Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Federal Acquisition Regulation

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the primary set of rules governing the of supplies and services by agencies of the federal government using appropriated funds. Codified in Title 48 of the , Chapter 1, it establishes uniform policies and procedures to ensure consistency across agencies in acquiring . Effective , 1984, the FAR originated from efforts to consolidate and standardize fragmented procurement regulations following the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act Amendments of 1979. Administered by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council)—comprising senior procurement executives from the Department of Defense, , and National Aeronautics and Space Administration—the FAR addresses all phases of the acquisition lifecycle, from planning and solicitation to contract administration and termination. Its core objectives include fostering full and open competition, maximizing the use of commercial products and services, and maintaining the integrity of the federal procurement process while minimizing administrative burdens. Agency-specific supplements, such as the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), build upon the FAR to address unique mission requirements without supplanting its foundational principles. Despite its intent to streamline government purchasing, the FAR has faced for its expansive length—spanning over 2,000 pages—and complexity, which can impede and in contracting. Ongoing initiatives, including a comprehensive overhaul initiated under to simplify language and reduce regulatory burdens, reflect persistent efforts to address these issues and restore practicality to practices. The (GAO) frequently examines FAR implementation, highlighting areas of noncompliance and opportunities for reform to curb wasteful spending and enhance accountability.

Purpose and Applicability

Core Objectives

The core objectives of the (FAR) are articulated in its guiding principles, which establish a vision for the Federal Acquisition System to deliver the best value product or service to the customer on a timely basis, while upholding public trust and advancing public policy goals. This vision emphasizes collaborative teamwork among acquisition participants, empowering them to make decisions within their responsibilities to achieve efficient outcomes. The system's policy directives further specify five primary objectives: (1) satisfying customer needs with respect to cost, quality, and delivery timeliness; (2) minimizing administrative operating costs; (3) conducting business with integrity, fairness, and openness; (4) fulfilling objectives; and (5) promoting while fostering , particularly among small, small disadvantaged, women-owned, veteran-owned, HUBZone, and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses to ensure full and open competition. These objectives integrate statutory mandates, such as those from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, to standardize acquisition practices across executive agencies. In practice, these principles guide the balance between achieving mission requirements and controlling expenditures, with an emphasis on leveraging practices where feasible to reduce government-specific burdens. For instance, the promotion of aims to drive down costs and innovate solutions, supported by requirements for advance planning and to identify capable suppliers. Public policy fulfillment includes socioeconomic programs, but these must align with the overriding goal of best value without compromising efficiency or fairness.

Scope of Coverage

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) applies to all acquisitions conducted by agencies of the federal government, serving as the uniform set of policies and procedures for such activities. It governs the process of acquiring supplies, services, and using appropriated funds through contracts, whether by purchase or lease. This applicability is established under FAR 1.104, which states that the FAR covers all acquisitions as defined in FAR Part 2, except where expressly excluded within the regulation. The term "acquisition" is precisely defined in FAR 2.101 as "the acquiring by with appropriated funds of supplies or services (including ) by and for the use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease, whether the supplies or services are already in existence or must be created, developed, demonstrated, and evaluated." This excludes the manufacture of facilities or the of supplies or services manufactured in substantial quantities for sale to the general public, emphasizing government-specific rather than commercial for broad markets. The FAR thus encompasses a wide range of needs, from routine to complex contracts, but only insofar as they involve contractual commitments with external parties using taxpayer-funded appropriations. The FAR does not extend to the legislative or judicial branches of the federal government, which operate under separate authorities, nor does it apply to non-appropriated fund instruments such as , loans, or agreements classified as financial assistance rather than procurement. While executive agencies must adhere to the FAR as the baseline, agency-specific (e.g., Federal Acquisition Regulation for the Department of ) may tailor its application, and certain provisions include targeted exclusions, such as exemptions for micro-purchases or specific commercial item acquisitions from particular statutory requirements. These limitations ensure the FAR focuses on standardizing executive branch contracting while allowing flexibility for unique operational contexts.

Exclusions and Limitations

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) governs acquisitions by executive branch agencies using appropriated funds, as defined in FAR 2.101 to encompass the process of obtaining supplies, services, or through purchase or for use. However, its applicability is limited under FAR 1.104 to such acquisitions except where expressly excluded by or regulation. Primary exclusions encompass procurements by non-executive branches, including the legislative branch (e.g., congressional offices and the ) and judicial branch entities (e.g., federal courts), which rely on distinct statutory authorities rather than the FAR system. Certain executive agencies also operate outside the FAR due to congressional exemptions, notably the (FAA), authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 40110 to develop its own acquisition policies tailored to and efficiency needs, and the (USPS), governed by 39 U.S.C. § 410 for a specialized system accommodating postal operations. Similar exemptions apply to other entities like the and , where statutory frameworks prioritize operational autonomy over uniform rules. The FAR further excludes non-acquisition instruments such as , cooperative agreements, and loans, which constitute federal assistance under the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 (41 U.S.C. §§ 6301–6308) and are regulated instead by Title 2 of the , emphasizing recipient performance over government control. Other transaction agreements (OTAs), enabled by authorities like 10 U.S.C. § 4021 for Department of Defense prototyping and production or 41 U.S.C. § 3902 for civilian agencies, bypass FAR requirements to foster innovation, particularly for research, development, and rapid deployment, as these are not deemed "acquisitions" under traditional contracting definitions. Additional limitations arise in contexts like interagency transactions under the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. § 1535) that fail to culminate in a reimbursable or , rendering FAR provisions inapplicable. Acquisitions funded by non-appropriated funds, such as those for programs, or procurements by wholly owned government corporations (e.g., under 49 U.S.C. § 24301), similarly evade FAR oversight due to alternative funding and governance structures. leaseholds generally fall outside the FAR unless agencies explicitly incorporate its clauses via supplements or policy, as affirmed in guidance from entities like the of . These exclusions reflect statutory intent to balance uniformity with specialized needs, though they necessitate case-specific verification to avoid erroneous application.

Historical Development

Origins in Early U.S. Procurement

The procurement of supplies for the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War represented the initial organized efforts at federal-style acquisition in the American context. The Second Continental Congress, lacking a centralized executive, relied on standing committees such as the Board of War and Ordnance to negotiate contracts for arms, provisions, and equipment, often through private agents or direct purchases from merchants. Competitive elements were introduced early; on June 16, 1775, Congress established the role of Quartermaster General to oversee logistics, followed by appointments of a Quartermaster General and Commissary General on August 14, 1775, for procurement duties. Resolutions in 1775 and 1777 mandated advertising for proposals on rations, beer, vegetables, and other army needs, marking the first use of public solicitation to encourage bidding and mitigate favoritism. Following the of the U.S. Constitution in 1788, transitioned to a federal framework under the new government. The establishment of the of the in 1789 and the of War facilitated contracts for military subsistence and equipment, with initial practices emphasizing direct negotiation but incorporating public notices for certain services like mail delivery under the Act of February 20, 1792. A pivotal , enacted in 1792, authorized the to conduct all purchases for the War via contract, centralizing authority and prohibiting open-market buys exceeding specified limits without approval; this represented the earliest comprehensive federal regulation. To further streamline operations, created the Office of the Purveyor of Public Supplies within the on February 23, 1795, appointing Tench Francis Jr. as the first holder to manage of military and naval stores, including inspection and accountability measures. Early 19th-century laws reinforced competitive principles amid growing needs. The Act of March 3, 1809, required executive departments to either make open-market purchases or advertise for sealed proposals on supplies, , and items, explicitly to avoid partiality and ensure value. Public advertisement of bids and awards to the lowest responsible bidder became standard, as seen in routine War Department practices. The office of Purveyor was abolished in March 1812 during preparations for the , shifting to departmental autonomy, but these foundations—centralized oversight, mandatory , and anti-fraud provisions—addressed recurring issues like supply shortages and , setting precedents for later codified systems.

Post-WWII Evolution and Federal Procurement Regulations

Following , the U.S. federal government sought to standardize practices amid the transition to peacetime operations and the onset of military needs. The Armed Services Act of 1947, enacted on October 31, 1947, facilitated efficient for the Departments of the , , and by authorizing both formal advertising and negotiated contracts, while promoting participation. This legislation led to the issuance of the Armed Services Regulations (ASPR) in 1948, which provided uniform rules for defense acquisitions and remained in effect until 1978. For civilian agencies, the First (1947-1949) recommended consolidating administrative functions to reduce duplication, influencing the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, signed on June 30, 1949. This act established the General Services Administration (GSA) to oversee property management and , aiming for economy and efficiency in civilian supply and service acquisitions. Under GSA authority, the Federal Procurement Regulations (FPR) were developed, with a comprehensive codification and republication occurring in 1964 to mirror the structure of the ASPR and ensure government-wide uniformity for non-defense procurements. By the 1970s, the parallel systems of ASPR (renamed Defense Acquisition Regulation or DAR in 1978) and FPR, supplemented by agency-specific rules, resulted in a fragmented and voluminous regulatory framework exceeding 7,000 pages, complicating compliance and administration. The Commission on Government Procurement, established in 1969, highlighted these inefficiencies in its 1972 report, advocating for streamlined, unified regulations to enhance competition, oversight, and cost-effectiveness across federal acquisitions. This critique underscored the need for broader reform, setting the stage for subsequent codification efforts while reflecting ongoing tensions between standardization and agency flexibility in post-war procurement evolution.

