100 page FAR

[formerfed]

This person has a goal

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sterlingwhitehead_100-page-far-prototype-v11-feb-16-2025-activity-7296975522381647873-NSBb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAD7kIsB-HPopONAKvt4lsUP-WTsF4c1_-E 

[joel hoffman]

What is the expected benefit and specific outcomes? Making it easier to spend more money quicker?

That’ll likely go over like a lead balloon unless the proponents can also establish that it will reduce annual expenditures…

[formerfed]

I honestly don’t know the intent of this. But I can speculate reducing the 2300 pages of FAR, 1300 pages of DFARS, and hundreds more of policies and procedures will greatly simplify and speed up the acquisition process if it’s done properly.  There’s a lot of talk right now that the Pentagon is rapidly falling behind other nations because our acquisition process for defense is severely broken.  If someone can reduce existing laws, regulations, and policies down even to a few hundred pages of guidance and train and empower the best and brightest to implement, that’s a huge step in the right direction.

Even if this exercise just brings attention to how convoluted the present system is, that’s a plus.  

[joel hoffman]

9 hours ago, formerfed said:

 …a few hundred pages of guidance and train and empower the best and brightest to implement…

I don’t think this is feasible on the scale necessary to successfully complete all required Federal acquisitions.

And my primary question is still…will this reduce overall acquisition and lifecycle costs ? The spending deficits are unsustainable. 

Edited February 18 by joel hoffman
Added “lifecycle”

[formerfed]

@joel hoffman  you are correct.  This isn’t feasible to complete all acquisitions.  From what I gathered, this model just covers off-the-shelf type commercial stuff.  100 pages is not reasonable, but nor should 2300 be.   The benefit I see is the model might get people thinking what should the FAR  ideally look like.

Some promising things are happening, especially to get weapons systems developed faster and cheaper.  The proposed Forge Act is an example  Forge Act summary here.   But for it to optimally work, the FAR process needs revised too.  All this should reduce acquisition lifecycle costs and times.

[Contracting Universe]

@formerfed  I had a chance to look at the proposed FORGED Act last week. IMO, many sections appear incompetent (e.g. 303, 305), and its stated overall goals to "streamline" come by way of dropping or relaxing the requirements aimed at cost controls, risk controls and reduction of wastefulness.

[Jamaal Valentine]

Quick thoughts for discussion and refining.

Create three civilians FARs:

   1. Simplified acquisitions

   2. Contracting by negotiation 

   3. Other acquisitions 

   Eliminate and prohibit agency supplements.

Create three defense FARs:

   1. Simplified acquisitions

   2. Contracting by negotiation 

   3. Other acquisitions 

   Eliminate and prohibit agency supplements.

Finally, “in order to ensure that maximum efficiency is obtained, rules, regulations, and policies should be promulgated only when their benefits clearly exceed the costs of their development, implementation, administration, and enforcement.” Here, a cost-benefit analysis must be made publicly available for review and comment for any action under the Administrative Procedures Act.

*I don’t care what they get called — purchasing, contracting, and acquisitions would work as three labels too 

[C Culham]

I did a quick read of the 88 pages, followed the the discussion and in doing both I wondered if in a utopia of Federal government acquisition might apply these questions....
 

Why wouldn't a rewrite that separates the FAR into 3 distinct sections emphasize commercial item procurements?  In a simple view simplified acquisitions be renamed to commercial acquisitions.  

Why wouldn't it be the perfect opportunity to change or abandon thresholds all together?  I understand most are statutory but some are truly antiquated. 

Why wouldn't it be the perfect opportunity to finally do something about prevailing wages?  Afterall one would think the catch all - comply with state and local law - would set a bar for competitive wages  considering how states and even local justisdictions have changed the wage landscape since Davis Bacon and Service Contract Act became statutes.

Why not when abandoning agency supplements, abandon agency policy too?   Beyond the ones that deal in the top secret world is there really any difference as to why how something is acquired for Army should be different than it is for USDA-NRCS?

Why not a one FAR fits all?  I understand to an extent the separation of civilian and defense but defense is the 800 pound gorilla.

