33 AM, joel hoffman said:

In fact, the DoD and NASA use the CSI format for the contract and technical Specifications.

It would seem that a full look at SAM,gov that this is not the case today, and in part the impetus of my original post - construction contracting is still confused.

Here I would simply add the following -

The previously referenced RFO 12.204 "(2) Awarding contracts. Use the SF 1449 or the forms prescribed in part 14, 15, or 36, as applicable, when awarding contracts using the procedures in those parts. Use the Uniform Contract Format, but complete only those sections that are necessary."

RFO 14-201-1 "(b) The uniform contract format is not required when contracting for— (1) Construction (see part 36);"

RFO 15.102 "(2) Exceptions. Agencies do not need to use the uniform contract format for: (i) Construction and architect-engineer contracts."

My overall conclusion with just this one "exercise". The RFO has done nothing to restore common sense to Federal procurement.

On 8/27/2026 at 9:01 AM, C Culham said:

Again a different matter than UCF. By example consider the Federal Highway Administrations "FP-24". It would fit into the UCF in Section C, right? As could the CSI for technical specifications could they not?

_________________________________

The Standard Specifications for the Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects (FP-24) was issued in 2024 replacing the FP-14. 

This is the current edition of the FP.

________________________________

Here is the Order of Precedence-uniform Contract Format (Oct 1997):

“Any inconsistency in this solicitation or contract shallbe resolved by giving precedence in the following order:

(a) The Schedule (excluding the specifications).”  [This is Part I, which includes Sections A-H, including “the description and statement of work” in Section C but excepting  “the specifications” in Section C]

“(b) Representations and other instructions.” [This is Part IV, including Sections K-L-M]

“(c) Contract clauses.” [This is Part II, Section I]

“(d) Other documents, exhibits, and attachments.” [This is Part III-List of Documents, Exhibits, and Other Attachments in Section J]

“(e) The specifications.” [This is the Specifications in Part C]

(End of clause)”______________________________

Thus, the above cited FP-24 and CSI specifications would be included in Section C in the UCF . However, they would be level (e) in the Order of Precedence.

The Section J  documents, exhibits and other attachments are level (d) in the Order of Precedence. 

Thus, construction contract Drawings, and various other items, such as references, soil borings, and “for information only” exhibits or attachments, pictures, sketches, etc. would have a higher order of precedence than the specifications.

This is in direct conflict with the FAR construction contract clauses that place the contract specifications higher priority than the Contract Drawings. Plus the contract clauses also defined other hierarchy levels of distinction in the details.

In Design-Build contracts, we would usually incorporate parts of the successful proposal, such as preliminary design features and drawings, descriptions of some important materials or equipment, site plans, proposed betterments to the minimum RFP requirements, etc

But we included the specific proviso that, if any conflicts or inconsistencies were discovered within the accepted Proposal or between the accepted Proposal or the contractors Final Design and the RFP (including amendments, if any) at contract award, then the awarded requirements (including any accepted betterments) would be the ultimate priority.

To clarify, as briefly as I can,

The basis of award in Section M would include wording to the effect that the successful proposal had to conform to all RFP requirements, as amended at award. Any deviations or other material deficiencies found in the proposal would render it unacceptable for award.

Thus, the government had the fundamental obligation to understand the RFP requirements and to reasonably review the proposal for conformance therewith.

Discussions with those competing proposers in a competitive range ( or with a single proposer if only one proposal received) must, as a minimum, advise them of any known deviations or design deficiencies (e.g., design-build), request clarification if conformance wasn’t clear. The Govt should discuss weaknesses or undesirable features of proposals found, etc. Also discuss any pricing issues.

The successful accepted proposal would have to conform with the final RFP requirements…

Sometimes, the RFP would be amended if necessary to accommodate an advantageous non-conformance or suggested revision - so that all the competing firms could compete on the same basis…

Sometimes, of course, it might not be reasonably possible for qualified reviewers to catch every non-conforming proposal aspect. The reviewers might not have enough information and weren’t required to technically review the sizing of every proposed piece of equipment such as pumps, electrical equipment, etc , at the preliminary design proposal stage.

When the problems were discovered after award, the RFP requirement at award would override the design or accepted proposal..

Ok, so this topic would take at least an hour to cover in our Corps construction contracting and Design-Build contracting classes, including the nuances, etc.