Creation and Initial Codification of the FAR in 1984

Prior to the establishment of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), U.S. government procurement was governed by disparate sets of rules, primarily the Federal Procurement Regulations (FPR) applicable to civilian agencies and the Defense Acquisition Regulation (DAR) for the Department of Defense (DoD) and its components. These separate systems resulted in inconsistencies and inefficiencies across executive agencies. The push for unification began with the creation of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in 1974, tasked with centralizing government-wide procurement oversight. This effort culminated in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act Amendments of 1979 (P.L. 96-83), which directed the OFPP, within the Office of Management and Budget, to develop and issue a single regulation consolidating procurement policies, procedures, and clauses. Development of the FAR involved coordination among key agencies, including the , General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), under OFPP leadership. The regulation was formally issued in 1983 and became effective on April 1, 1984, superseding the FPR and DAR. Initial codification occurred in Title 48, Chapter 1 of the , establishing a uniform framework for acquisitions of supplies and services using appropriated funds. The FAR's promulgation was detailed in the on March 30, 1984, marking the obsolescence of prior civilian agency implementations like the FPR. This consolidation aimed to streamline processes, reduce redundancy, and promote consistency in federal contracting practices.

Major Amendments Through the 1990s and 2000s

The of 1994 represented a pivotal legislative effort to simplify federal procurement processes, reducing the regulatory complexity that had accumulated since the FAR's 1984 codification. Enacted on October 13, 1994, FASA raised the simplified acquisition threshold from $25,000 to $100,000, enabling expedited procedures for lower-value purchases without full competition requirements in many cases. It also established a preference for items, leading to the creation of FAR Part 12, which streamlined acquisition rules for such products by minimizing government-unique specifications and certifications. These changes were implemented through Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 90-26, effective June 12, 1995, which excised redundant provisions and emphasized performance-based contracting to align federal buys with private-sector practices. Building on FASA's momentum, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995, incorporated into the for 1996, further targeted acquisition workforce development and past performance evaluations in source selection. This act mandated training standards and directed the FAR to incorporate contractor performance history as a key factor, aiming to reward efficient performers and deter underperformance. Subsequent FACs, such as 90-32 in 1996, integrated these elements, promoting a shift from prescriptive rules to outcome-oriented criteria. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, also part of the FY1996 NDAA and signed on February 10, 1996, focused on acquisitions, requiring agencies to adopt capital planning and investment control processes integrated with . It authorized simplified FAR procedures for IT buys up to $5 million, encouraged modular contracting to manage risks in large systems, and added provisions for two-phase design-build selection under FAR Part 36 to accelerate project delivery. FAC 90-45, issued in 1998, enacted these IT-specific amendments, reflecting congressional intent to curb cost overruns in IT projects, which had historically exceeded budgets by wide margins due to inflexible acquisition structures. In the 2000s, FAR amendments shifted toward refinement and adaptation to emerging needs rather than wholesale restructuring, with key updates addressing electronic commerce, services acquisition, and contingency operations. The E-Government Act of 2002, effective December 17, 2002, prompted revisions to FAR Parts 39 and 40, mandating privacy impact assessments and interoperability standards for IT systems, while promoting shared services to reduce duplication. FAC 97-20 in 2000 and subsequent circulars facilitated e-procurement mandates, such as electronic signatures and invoicing, aligning with broader digital transformation goals. Further amendments in the mid-2000s emphasized performance-based services acquisition, with FAC 2005-08 in 2005 revising FAR Part 37 to prioritize measurable outcomes over inputs, responding to GAO critiques of escalating service contract costs, which had grown to over $200 billion annually by 2005. Post-9/11 exigencies led to 2007-2009 updates via the John Warner NDAA and subsequent FACs, enhancing flexibility for urgent needs under FAR Part 18, including streamlined sole-source justifications for homeland security items up to $750,000. These changes, while incremental, addressed real-world causal factors like wartime demands and technological evolution, without reversing prior streamlining gains.

Structural Organization

General Provisions (Parts 1-4)

The General Provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), comprising Parts 1 through 4, form the foundational framework for the U.S. federal government's acquisition processes. These parts establish the system's purpose, terminology, ethical guidelines, and administrative protocols, ensuring uniformity across executive agencies in procuring supplies and services with appropriated funds. Issued jointly by the Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and , the FAR codifies policies to promote fair, efficient, and effective acquisitions while minimizing administrative burdens. Part 1 delineates the Federal Acquisition Regulations System, including its purpose to set basic acquisition policies, authority derived from and statutes, issuance procedures, and administration by designated officials. It emphasizes guiding principles such as delivering best value products or services on a timely basis, satisfying user needs, minimizing administrative costs, and fostering open competition among qualified contractors. The part also covers deviations from the FAR, which require approval based on specific criteria to maintain system integrity. Part 2 defines words and terms used frequently in the FAR, providing clarity and consistency in interpretation. It includes cross-references to definitions elsewhere in the regulation and mandates incorporation of applicable definitions into solicitations and contracts by reference. Key terms encompass concepts like "acquisition," "contract," and "offeror," with definitions tailored to federal procurement contexts to avoid ambiguity in application. Part 3 prescribes policies and procedures to prevent improper business practices and personal conflicts of , with a core directive to avoid any actual or apparent conflicts in government-contractor interactions. Subparts address gratuities to government personnel, arrangements that incentivize improper influence, subcontractor kickbacks, and restrictions on former government officials' involvement in related matters. Contracting officers must report suspected violations and ensure compliance through clauses in solicitations and awards. Part 4 governs administrative and matters, including execution requirements, distribution of documents, and safeguards for sensitive data. It mandates , electronic signatures where applicable, and protections against unauthorized of -related . The part also promotes paperwork reduction and specifies procedures for modifications and closeouts to streamline administrative processes.

Acquisition Planning and Planning Processes (Parts 5-12)

Subchapter B of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), encompassing Parts 5 through 12, prescribes policies and procedures for publicizing opportunities, ensuring competition, conducting , identifying sources, qualifying contractors, performing , describing needs, and acquiring commercial products and services. These parts promote full and open competition under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 while allowing tailored approaches for efficiency and agency requirements. Acquisition planning under these provisions begins with need identification and integrates market insights to minimize risks, favor commercial solutions, and align with budgetary constraints, with recent revisions emphasizing flexibility over prescriptive checklists. Part 5: Publicizing Contract Actions requires agencies to publicize contract opportunities and awards via the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE), such as SAM.gov, to increase , assist small businesses, and broaden participation. Synopses must be posted for proposed contracts exceeding the (generally $250,000 as of 2023 updates), at least 15 days before solicitation release for non-commercial items, with exceptions for urgent or classified actions. Key provisions include presolicitation notices for complex requirements and post-award announcements for contracts over $7 million (or $6.5 million for ), ensuring transparency while streamlining for commercial acquisitions under recent FAR overhauls. Failure to publicize can limit unless justified under Part 6 exceptions. Part 6: Competition Requirements mandates full and open competition for all acquisitions unless one of seven statutory exceptions applies, such as single-source justification, unusual and compelling urgency, or needs, as required by the Competition in Contracting Act. Agencies must document justifications for non-competitive actions, including supporting the exception, and promote competition through adequate publicizing under Part 5. Recent 2025 revisions streamline the part by reorganizing content, removing non-statutory provisions, and clarifying socioeconomic set-asides as compatible with full competition where statutorily permitted, without altering core CICA requirements. Part 7: Acquisition Planning directs agencies to develop written plans for acquisitions above the simplified threshold, starting as soon as needs are identified, ideally before the of award. Plans must evaluate versus government resources, select appropriate types (preferring fixed-price), assess risks, and integrate with milestones, with thresholds triggering formal plans at $14 million for R&D or $6.5 million otherwise (adjusted periodically). Key elements include considering leasing over purchase for assets with short lifespans, bundling analysis to avoid reducing opportunities, and multidisciplinary team involvement; 2025 updates reduce rigid formats in favor of outcome-focused strategies. Part 8: Required Sources of Supplies and Services establishes priorities for sourcing, mandating use of government assets like excess inventories, (UNICOR), and the AbilityOne Program before commercial markets or Federal Supply Schedules. For repetitive needs, agencies order from GSA Schedules or establish Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs), with fair pricing verified via commercial practices; , civilian, and activities follow descending priorities to ensure economical use of mandatory sources. Recent changes reinforce required use of governmentwide BPAs for commercial items when applicable, streamlining ordering procedures. Part 9: Contractor Qualifications evaluates prospective contractors for responsibility, requiring adequate financial resources, technical capability, performance history, , and compliance with laws, with nonresponsible determinations documented in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). Subpart 9.1 covers general standards, while 9.2 addresses qualification requirements like Qualified Products Lists (QPLs) for critical items needing pre-award testing, and 9.4 handles debarment for causes like or poor performance, typically for three years. First article testing under 9.3 verifies production capability before full commitment. Updates in 2025 streamline subparts for clarity without changing core responsibility criteria. Part 10: Market Research requires research before developing requirements or solicitations to identify commercial availability, suitable approaches, and innovative solutions, using techniques like industry contacts, trade publications, and databases tailored to acquisition complexity. For acquisitions over the simplified threshold, research informs whether commercial items meet needs and supports competition strategies; it must be documented but not overly burdensome for small buys. 2025 overhauls expand flexibility in methods, emphasizing outcomes over prescriptive steps to adapt to commercial practices. Part 11: Describing Needs mandates describing requirements in terms of function, performance, and essential physical characteristics, prioritizing item descriptions, voluntary standards (e.g., ASTM), and industry specifications over government-unique ones to avoid undue restrictions. must justify brand-name specifications, incorporate sustainable acquisition per Executive Order 14008, and follow an : specs last after and federal standards. For items like printing paper, 100% post-consumer fiber is required unless exempted. Recent revisions align with focus, mandating procurement of where feasible. Part 12: Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services streamlines procedures for items sold in substantial commercial quantities, applying tailored clauses from other FAR parts and simplified solicitations to reduce burdens, with mandatory use for eligible acquisitions per . Key policies include confirming commercial status, combined synopses/solicitations, and evaluation on lowest price technically acceptable or best value, exempting certain FAR provisions like Standards for true commercials. It implements the Clinger-Cohen preference, with 2025 model rules enhancing commercial alignment.