 

 

[formerfed]

@C Culham Excellent thoughts

[joel hoffman]

28 minutes ago, C Culham said:

In a simple view simplified acquisitions be renamed to commercial acquisitions.  

Not all simplified acquisitions are “commercial acquisitions”.

41 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Why wouldn't it be the perfect opportunity to finally do something about prevailing wages?  Afterall one would think the catch all - comply with state and local law - would set a bar for competitive wages  considering how states and even local justisdictions have changed the wage landscape since Davis Bacon and Service Contract Act became statutes.

Good luck with the Davis Bacon arena. In fact, the current $2500 threshold since (1933 I think) is lower than the original threshold (1928 I think). Going from memory; didnt refresh my search from a few months ago. And that ridiculous threshold isn’t based upon the labor portion  of a construction acquisition. It includes the total cost, including equipment and materials and markups for indirect costs and profit…. There could be only a few labor hours involved…🤪

43 minutes ago, C Culham said:

Why not when abandoning agency supplements, abandon agency policy too? 

I don’t think that either abandonment would be practical. There are many areas where agency specific procedures and policies are unique or aren’t covered by the generic FAR. Some Examples off the top of my head are DOT/FHWA and Design-Build Construction.

There is virtually no coverage in FAR of the vastly different roles and responsibilities of the parties in Design-Build vs. Design-Bid-Build. My agency attorney at the time (1996) that D-B was first addressed in Part 36 was the Part 36 DAR Chairperson. She said that the FAR coverage for D-B was limited to specific issues at the time. Plus the Committee members didnt really have much if any understanding of the differences between government furnished design roles, responsibilities and liabilities and when the Contractor is responsible for the design. Many other distinctions too. 

[C Culham]

23 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Not all simplified acquisitions are “commercial acquisitions”.

So why?   Can you give me a an example of a acquisition that is below the current SAT or even to the current FAR 13.5 threshold that is not commercial?  I can't imagine one.

 

25 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Good luck

I know but all the same as I stated both are antiquated and states and some city's are rolling their own anyways.

 

27 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Some Examples off the top of my head are DOT/FHWA and Design-Build Construction.

Are not quality design-builds being practiced every day by other than the Federal government?    And I really wonder, based on a significant amount of experience with FWHA if the 70 or so TAR clause/provisions really add substance, one way or the other, to what is already contained in the FAR? 

 I truly do understand the arguement, remember my 40 years of experience with USACE, USDA, SBA, and HHS have made it so.   My experience (and my age) also suggests strongly to me that the world has changed in the 50 years that have transpired since the OFPP Act that started the ball rolling to create the FAR in 1984.   

Time to push the refresh button and doing so should leave nothing off the table for consideration.

[joel hoffman]

Many minor construction projects are examples of other than commercial acquisitions.

The risk allocations and legal ramifications for private, commercial, state and local construction vary widely using industry or commercial terms and conditions- which may or may not be biased toward the specific industry. The few FAR clauses specifically applicable to construction establish traditional and consistent risk allocations, and terms.

Regarding Design-build construction contracting, great, good average, mediocre and poor design-build practices and experiences abound both within and outside the government sectors.

There is considerable amount of litigation in non-government D-B contracting and post contract completion situations.

There are numerous organizations with their own model design-build contract formats and terms and conditions, which are often written to protect the interests of the organization and are sometimes conflicting or inconsistent with each other.

I was a D-B practitioner for over twenty five years with the USACE, for a couple years before that in industry and even as far back with the Air Force in 1971-1972. I taught D-B for 20 years for USACE

I was a member of the Design-Build Institute of America, until recently after full retirement, including the DBIA designation as Design-Build Professional® (DBIA®).

I taught some classes for DBIA and made presentations at National DBIA conferences. I was on a DBIA Federal Sector committee, which advocates best practices for government D-B programs and projects.

I was a member of the Program Management Team for the Military Construction (MILCON) Transformation Program for over ten years. We developed procedures and Model RFPs for performance-based and stream-lined acquisition, design-standards and execution for D-B projects for the ~ $50 billion Army Transformation Program. 