With construction now being a commercial service, can we now conclude that VETS-4212 verification is no longer required?

10 hours ago, tvak110 said:

With construction now being a commercial service, can we now conclude that VETS-4212 verification is no longer required?

I wonder how you have arrived at such a conclusion. My read of 41 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 60-300.2 suggest any contract is reportable over the stipulated threshold ( "Contract means any Government contract or subcontract.'). What do you think I am missing?

The question was about pre-award verification, not reporting. While reporting may be required in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 4212 , it seems that verification by the Contracting Officer is not required prior to award if the construction requirement is determined to be commercial services (see FAR (RFO) 22.1303).:

22.1303 Evaluation and award.

(a) Except for contracts for commercial products or commercial services, or contracts that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, contracting officers must not obligate or expend funds appropriated for the agency for a fiscal year to enter into a contract for the procurement of personal property and nonpersonal services (including construction) with a contractor that has not submitted the required annual VETS-4212, with respect to the preceding fiscal year if the contractor was subject to the reporting requirements of 38 U.S.C. 4212(d) for that fiscal year.

23 hours ago, FAR_Cited said:

The question was about pre-award verification

Thanks for clarifying and making me zoom my focus.

My thoughts.

With regard to verficiation to make award I would agree. Yet, if a solicitation anticipates a construction contract as a commercial service estimated to be $200K or more would you not have RFO Clause 52.222-35 and 52.222-37 in the solicitation? And if so it would seem the contractor would upon award be required to annually file. This said my mind then wanders to evaluation for award and what if the evaluation factors include something a contractors past performance on like contracts how far would you carry evaluation to determine if a contractor was complying with the terms of performance of past contracts such as filing the VETS form?

Probably the wrong analogy but it is like the chicken/egg thing. Required to report but not required to verify if the contractor has reported in the past if they have held a previous Federal contract....hmmm.

On 8/21/2026 at 10:46 AM, C Culham said:

Just wondering if the RFO has confused construction acquisition by calling it a service?

Construction is a service. What else would it be?

11 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Construction is a service. What else would it be?

It is a service.

. My rhetorical question was probably ill placed. The thought I was trying to relay was that up until the RFO construction seemed to be held out as an acquisition need that was was held out as its own type of acquisition not a subset of service. Yes the FAR says in different locations in Part 2 "supplies and services (including construction)" but was not as definitive as the RFO now is in Part 2 - Commercial service means -...Services, including construction,"

On 9/11/2026 at 5:12 PM, Vern Edwards said:

Construction is a service. What else would it be?

What else would it be? It would be construction.

11 hours ago, opsyscons said:

What else would it be? It would be construction.

Yes. And construction is a type of service. See the FAR definition of acquisition at 2.101:

Acquisition means the acquiring by contract with appropriated funds of supplies or services (including construction)...

See also the FAR 2.101 definition of contract:

Contract means a mutually binding legal relationship obligating the seller to furnish the supplies or services (including construction) and the buyer to pay for them.

When you hire someone to build a building, you are hiring someone to perform a service for you. The clauses in the contract reflect the special type of service you are buying and the laws and regulations that apply to that special type.

Office of Management and Budget has published 20 notices in the Federal Register over the course of many years. in which it refers to construction as a service. See, e.g., OMB, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 54 FR 12532-01, March 27, 1989. See also 89 FR 30046-01, April 22, 2024, in which it stated:

Sealed bids. This is a procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited through an invitation and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid conforms with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation and is the lowest in price. The sealed bids procurement method is preferred for procuring construction services.

The Court of Federal Claims has frequently referred to construction as a service. See, e.g., BCG Federal Corporation v. United States, United States Court of Federal Claims. August 12, 2024 172 Fed.Cl. 543, August 12, 2024 172 Fed.Cl. 543:

From the outset, GSA defined its need for “a single GSA Services Marketplace,” that covered all commonly procured services. The categories of services included facilities and construction, professional, information technology, medical, human capital, transportation and logistics, industrial, travel, security and protection, and office management.

Yes and sealed bidding is still widely used in state and municipal contracting for construction and some other acquisitions, such as for standardized supplies and commodities. I remember bids for trucks and cars with standardized requirements. Other services such as painting buildings, tuck pointing and patching brick buildings, etc.