Contracting Methods and Types (Parts 13-18)

Parts 13 through 18 of the Acquisition Regulation (FAR) prescribe methods and contract types for procurements, emphasizing , , and allocation while adapting to varying acquisition complexities and urgencies. These parts establish streamlined procedures for low-dollar acquisitions, formal competitive and processes, diverse contract structures to manage , specialized techniques like multi-year commitments, and emergency flexibilities to address crises. Contracting officers select methods based on factors such as requirement clarity, market conditions, and estimated value, with a preference for full and open unless justified exceptions apply under FAR Part 6. Simplified acquisition procedures under Part 13 apply to purchases of supplies, services, , , and items below the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), generally $250,000 for most acquisitions as adjusted periodically for , to minimize administrative burdens and enhance participation. These procedures allow oral or written solicitations, quotations instead of formal proposals, and awards without extensive evaluation, provided competition is solicited to the maximum extent practicable using techniques like requests for quotations or governmentwide commercial purchase cards. Subpart 13.5 extends special authorities for commercial acquisitions exceeding the SAT up to $7 million ($15 million for certain contingencies), permitting faster processing while requiring documentation of rationale. Certain laws and clauses do not apply below the SAT to further streamline, such as specific socioeconomic requirements, promoting efficiency without compromising essential safeguards. Part 14 governs sealed bidding, a formal competitive method involving invitations for bids (IFBs), public bid openings, and awards to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder when requirements are definite, adequate time exists for bidding, and a is suitable. The process includes preparing IFBs with clear specifications, publicizing opportunities, evaluating bids solely on and responsiveness without discussions, and documenting any bid rejections. sealed bidding under Subpart 14.5 combines initial proposals with subsequent bids to handle complex requirements where clarifications are needed before pricing. This method ensures and objectivity but is less flexible than , limiting its use to scenarios avoiding price uncertainty. Contracting by in Part 15 applies to acquisitions exceeding simplified thresholds where sealed bidding is impractical, such as when discussions are needed or requirements involve judgments, covering both competitive and noncompetitive scenarios. Requests for proposals (RFPs) communicate requirements and solicit detailed proposals, followed by based on and non-price factors, potential discussions to clarify or improve offers, and source selection decisions documented via or lowest technically acceptable processes. Subpart 15.4 addresses techniques like certified cost or for contracts over $2 million (with exceptions), ensuring fair and reasonable prices through , audits, and . Noncompetitive sole-source awards require justification, such as unique capabilities, with emphasis on minimizing complexity in competitive environments. Part 16 details contract types to allocate risks appropriately, with preferred for stable requirements where costs are predictable, cost-reimbursement for high-risk or developmental efforts where actual costs are reimbursed plus fee, and blending elements to motivate performance via shared savings or bonuses. Indefinite-delivery contracts (e.g., indefinite quantity, requirements, or task/delivery orders) support flexible ordering against underlying agreements, while time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts pay fixed rates for effort without guaranteeing results, used only when no better type fits. Selection considers factors like technical difficulty, period of performance, and contractor risk, with prohibitions on certain types for acquisitions to favor market-driven . Special contracting methods in Part 17 enable tailored approaches for efficiency, including multi-year contracts for up to five years to stabilize requirements and achieve economies through bulk commitments, provided funding is available and cancellation ceilings protect against termination. Options allow unilateral extensions or quantity increases in existing contracts, requiring evaluation of standalone competition impacts and fair pricing. Leader company contracting permits prime-sub arrangements for complex integrations, while interagency acquisitions under Subpart 17.5 facilitate one agency's use of another's contract vehicle with proper authority and oversight. Congressional notifications apply for high-value multi-year or options exceeding thresholds, ensuring legislative review. Part 18 consolidates flexibilities for acquisitions during declared disasters, extreme weather, or national , allowing higher micro-purchase and SAT thresholds, treatment of non-commercial items as commercial, and relaxed competition requirements to expedite response. Techniques include oral solicitations, reduced evaluation periods, and expanded use of government purchase cards, with Subpart 18.1 listing applicable FAR deviations like waived synopsis for urgency and Subpart 18.2 referencing agency-specific authorities. Originating from post- reforms in 2006, these provisions prioritize speed while mandating documentation of emergency determinations by agency heads to prevent abuse.

Socioeconomic and Small Business Programs (Parts 19-26)

Parts 19 through 26 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) establish policies and procedures to incorporate socioeconomic objectives into federal procurement, aiming to advance goals such as participation, labor standards compliance, , safeguards, restrictions on foreign sourcing, and targeted incentives for underrepresented groups. These provisions mandate contracting officers to evaluate socioeconomic factors alongside and , often through set-asides, certifications, and clauses that prioritize certain entities or practices. For instance, agencies must conduct to identify capable es before awarding contracts exceeding simplified acquisition thresholds, ensuring non-competitive awards only when justified. This framework stems from statutes like the , which directs the government to allocate a "fair proportion" of contracts to , defined by industry-specific size standards set by the (SBA). Part 19 focuses on programs, requiring set-asides for acquisitions where at least two responsible es can compete at fair market prices under the "rule of two." Eligible categories include service-disabled veteran-owned es (SDVOSB), women-owned es (WOSB), economically disadvantaged WOSB (EDWOSB), HUBZone es, and the 8(a) program for socially and economically disadvantaged firms. A 2025 overhaul streamlined Part 19 by removing over 300 subparts, emphasizing agency responsibilities over SBA micromanagement, while preserving core set-aside mechanisms but eliminating mandatory evaluations for task orders on multiple-award contracts. Subcontracting plans are required for contracts exceeding $750,000 ($1.5 million for construction), mandating goals for utilization and for noncompliance. Part 22 applies labor laws to acquisitions, incorporating statutes such as the Davis-Bacon Act for prevailing wages on construction over $2,000, the Service Contract Act for minimum wages and fringes on service contracts over $2,500, and equal opportunity clauses under prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Contracting officers must include wage determinations from the Department of Labor and verify compliance through audits; violations can lead to withholding payments or debarment. The part also addresses employment eligibility verification via for certain contracts and bans on . Part 23 addresses environmental and sustainable acquisition, requiring preferences for energy-efficient products listed on the registry, biobased items under the Federal Biobased Preferred Purchasing Program, and recovered materials per the . Agencies must incorporate clauses for ozone-depleting substances avoidance and electronic and accessibility under Section 508. Hazardous mandates safety data sheets and notifications, while drug-free workplace requirements prohibit contractor use of illegal drugs. A 2024 revision reorganized the part to prioritize and services, including greenhouse gas reporting thresholds. Part 24 protects privacy and implements the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), requiring contractors operating agency systems of records to comply with the , including notices of record-keeping systems and access rights for individuals. Contracts must include clauses safeguarding personally identifiable information (PII), with agencies applying FOIA's strict timelines—20 working days for responses—to contractor-held records. Training on privacy risks is mandated for personnel handling sensitive data. Part 25 governs foreign acquisition, enforcing the Buy American statute by preferring domestic end products unless exceptions apply, such as unreasonable costs (over 20% domestic preference) or public interest waivers. The Trade Agreements Act restricts acquisitions over $183,000 (as of 2024 thresholds) to WTO GPA countries or designated free trade partners, barring "non-eligible" nations like for certain supplies. Balance of payments programs and prohibitions on acquisitions from prohibited sources (e.g., certain Cuban or Iranian entities) further limit foreign sourcing, with evaluations favoring U.S. offers. Part 26 covers additional socioeconomic programs, primarily the Indian Incentive Program, which provides a 5% payment incentive to prime contractors for subcontracting with Indian-owned enterprises under contracts over $500,000. This implements a statutory for Indian without set-asides. The part serves as a catch-all for future socioeconomic rules, emphasizing acquisition process alignment.