 

Edited February 19 by joel hoffman

[C Culham]

21 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Many minor construction projects are examples of other than commercial acquisitions.

 Well Joel we have debated this before.  In the past and I dare say to today there is still debate.   I simply go back and look at the long ago Anglea Styles memo of July 2003 and then fast forward to a look at SAM.gov today which suggests the reset (and I guess I will add the clarity button) needs to be pushed.

I hope the efforts of today embrace acquisition policy for reform.   Reforms like I have mentioned that are direct to your question that I believe would bring savings to acquisiton and lifecycle costs.

[joel hoffman]

2 hours ago, C Culham said:

Are not quality design-builds being practiced every day by other than the Federal government? 

My comments above concerning D-B were in response,  to explain my opinion that the FAR is seriously lacking in guidance on how to effectively execute successful D-B programs. Particularly in defining the differences between the contractual roles, responsibilities and legal distinctions of the contract parties for traditional D-B-B and D-B acquisition approaches. The FAR and most agency written policies,  procedures and practices were and still are written for traditional design-bid-build construction.

Edited February 19 by joel hoffman

[Voyager]

@joel hoffman Where does one find the best guidance on how to effectively execute successful D-B programs today?  Applicable to my workload.  Thanks.

[C Culham]

From the industry side consider the Design Build Institute of America

[joel hoffman]

7 hours ago, Voyager said:

@joel hoffman Where does one find the best guidance on how to effectively execute successful D-B programs today?  Applicable to my workload.  Thanks.

 

6 hours ago, C Culham said:

From the industry side consider the Design Build Institute of America

I agree in principle with Carl. But the DBIA has owner members too. It’s pretty balanced. However, their contract format isn’t totally formatted for Federal Government contracts with the DB clauses,  if you are a beginner.

If you would like to hire a D-B coach/consultant for any phase of the acquisition from developing design criteria, developing the RFP, source selection and how to manage/execute the contract, I can direct you to an excellent person, who I’ve known for 25 years or so. He was the chief of Contracting for the Bureau of Federal Prisons successfully using DB for new Prisons. He teaches several different DB classes and has advised government owner teams for years. He is a Fellow with the DBIA. 

I don’t know if the USACE is still conducting the lifecycle D-B Course Classes. They allow outside agencies to attend. They have condensed it  and were conducting it over the web a couple of years ago. Most of my fellow practitioners and teaching partners have retired. 

[joel hoffman]

I ran across this DBIA webpage on Federal Sector DB :

https://dbia.org/federal/

Craig Unger is the guy that I recommended to you. Unger Security Solutions. Search “Craig Unger DBIA” and you will be able see his background, contact information and several websites.

He was once the President of the DBIA. You can mention me as a reference if you write or call him  to discuss any recommended approaches or possible assistance available. 

Edited February 20 by joel hoffman

[General.Zhukov]

What are other governments (state, local, foreign, multi-national) doing?  is anyone doing it better than us in a way that we can learn from?  

The DoD is probably unique in the world.  But the rest of it isn't.  Governments everywhere do basically the same things and so have the same requirements.

As an analogy - Spain and France (among others) are vastly superior to the US when it comes to building mass transit - they do it cheaper and faster and better.  We learn a lot from comparing the US to them.  Do this, but with acquisitions.

 

 

 

[joel hoffman]

13 hours ago, General.Zhukov said:

What are other governments (state, local, foreign, multi-national) doing?  is anyone doing it better than us in a way that we can learn from?  

Do the other governments have equivalent coverage to the US FAR Part 19 Small Business and the various Small Disadvantaged Business Programs as well as all the other social program requirements? Labor program requirements?

Has everyone here ever seen the size of the US Department of Labor Headquarters in Washington DC ? It’s one of the largest.

Not saying these are all bad programs but they do affect costs and add many pages to the acquisition regulations.