Contracting Requirements and Clauses (Parts 27-33)

Part 27 addresses patents, data, and copyrights in federal contracts, prescribing policies, procedures, solicitation provisions, and clauses to balance government needs for technical data with contractors' proprietary interests. It promotes the commercial exploitation of inventions while protecting against unauthorized use, requiring contractors to report royalties exceeding $250, disclose subject inventions within two months of conception, and grant the government a nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable paid-up license for such inventions made under contract. Key clauses include 52.227-1 for authorization and consent regarding patent infringement liability and 52.227-14 delineating rights in data, categorizing them as unlimited (government-wide use), limited (government purposes with restrictions), or restricted (proprietary use only). For major systems, clauses like 52.227-21 require technical data delivery with compensation for restricted data ordered within three years post-contract completion. Part 28 outlines requirements for bonds and insurance to mitigate financial risks in contracts awarded via sealed or . Performance bonds must equal 100% of the original price for contracts exceeding $150,000, protecting the against contractor , while payment bonds of similar amount safeguard laborers and material suppliers in contracts over that threshold per 40 U.S.C. Chapter 31. Bid guarantees, capped at 20% of the bid price or $3 million, ensure bidders honor awards. Sureties must be corporate entities listed on Treasury's Circular 570 or individuals pledging eligible assets equal to the bond penal sum; alternatives include irrevocable letters of credit. Insurance mandates cover , employer liability ($100,000 minimum), general liability ($500,000 per occurrence), and automobile liability ($200,000 per person/500,000 per accident), with fixed-price contracts potentially requiring coverage for property risks. Part 29 governs taxes in acquisitions, emphasizing exemptions to minimize federal costs while clarifying contractor responsibilities. Federal excise taxes on items like fuels or communications are generally exempt for purchases, with procedures for refunds or credits under 26 U.S.C. provisions. State and local taxes apply unless the asserts immunity, though contractors are not deemed agents for such claims; exemptions are pursued via forms like SF 1094 for sales/use taxes on supplies delivered to federal facilities. Contracts include clauses like 52.229-3 for federal taxes on supplies, prohibiting reimbursement of nondeductible taxes, and 52.229-10 for state/local exemptions, requiring contractors to provide evidence of tax-exempt status. Foreign contracts address withholding taxes under 26 U.S.C. 5000C, with rates up to 30% on payments to certain entities. Part 30 administers under 48 CFR Chapter 99 for negotiated contracts exceeding thresholds, excluding sealed bids and small businesses. Full coverage applies to contracts over $50 million annually with the same contractor, while modified coverage suits awards between $7.5 million and $50 million; compliance ensures consistent allocation of costs to government contracts. Contractors must disclose practices in writing for awards over $2.5 million via Disclosure Statement, subject to Federal Agency Official (CFAO) review and adequacy determination. Changes—required for CAS noncompliance, desirable for efficiency, or unilateral by contractors—require cost-impact analyses, with equitable adjustments for increased costs via general dollar magnitude proposals. Clauses like 52.230-2 mandate full CAS compliance, including submission of adequacy/desirability statements. Part 31 sets principles for determining allowable costs in cost-reimbursement and other contracts, applicable to organizations, , nonprofits, and governments. Costs qualify as allowable if reasonable, allocable to the contract, compliant with Generally Accepted Principles () or , and not expressly unallowable under FAR limitations. Subpart 31.2 details organization principles, treating selected costs like compensation (capped per benchmarks, e.g., pay limits post-2014), travel ( mandates), and IR&D (allocable but limited) with specific allowability rules; , , and fines/penalties are unallowable. , such as overhead, must be allocated equitably across fiscal years, often via predetermined rates negotiated annually. For under Subpart 31.3, costs follow OMB Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200), emphasizing facilities and administrative rates. Part 32 regulates contract financing to facilitate contractor performance without undue risk to the government, prohibiting financing as an except for customary practices. Advance payments require head approval and like special bank accounts or liens, with interest on unliquidated balances unless waived for nonprofits. Progress payments, based on costs, allow up to 80% liquidation rate (85% for es) against incurred costs, requiring adequate accounting systems and government withholding rights for deficiencies. Performance-based payments tie advances to milestones, not costs, with contract-specific schedules ensuring no more than 90% total financing. Invoicing standards mandate proper requests within 30 days of approval, with accelerated 15-day payments for invoices lacking interest penalties. Part 33 establishes procedures for protests, disputes, and appeals to resolve acquisition challenges efficiently. Protests against solicitation improprieties must precede bid opening, while others arise within 10 days of basis knowledge; agency-level protests aim for 35-day resolution, with handling per 4 CFR Part 21 (100-day decisions, costs recoverable if sustained). Disputes under the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. Chapter 71) require certified claims over $100,000, with contracting officer decisions due in 60 days; appeals go to agency Boards of Contract Appeals within 90 days or the U.S. Court of Claims within 12 months. is encouraged pre-litigation, and interest accrues on valid claims from submission date. Clauses like 52.233-1 mandate compliance with disputes processes.

Special Contracting Categories (Parts 34-41)

Parts 34 through 41 of the (FAR) address specialized contracting approaches tailored to distinct acquisition types, such as large-scale systems, efforts, projects, services, supply schedules, , and utilities, where standard procedures require adaptation to mitigate unique risks like technological uncertainty or performance variability. These parts emphasize agency-specific strategies, statutory compliance, and oversight mechanisms to ensure cost-effective outcomes while aligning with broader goals under Title 41 of the . Recent revisions, including 2025 deviations under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul initiative, aim to reduce prescriptive rules, enhance flexibility for contracting officers, and integrate modern practices like modular approaches, though core policies remain grounded in longstanding executive authorities such as OMB Circular A-109 for major systems. Part 34: Major System Acquisition prescribes policies for acquiring major systems—defined as programs exceeding $2.5 million in research, development, test, and evaluation costs or $12 million in total program costs—consistent with OMB Circular A-109, requiring milestones for concept validation, definition, and production phases to manage high-risk investments. Key elements include developing an acquisition strategy addressing systems (EVMS) for progress tracking, with compliance certification needed for contracts over certain thresholds, and coordination with agency heads for program decisions. The 2025 overhaul retains EVMS requirements but grants agencies greater discretion in tailoring oversight, eliminating rigid applicability rules to prioritize mission alignment over uniform mandates. Part 35: Research and Development Contracting outlines procedures for R&D contracts, encompassing , applied research, and development, with policies favoring fixed-price arrangements where risks are low and cost-reimbursement for higher uncertainty, while prohibiting inherently governmental functions. It mandates review of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) for potential conflicts, encourages cost-sharing under agency guidelines, and requires broad agency announcements for unsolicited proposals to promote competition. Updates in 2025 streamline handling and remove outdated references, facilitating broader contractor participation by aligning with general FAR principles like those in Parts 16 and 42. Part 36: Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts governs contracting for construction, alteration, or repair of structures, and architect-engineer (A-E) services, requiring qualifications-based selection for A-E work under the Brooks Act (40 U.S.C. Chapter 11) to prioritize expertise over price. Procedures include using standard forms for bidding, performance bonds for contracts over $150,000, and Davis-Bacon wage determinations for labor standards, with special rules for dismantling or emphasizing safety and environmental compliance. The part's 2025 revision restructures content for clarity, deletes specific evaluation criteria to allow agency discretion, and integrates performance-based elements while retaining statutory safeguards. Part 37: Service Contracting details requirements for acquiring services—defined as tasks engaging contractor time rather than furnishing products—prohibiting resembling employment and mandating performance-based acquisitions to focus on outcomes over inputs. Subparts address advisory and assistance services (limited to 10% of an agency's operable without ), nonpersonal , and management oversight, with clauses ensuring contractor personnel qualifications and avoiding inherent governmental roles like policy decisions. Recent updates reorganize for logical flow, emphasizing risk-based monitoring and flexibility in structuring contracts to enhance efficiency. Part 38: Federal Supply Schedule Contracting establishes policies for the General Services Administration (GSA)-managed Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program, enabling multiple-award schedules for supplies and services through competitive solicitation and fair pricing negotiations. Agencies must coordinate with GSA before establishing or modifying schedules, with procedures promoting streamlined ordering under , though the 2025 overhaul proposes relocating guidance to other parts like 8 and 51 to eliminate redundancy. Part 39: Acquisition of provides policies for procuring (ICT), including financial systems, emphasizing modular contracting to enable iterative development and compliance with standards like those from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It requires privacy protections under the Privacy Act, accessibility per Section 508, and cybersecurity considerations, with 2025 changes renaming the part to include communication technology, removing obsolete OMB references, and promoting agile methods tied to statutory authorities like the Clinger-Cohen Act. Part 40 is reserved for future use, containing no active provisions. Part 41: Acquisition of Utility Services authorizes GSA under 40 U.S.C. 501 to procure , gas, , and related services for federal agencies, with policies favoring of agency facilities to systems and of rates reflecting government buying power. Procedures include using GSA areawide contracts for efficiency, third-party financing for energy savings projects, and clauses for service reliability, with the 2025 streamlining retaining core elements while clarifying administration and .

Contract Administration and Management (Parts 42-51)

Parts 42 through 51 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) govern the post-award phase of federal s, focusing on administration, oversight, and management to ensure compliance, efficiency, and accountability in . These parts establish procedures for delegating contract administration responsibilities, typically to agencies like the (DCMA) or other designated offices, emphasizing risk-based monitoring and audit functions to protect interests. The framework prioritizes performance evaluation, financial oversight, and resolution of issues arising during contract execution, with provisions updated periodically to reflect statutory changes, such as those from the National Defense Authorization Acts. Part 42: Contract Administration and Audit Services outlines the delegation of administration functions from the contracting officer to administrative contracting officers (ACOs), including performance monitoring, payments, and . Subpart 42.3 specifies responsibilities like engineering surveillance and production support, while Subpart 42.7 addresses indirect cost audits by the (DCAA) or equivalent, ensuring reimbursement claims align with allowable costs under FAR Part 31. ACOs conduct periodic reviews, such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations, to rate contractor reliability on factors like quality, schedule, and cost control. In fiscal year 2023, DCMA administered over 300,000 contracts valued at approximately $5.5 trillion, highlighting the scale of these oversight activities. Part 43: Contract Modifications prescribes procedures for changes to existing contracts, distinguishing between bilateral modifications (requiring mutual agreement) and unilateral changes (issued by the government under clauses like the Changes clause at 52.243-1). Modifications must be priced equitably, with supplemental agreements documenting adjustments for , time, or cost; for example, constructive changes arising from government actions can lead to equitable adjustments if they alter contract requirements. The part mandates documentation to prevent unauthorized alterations, with GAO reports noting that improper modifications contributed to over $1 billion in avoidable costs in sampled contracts from 2018-2022. Part 44: Subcontracting Policies and Procedures requires prime contractors to obtain contracting officer consent for certain subcontracts, particularly in cost-reimbursement or time-and-materials contracts exceeding simplified acquisition thresholds. It enforces subcontracting plans for large contracts, mandating goals for awards to disadvantaged businesses under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, with penalties for noncompliance including . Oversight includes post-award reviews to verify flow-down of clauses, ensuring subcontractors adhere to prime contract terms like labor standards. Part 45: Government Property regulates the furnishing, use, and disposition of -furnished property (GFP) and contractor-acquired property under contracts. Contractors maintain accountability through systems compliant with Subpart 45.5, tracking items via unique identifiers and reporting losses exceeding $500 or 10% of inventory value. Upon contract completion, excess property reverts to the , with sales requiring approval to avoid ; a 2021 DoD inventory audit found $1.2 billion in unaccounted GFP, prompting stricter FAR revisions. Part 46: Quality Assurance establishes standards for inspecting and accepting supplies or services, emphasizing contractor responsibility for while allowing surveillance. Higher-level quality requirements may be imposed via clauses like 52.246-2 for of supplies, with signifying conformance unless latent defects emerge. The part integrates with ISO 9001-like systems for higher-risk acquisitions, reducing intervention in low-risk cases to cut administrative burdens. Part 47: Transportation details shipment and , requiring contractors to use government bills of lading for and comply with origin/destination clauses. It mandates cost-effective routing via the Defense Transportation System for , with provisions for f.o.b. destination terms shifting freight costs to contractors. Noncompliance, such as unauthorized carrier use, can result in rejection of reimbursement claims. Part 48: Value Engineering incentivizes contractors to propose cost-saving changes through change proposals (VECPs), sharing savings via fixed or collateral formulas. Applicable to and supply contracts over $100,000, it requires clauses like 52.248-1, with rights to adopt ideas post-contract. Historical data from 2010-2020 shows VECPs yielding over $3 billion in savings. Part 49: Termination of Contracts differentiates between (government discretion to end without fault) and (for failure), with procedures for costs and allowances. Convenience terminations allow of unabsorbed costs up to 6-15% of price, subject to ; defaults trigger cure notices and potential repurchase at expense. In FY 2022, terminations affected contracts worth $15 billion across agencies. Part 50: Extraordinary Contractual Actions authorizes relief from hardships under Public Law 85-804, such as amendments without for national exigencies, limited to $75 million without congressional notice. Requests require agency head approval, with indemnification for unusual risks like nuclear hazards. Part 51: Use of Government Sources by Contractors permits contractors to acquire supplies from GSA schedules or sources at cost, subject to approval and without markup. It facilitates but prohibits use for speculative .

Solicitation Provisions and Forms (Parts 52-53)

Part 52 of the Acquisition Regulation (FAR) prescribes the text of provisions and clauses to be inserted into federal solicitations and contracts, ensuring standardized terms that address offeror representations, government rights, contractor obligations, and other acquisition requirements. provisions, such as those requiring certifications or instructions to bidders, apply during the pre-award phase to elicit uniform responses from offerors. clauses, by contrast, govern post-award , including terms, standards, and termination conditions, and are mandatory unless exempted by specific FAR prescriptions. These elements are numbered in the format 52.XXX-X (e.g., 52.219-1 for small business representations) followed by an insertion date reflecting amendments, with over 200 distinct provisions and clauses organized thematically. Subpart 52.1 provides instructions for incorporating provisions and clauses, permitting full text inclusion or reference by number and title to reduce document length, while requiring modifications to be clearly identified (e.g., via alternating clauses like 52.252-5 for authorized deviations). Subpart 52.2 contains the full text of all provisions and clauses, categorized broadly by topics such as general definitions (52.202-1), socioeconomic programs (e.g., 52.219-8 for utilization of small business concerns), intellectual property (e.g., 52.227-14 for rights in data), and contract financing (e.g., 52.232-1 for payments). Applicability is determined via the matrix in Subpart 52.3, which cross-references clauses to contract types (e.g., fixed-price, cost-reimbursement), dollar thresholds, and scenarios like commercial item acquisitions, indicating whether they are required, required-when-applicable, or optional. This matrix, accessible as an interactive tool, aids contracting officers in tailoring solicitations and contracts while maintaining compliance with statutory mandates. Part 53 prescribes standard and optional forms for solicitations, offers, awards, and modifications to promote uniformity and reduce administrative errors in federal procurements. Key forms include Standard Form (SF) 33 for solicitations and offers on sealed bids or negotiated procurements, SF 26 for award of sealed-bid contracts, SF 30 for unilateral contract modifications or amendments to solicitations, and Optional Form (OF) 336 as a continuation sheet for lengthy solicitations. Agencies must use the current editions available from the General Services Administration (GSA) Forms Library, with no alterations to content except as authorized, though computer-generated reproductions are permitted if they preserve data elements and format per ANSI X12 standards. Electronic signatures and systems like the Electronic Data Access (EDA) increasingly supplant paper forms, aligning with broader efforts in government contracting since the . Provisions in Part 53 also reference agency-unique forms when FAR standards are insufficient, ensuring flexibility without compromising core uniformity.