Many State and local acquisition regulations serve much smaller jurisdictions,  interests, scopes and programs. Many simply reference Federal requirements that are applicable to their jurisdiction, such as OSHA safety and health, EPA, etc…

[C Culham]

Good discussion.  Just sitting here thinking that if I distilled a whisky that I did not like would I keep messing with the one I did not like (more of this or that, more time in the barrel, etc) or start the distilling process all over again?   Maybe the true path forward is forget the FAR and trying to do anything with it and just start all over again.   Wasn't that what happened 40 years ago when the FAR was codified and promulagated?  Monunmental task, abosolutely, too simple, probably but why not?

[formerfed]

The task isn’t as daunting as it seems at first blush.  It takes just a small group of experts brainstorming ideas over a few weeks to get a first cut.  The challenge is reconciling all the competing interests when they get a chance to comment.  But if whoever in charge decided to make quick yet informed decisions, we could have a new regulation in less than a year if not sooner.

The compounding problem is Congress tries to make the process many things to many people.  But the basic theme of best value and optimally supporting mission isn’t difficult to understand.

[joel hoffman]

11 hours ago, C Culham said:

Maybe the true path forward is forget the FAR and trying to do anything with it and just start all over again.   Wasn't that what happened 40 years ago when the FAR was codified and promulagated? 

Carl, not sure if you are making a connection of FAR to pre-FAR as “starting all over”. As I recall the FAR was intended to consolidate the DOD and several non-DOD acquisition regulations and to provide more uniformity,  consistency and standardization to the various acquisition processes across the government.

Much of the Defense Acquistion Regulations (DAR formerly entitled ASPR) were brought across as I recall, at least in my areas of engineering and construction contracting. Actually, the Defense Acquistion Regulations Council under the FAR Council  (DAR Council) is probably the organization that promulgated the DAR.

The Nash and Cibinic first edition of Administration of Government Contracts was published in 1981. The first edition of Formation of Government Contracts was published in 1982. The second edition of these books were published in 1985 after the FAR was effective in 1984. 

[General.Zhukov]

I am following up to my own comment about int'l comparison.  A grad school prof of mine who did some work with int'l comparative procurements thought the UK was the best in the Anglo-speaking world at this.  So here is a snippet of how they do things. 

 

The UK overhauled their procurement laws recently and its orders of magnitude more streamlined than the FAR.  Slick guide.  The 'Procurement Act' is a slim ~150 pages or so.  It has many supplemental guides and notes that are more detailed - stuff that is in the FAR.

UK a completely different legal, regulatory and market structure, obviously.  Like the way that Defense/Intel vs. Civilian contracting works is totally different, the concept of 'commercial' is there, sort of, but very different, and they don't use anything like the US list of clauses (so I've been told).  Nevertheless, it's a meaningful comparison. 

This excerpt is, to me, self-evidently better than the FAR.  

56 Technical specifications

(1)This section applies in relation to—

(a)a competitive tendering procedure; (b)an award of a public contract in accordance with a framework; (c)a process to become a member of a dynamic market.

(2)The procurement documents may not refer to design, a particular licensing model or a description of characteristics in circumstances where they could appropriately refer to performance or functional requirements.

(3)The procurement documents may not refer to a United Kingdom standard unless—...

(4)If the procurement documents refer to a United Kingdom standard, they must provide that tenders, proposals or applications that the contracting authority considers satisfy an equivalent standard from another state, territory or organization of states or territories will be treated as having satisfied the United Kingdom standard.

(5)In considering whether a standard is equivalent to a United Kingdom standard for the purposes of subsection (4), a contracting authority may have regard to the authority’s purpose in referring to the standard.

(6)A contracting authority may require certification, or other evidence, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a standard is satisfied or equivalent.

(7)Unless the contracting authority considers it necessary in order to make its requirements understood, the procurement documents may not refer to a particular—

(a)trademark, trade name, patent, design or type, (b)place of origin, or (c)producer or supplier.

(8)If the matters mentioned in subsection (7) are referred to, the procurement documents must also provide that tenders, proposals or applications demonstrating equivalent quality or performance will not be disadvantaged.

[joel hoffman]

Ah yes.  That brings back memories of my first contract negotiations class in 1981. Our instructor was a retired GS-17. He said that the UK tendering and subsequent contract requirements were essentially  a soft “starting place for discussions” (even after award). That was about 44 years ago.