Supplements and Implementation

Agency-Specific Supplements

Agency-specific supplements to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) are department- or agency-level regulations that implement FAR policies tailored to unique mission requirements, statutory mandates, or operational necessities, while remaining consistent with the overarching FAR framework. Authorized under FAR 1.301, these supplements address gaps in the base regulation, such as specialized for systems or health services, and are published in subsequent chapters of Title 48, (CFR). They undergo review by the FAR Council to minimize deviations from government-wide uniformity, with agencies required to justify any additional clauses or procedures. The supplements vary in scope and detail; larger agencies with high-volume or complex acquisitions, like the Department of Defense, maintain extensive ones, while smaller agencies may issue deviations rather than full supplements. As of 2023, over a dozen agencies publish active supplements, accessible via official portals. These are updated periodically through notices to reflect legislative changes, such as those from the National Defense Authorization Acts. Prominent examples include the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) for the Department of Defense, which adds provisions for cybersecurity requirements under DFARS 252.204-7012, competition in major defense acquisitions, and subcontracting flows for classified programs, reflecting DoD's focus on procurements exceeding $10 million annually. The General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) supplements the FAR for GSA-managed schedules, emphasizing multiple-award contracts under GSAR Part 538 and leasing procedures, handling billions in federal supply and service acquisitions. NASA's FAR Supplement (NFS) tailors rules for , including unsolicited proposals under NFS 1815.6 and international cooperative agreements, supporting NASA's $25 billion annual budget as of 2023. The Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) addresses energy-specific needs, such as nuclear materials management under DEAR 970 and environmental remediation contracts, with deviations for national laboratory operations managed via management and operating contracts. Other notable supplements encompass the Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulation (HHSAR) for biomedical research procurements, the Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) for veteran healthcare services, and the Transportation Acquisition Regulation (TAR) for infrastructure projects, each incorporating agency-unique clauses like priority sourcing or specialized evaluation factors. Agencies without dedicated supplements, such as smaller entities, apply the FAR directly or seek case-by-case deviations approved by the agency head. Compliance requires contractors to cross-reference applicable supplements during solicitations, as failures in adherence have led to bid protests and contract disputes tracked by the Government Accountability Office.

Defense and Other Specialized Supplements

The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) implements and supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) specifically for the Department of Defense (), providing uniform policies and procedures tailored to military acquisitions. Enacted under Title 48 of the (CFR) Chapter 2, the DFARS applies to all purchases and contracts, including those by contracting activities outside the continental U.S., and emphasizes compliance with laws on , cybersecurity, and risks. Key provisions cover areas such as foreign sourcing restrictions (Part 225), which limit acquisitions from certain countries to protect strategic interests, and specialized clauses in Part 252 for solicitations and contracts unique to defense needs like weapon systems and handling. The DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) companion document offers non-regulatory implementation details, ensuring achieves efficient, cost-effective of quality goods and services at fair prices while adhering to federal statutes. Updates to the DFARS, such as those effective July 1, 2025, incorporate evolving requirements for areas like indefinite-delivery contracts and security. Other specialized supplements extend the FAR framework for agencies with distinct operational mandates beyond general civilian . The NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), codified in 48 CFR Chapter 18, tailors regulations to 's aerospace and research missions, including unique clauses for intellectual property rights in innovative technologies and interagency acquisitions for space-related services. Effective updates as of February 22, 2024, refine NFS policies on procurement notices and justifications for bundling requirements, ensuring alignment with FAR while addressing NASA's need for rapid prototyping and high-risk R&D contracting. Similarly, the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR), integrated into the GSAM under 48 CFR Chapter 5, supplements the FAR for GSA's management of federal supply schedules and , with provisions like those in Part 501 governing deviations and clause usage for mass purchasing efficiencies. As of August 29, 2023, GSAR emphasizes competition in orders under Federal Supply Schedules per FAR Part 8.4. Additional specialized supplements include the Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulation (HHSAR), which adapts FAR for HHS's biomedical and public health procurements, focusing on ethical considerations in research contracts and ongoing overhauls to eliminate duplicative language as of April 15, 2025. The Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR), in 48 CFR Chapter 7, supplements FAR for USAID's overseas , incorporating rules for host-country compliance and foreign assistance-specific clauses since its establishment. These supplements maintain FAR's core principles but add mission-driven deviations, such as enhanced oversight for high-value defense contracts or specialized technical evaluations, with all changes requiring publication for public rulemaking where applicable. Agency heads approve deviations to ensure they do not conflict with FAR mandates, promoting tailored yet lawful acquisitions.

Integration with Broader Procurement Systems

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) mandates integration with federal data systems to ensure transparency, oversight, and compliance in reporting contract actions. Under FAR Subpart 4.6, executive agencies must report contract actions exceeding the micro-purchase threshold to the Federal Data System (FPDS), regardless of the method used, including details on obligations, modifications, and terminations. This reporting, governed by FAR 4.606, captures essential data such as vendor information, award amounts, and product/service codes, enabling government-wide aggregation and analysis of spending. Agencies not subject to the FAR require prior approval from the FPDS Program Office for reporting. FPDS serves as the foundational repository for this , which has been progressively integrated with other enterprise systems to streamline workflows. As of October 17, 2020, FPDS's contract reporting function merged into SAM.gov (), consolidating entity registration, opportunity postings, and tracking into a single platform as required under FAR Part 4.11 for eligibility . This facilitates flow, reducing duplication and enhancing accuracy in validating status and financial integrity before . Further, FPDS populates USAspending.gov, the official source for spending transparency, which disseminates aggregated information—including contracts, grants, and loans—to support , budgeting, and public accountability under laws like the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. In specialized contexts, FAR integrates with agency environments to operationalize processes. For the Department of Defense, the Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE), a cloud-based platform managed by the , hosts applications for solicitation, evaluation, and award management, ensuring DFARS (a FAR supplement) compliance while interfacing with broader financial systems. Similarly, civilian agencies leverage GSA-managed tools like eBuy for FAR-compliant transactions under multiple award schedules, with data feeding back into FPDS for centralized reporting. These linkages enforce uniform standards across disparate systems, mitigating data silos while addressing challenges in , such as aligning records with (ERP) modules for end-to-end financial tracking. Non-compliance with these integrations can trigger audits or restrictions, as evidenced by reviews of procurement data quality.

Judicial and Doctrinal Interpretations

Christian Doctrine and Mandatory Clauses

The Christian doctrine, established in G.L. Christian & Associates v. United States, 312 F.2d 418 (Ct. Cl. 1963), holds that clauses mandated by statute or regulation are implicitly incorporated into federal government contracts, even if omitted from the written agreement, provided they embody a significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy. In the underlying case, the Court of Claims applied the doctrine to imply the standard "changes" clause under the Armed Services Procurement Regulation, allowing the contractor to recover costs from a government-ordered site change despite its absence in the contract. This judicial construct prevents the government from evading mandatory requirements through clerical error or intentional omission, treating such clauses as having the force of law. Application of the doctrine requires two elements: the clause must be mandatory under applicable procurement regulations, such as the (FAR), and it must advance a core policy objective rather than merely administrative convenience. Courts have extended it to incorporate clauses like the Service Contract Act wage provisions and FAR Part 28 performance and payment bond requirements, as in K-Con, Inc. v. Secretary of the Army, where the Federal Circuit ruled in 2017 that omitted bonding clauses were implied in a construction subcontract despite the prime contract's commercial-item status. However, it does not apply to discretionary or directory provisions lacking substantial policy weight, limiting its scope to avoid undue uncertainty in contract interpretation. Mandatory clauses in the FAR, prescribed primarily in Part 52, are standardized provisions required for inclusion in solicitations and contracts to implement statutory mandates, ensure uniformity, and protect public interests such as , fiscal , and . FAR 52.212-5, for instance, mandates incorporation by reference of specific clauses in commercial-item acquisitions, including those addressing (52.222-26), utilization of concerns (52.219-8), and disputes (52.233-1). These clauses are deemed mandatory when FAR explicitly prescribes their use without deviation for certain contract types, such as the Anti-Kickback Procedures clause (52.203-7) required in cost-reimbursement contracts exceeding $150,000 to prevent improper influence. Non-compliance with inclusion requirements can trigger the Christian doctrine, but deliberate waiver by authorized officials may preclude implication if documented properly. The interplay between the and mandatory clauses underscores a tension in federal procurement: while FAR aims for explicit contractual clarity, judicial enforcement via implication enforces regulatory imperatives but introduces interpretive risks, as evidenced by debates over its expansion to flow-down obligations in subcontracts. Critics argue the fosters unpredictability, potentially deterring contractors unfamiliar with unspoken terms, though empirical demonstrates its primary utility in rectifying government oversights rather than contractor advantages. As of 2023, it continues to apply to FAR clauses like those under the Service Contract Act, affirming that procurement policy embedded in regulation binds parties irrespective of textual inclusion.

Implied Covenants and Contract Interpretation

The implied covenant of and inheres in every federal government contract governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), requiring both parties to act honestly and fairly in performing contractual obligations without evading the spirit of the bargain or interfering with the other party's rights. This covenant, rooted in , does not establish independent substantive rights or expand express terms but prevents actions tantamount to , such as arbitrary conduct or failure to cooperate that destroys the contract's expected benefits. Courts have held that a breach occurs only upon clear evidence of , often requiring proof of a specific intent to injure, as mere or poor judgment does not suffice. In applying this to FAR , tribunals emphasize that it cannot impose new duties beyond those explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the agreement, preserving the primacy of written terms while addressing discretionary actions like or terminations. For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that withholding of payments or delays in approvals may violate the if motivated by malice rather than legitimate policy considerations, but such claims demand rigorous evidentiary support to avoid undermining . Empirical of disputes under the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109), which governs FAR-related claims, shows that successful claims constitute a minority of cases, with boards like the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals sustaining them in under 10% of allegations from 2010-2020 due to the high threshold for proving intent. Contract interpretation under the FAR adheres to principles, prioritizing the plain and ordinary meaning of unambiguous terms within the document's to ascertain the parties' mutual intent. Courts interpret FAR contracts as integrated wholes, harmonizing provisions to avoid conflicts and giving effect to all clauses, including standard FAR provisions in Part , without rendering any superfluous. Ambiguities are construed against the drafter—typically the government—under the doctrine, but only after determining that the language is genuinely unclear and considering extrinsic like negotiation history or trade usage if rules permit. This approach ensures predictability in , as affirmed in cases where the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has rejected strained readings that would impose unstated obligations, emphasizing that FAR's uniformity aims to minimize litigation over boilerplate terms. Distinguishing implied covenants from mandatory clauses under the Christian doctrine, interpretation of duties focuses on equitable performance rather than statutory compulsion, with courts declining to imply FAR clauses absent significant mandates while upholding as a ethical constraint. In practice, this duality has led to doctrinal tensions, as evidenced by Federal Circuit rulings limiting claims to prevent circumvention of express FAR limits on , such as no-damages-for-delay clauses in contracts. Overall, these principles promote causal in federal acquisitions by tying implied obligations to verifiable intent and textual fidelity, reducing opportunities for opportunistic disputes.

Key Court Rulings on FAR Compliance

Courts have played a pivotal role in enforcing FAR compliance through disputes over processes, certifications, and execution. The U.S. of Federal Claims (COFC) and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primarily handle these matters, reviewing agency actions for arbitrary or capricious deviations from FAR mandates and contractor adherence to clauses like those on cost or data (FAR 15.403) and changes (FAR 52.243). Rulings emphasize strict adherence to procedural safeguards to prevent abuse, with non-compliance often leading to price adjustments, terminations, or (FCA) liability when material misrepresentations occur. In defective pricing disputes, Cutler-Hammer, Inc. v. United States (Ct. Cl. 1969) established foundational principles for recovering overpayments due to inaccurate cost data submitted during negotiations, affirming the government's entitlement to equitable adjustments under clauses predating but incorporated into modern FAR 52.215-10 and 52.215-11. The court held that contractors must disclose "all facts" material to pricing, rejecting claims of immateriality and setting a for post-award audits revealing undisclosed data, which can trigger refunds without proving intent to defraud. This decision underscored causal links between non-disclosure and inflated contract prices, influencing subsequent FAR interpretations requiring "current, accurate, and complete" data. For bid protests alleging agency non-compliance, Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer (D.C. Cir. 1970) provided seminal standing for disappointed offerors to challenge procurements violating statutes and regulations, directly enabling judicial scrutiny of FAR-equivalent procedures and later codified under the Competition in Contracting Act and FAR Part 33. The ruling shifted oversight from internal agency discretion to external review, ensuring competitive fairness and procedural regularity, though jurisdiction later consolidated in COFC via the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996. More contemporarily, Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2025, ) refined standing under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b), holding that prospective bidders need not submit proposals to protest clear FAR violations in pre-solicitation planning, such as flawed under FAR 10.001, provided prejudice is shown. This expanded access to remedies like injunctions, countering agency attempts to insulate non-compliant actions from review. In contract interpretation and FCA contexts, (U.S. ) clarified that FAR clause violations can underpin FCA liability only if material to the government's payment decision, rejecting strict compliance theories in favor of pragmatic assessments of whether omission misled payers. The emphasized that immaterial technical breaches do not automatically imply falsity, protecting contractors from overreach while requiring evidence of significant risk to government interests, as in certifications tied to FAR socioeconomic or pricing rules. This ruling has tempered aggressive FCA enforcement against routine FAR deviations, prioritizing empirical impact over rote adherence.

Criticisms and Inefficiencies

Bureaucratic Overreach and Compliance Costs

The (FAR) exemplifies bureaucratic overreach through its voluminous and intricate provisions, which mandate extensive documentation, approvals, and procedural safeguards that often exceed what is necessary for effective . Spanning over 2,000 pages with numerous supplements like the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), the FAR imposes rigid requirements on contract formation, pricing, and performance, leading critics to argue it prioritizes process over outcomes. This complexity arises from layered amendments over decades, resulting in prescriptive rules that micromanage contractor activities, such as detailed cost allowability under Part 31, which requires meticulous segregation of direct and . Compliance with FAR provisions generates substantial costs for contractors, particularly in administrative overhead and legal support. The estimates that federal , including rules, costs U.S. companies an average of $9,991 per employee annually, with government contractors facing amplified burdens due to audits and allowable cost determinations under clauses like FAR 52.216-7. Empirical analysis from the indicates that across U.S. firms consumes 1.3% to 3.3% of total wage bills, a figure that escalates for federal suppliers navigating FAR's indirect cost rate negotiations and reviews. Small businesses, lacking dedicated compliance teams, experience disproportionate impacts, with surveys showing that regulatory hurdles deter market entry and contribute to higher bid preparation expenses. These compliance demands translate into inefficiencies for the federal government, as evidenced by (GAO) findings on acquisition delays and cost overruns. GAO reports highlight persistent challenges in defense acquisitions governed by FAR, where regulatory rigidity contributes to programs exceeding budgets by billions; for instance, the plans to invest nearly $2.4 trillion in major systems amid ongoing inefficiencies from over-prescriptive processes. In IT procurements, GAO identifies over 450 unimplemented recommendations to address acquisition flaws rooted in regulatory burdens, leading to duplicated efforts and fragmented oversight. Such overreach not only inflates taxpayer costs—through passed-on compliance expenses—but also hampers agility, as contractors prioritize rule adherence over innovation, per analyses of procurement reform needs.

Impacts on Competition and Innovation

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) imposes extensive requirements, including detailed , processes, and clauses, which disproportionately burden small and innovative firms seeking entry into federal markets. These procedural hurdles, such as mandatory past performance evaluations and complex bid protests under FAR Part 33, often favor established large contractors with dedicated teams, reducing overall . A 2025 Brookings Institution analysis found that federal contracting has shifted toward corporate giants, with small business awards declining as a share of total value from 23% in 2010 to under 20% by 2023, leading to higher prices for taxpayers due to diminished competitive pressure. Similarly, the Defense Innovation Board's 2024 report highlighted formidable barriers for first-time applicants, including unique federal contracting jargon and onerous cybersecurity mandates under FAR 52.204-21, which deter non-traditional from participating. FAR's emphasis on lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) evaluations and fixed-price contracts under Parts and further stifles by prioritizing cost over technological advancement, encouraging risk-averse behaviors among contractors and agencies. Empirical studies indicate that such regulatory rigidity limits experimentation, with public processes creating supplier-side barriers that hinder the adoption of novel solutions. For instance, a 2013 Industrial Marketing Management study of European and U.S. suppliers revealed that procedural complexities in government tenders reduce firms' willingness to invest in R&D tailored to public needs, as the high upfront costs and low success rates outweigh potential gains. In the U.S. context, the and Foundation's 2011 review of regulatory impacts across sectors, including defense , concluded that prescriptive rules like those in FAR increase innovation costs by 20-30% through overhead, diverting resources from core R&D. Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessments corroborate these effects, showing persistent low rates in federal acquisitions. A 2013 GAO report on contracting analyzed fiscal years 2008-2012 data, finding that only 60% of obligations were competitively awarded, with bundling practices under FAR Part 7 consolidating contracts to fewer bidders and excluding smaller innovators. This has cascading impacts, as reduced entry barriers correlate with slower adoption of commercial technologies; for example, lengthy acquisition cycles averaging 18-24 months under FAR timelines have historically delayed integration of agile innovations in IT and sectors, per PSC surveys. Overall, while FAR mandates full and open in Part 6, its implementation empirically entrenches incumbents, curtailing the dynamic needed to drive efficiency and breakthroughs.

Empirical Evidence of Procurement Failures

The U.S. (GAO) has consistently documented systemic failures in federal processes governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), including widespread cost overruns, schedule delays, and project cancellations. For instance, in its 2025 High-Risk Series , GAO noted that federal (IT) investments have repeatedly failed or experienced significant cost overruns and schedule slippages over several decades, contributing minimally to mission outcomes despite billions in expenditures. These issues stem from inadequate planning, poor risk management, and overly complex acquisition strategies mandated under FAR, which exacerbate inefficiencies in executing contracts for critical systems. In defense acquisitions, empirical data reveals even more pronounced failures. A 2022 GAO analysis found that 53% of major Department of Defense () acquisition programs incurred cost overruns exceeding 25% of initial estimates, with total program costs ballooning due to requirements creep and bureaucratic delays inherent in FAR-compliant processes. Historical cases, such as DoD's automated information systems in the late , saw development and deployment costs double from initial projections to over $2 billion across eight projects, a pattern attributed to flawed FAR-driven contracting practices like fixed-price awards without sufficient feasibility assessments. More recent GAO reviews of weapon systems, including annual assessments of selected acquisition programs, report average cost growth of 40-50% and delays averaging two years, underscoring how FAR's emphasis on compliance over agility perpetuates these outcomes. Procurement data quality issues further compound failures, as evidenced by 's 2025 findings on the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), where agencies reported $755 billion in fiscal year 2024 obligations marred by inaccuracies in contract awards and vendor performance tracking. These errors hinder effective oversight, leading to repeated awards to underperforming contractors and unaddressed waste. Legacy IT modernization efforts exemplify this: of 10 critical systems flagged by GAO as high-risk, only three had been completed by 2025, with the remainder years behind schedule due to protracted FAR-mandated bidding and phases. Overall, such empirical patterns indicate that FAR's rigid framework contributes to an estimated 20-30% inefficiency in federal contracting, as inferred from aggregated GAO audits of overrun rates across sectors.

Socioeconomic Mandates: Achievements and Drawbacks

Policy Rationales and Set-Aside Mechanisms

The socioeconomic set-aside mechanisms in the Federal Acquisition Regulation derive from statutory mandates aimed at ensuring small businesses receive a fair proportion of federal procurement dollars, as established by the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 and formalized through the Small Business Act amendments of 1958, which created the and introduced set-aside authority to counteract competitive disadvantages faced by smaller firms against larger incumbents. These policies expanded in the 1970s and beyond to target specific disadvantaged groups, with rationales centered on promoting , job creation, and —attributes attributed to small enterprises—while addressing historical for socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, veterans, and residents of underutilized areas. The core government policy, as codified in FAR 19.201(a), is to award the "maximum practicable opportunities" in federal acquisitions to small businesses generally, as well as to veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses (SDB) via the 8(a) program, and women-owned small businesses (WOSB), including economically disadvantaged WOSB (EDWOSB), to sustain national productive capacity and foster equitable competition. Set-aside mechanisms operate through a structured governed by FAR Part 19, beginning with the "Rule of Two," which mandates that contracting officers set aside an acquisition exclusively for es if there is a reasonable expectation that at least two responsible es will submit offers at fair market prices and perform the work. For acquisitions exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT, currently $250,000 as of 2025), priorities require first considering set-asides under socioeconomic programs—8(a), HUBZone, SDVOSB, or WOSB—before resorting to general set-asides, provided eligibility criteria are met and nonmanufacturer rules or limitations on subcontracting apply to ensure performance by the eligible concern. Total set-asides reserve the entire acquisition for eligible competitors, while partial set-asides apply to divisible requirements where full set-aside is infeasible but portions can be competed among qualified es; for multiple-award contracts, "reserves" ensure a portion of task or delivery orders go to es even under full-and-open competition. Specific socioeconomic programs employ tailored mechanisms blending competitive and non-competitive awards:
  • 8(a) Business Development Program: Administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), this targets SDB owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; the SBA may accept requirements on behalf of participants for sole-source awards up to $4.5 million for manufacturing or $7 million for other contracts (as of 2025 limits), or competitive 8(a) set-asides when multiple eligible firms exist, with awards requiring SBA eligibility certification and fair pricing justification.
  • HUBZone Program: Reserves contracts for small businesses in historically underutilized zones (e.g., high-unemployment or rural areas); set-asides occur via the Rule of Two applied to HUBZone firms, with sole-source authority up to $4 million for manufacturing or $2.5 million otherwise if no reasonable expectation of two competitive offers, plus a 10% price evaluation preference in full competition.
  • SDVOSB Program: Prioritizes service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses for set-asides under the Rule of Two or sole-source awards up to $7 million for manufacturing or $4 million otherwise, verified through the SBA or Department of Veterans Affairs databases, to honor veteran contributions and expand their economic opportunities.
  • WOSB Program: Sets aside for women-owned small businesses in industries where they are underrepresented (per SBA designations); competitive set-asides apply via the Rule of Two, with sole-source limited to EDWOSB in underrepresented industries up to $7 million for manufacturing or $4 million otherwise, supported by self-certification or third-party verification.
These mechanisms include procedures for eligibility challenges and compliance requirements, such as limitations on subcontracting (e.g., concerns must perform at least 50% of the work for services), to prevent abuse and ensure direct benefits to intended recipients. Contracting officers must document set-aside decisions, often in consultation with SBA procurement representatives, to meet agency-specific and government-wide goals, which stood at 23% of prime contract dollars for small businesses in fiscal year 2024.

Evidence of Cost Increases and Reduced Efficiency

A analysis of U.S. Forest Service timber auctions between 1985 and 2007 revealed that set-asides, mandated under socioeconomic preferences akin to those in FAR Part 19, reduced expected government revenues by about 8% relative to open auctions. This loss stemmed from excluding larger firms with lower marginal costs, which typically bid more aggressively; small firms, despite qualifying under size standards, submitted bids reflecting their higher production costs, leading to net inefficiency despite the policy's distributional goals. The study, based on over 7,000 auctions, employed structural to quantify these effects, showing that even targeted subsidies for small bidders only partially offset the premium, with overall welfare costs persisting due to diminished . In broader procurement contexts, empirical models of set-aside mechanisms indicate price premiums of 5-15% arising from restricted entrant pools, as lower-cost large firms , reducing bid shading and competitive intensity. For instance, a of procurement auctions with small business preferences found an average 8.2% increase in winning bids attributable to the policy, driven by fewer low-cost participants and higher prices among eligible bidders. Although this study examined state-level data, the underlying auction dynamics mirror set-asides under FAR subparts like 19.5 and 19.8, where eligibility rules similarly deter efficient incumbents, elevating taxpayer-funded acquisition costs without commensurate gains. Evidence specific to disadvantaged business programs, such as the 8(a) initiative, underscores further inefficiencies; GAO audits have documented instances where sole-source awards under 8(a) bypassed competitive pricing, resulting in premiums exceeding by up to 20-30% in select automatic contracts. Aggregate federal data from the shows set-aside contracts comprising over 25% of awards in 2023, correlating with elevated unit prices in restricted competitions compared to unrestricted ones, as verified by bid . Reduced manifests in higher administrative overhead—eligibility certifications and protests consume 10-15% more resources per set-aside dollar obligated—and delays averaging 20-50% longer timelines versus open procurements. These patterns hold across socioeconomic categories, including HUBZone and service-disabled veteran-owned preferences, where empirical bidder behavior confirms causal links between mandates and suboptimal outcomes.

Debates Over Merit-Based vs. Identity-Based Preferences

Critics of identity-based preferences in federal procurement argue that mechanisms such as the 8(a) Business Development Program and set-asides for women-owned or minority-owned small businesses under FAR Part 19 prioritize demographic characteristics over competitive merit, resulting in higher costs and suboptimal outcomes for taxpayers. These programs reserve contracts or provide evaluation credits based on , , , or other factors, ostensibly to remedy historical , but empirical analyses indicate they often lead to elevated prices due to reduced and selection of less efficient providers. For instance, a study of reserved contracts in U.S. federal procurement found that such preferences correlate with increased procurement costs without commensurate improvements in firm or . Similarly, economic evaluations of the 8(a) program question whether its benefits to participating firms outweigh the inefficiencies, including sole-source awards that bypass and foster dependency rather than building sustainable capabilities. Proponents, including agencies like the Small Business Administration, contend that these preferences are essential for addressing systemic barriers and promoting economic inclusion, citing disparities in contract awards as evidence of ongoing bias. A 2016 Department of Justice report, for example, documented racial and gender gaps in federal contracting and justified race- and sex-conscious measures as narrowly tailored remedies. However, such claims have faced scrutiny for relying on anecdotal or correlational data rather than causal evidence of discrimination in modern bidding processes, and the same report was rescinded in 2025 amid executive directives to eliminate race- and sex-based affirmative action in contracting, reflecting doubts about its empirical rigor. Independent analyses, including those from non-partisan think tanks, highlight that identity preferences distort markets by favoring front companies or proxies, leading to fraud cases and billions in excess taxpayer expenditures without verifiable long-term equity gains. From a first-principles , —evaluating bids solely on price, technical capability, and past performance—aligns with by ensuring resources flow to the lowest-cost, highest-quality providers, a principle undermined by identity quotas that introduce non-performance criteria. Empirical data supports this: set-aside contracts frequently command premiums of 10-20% over open competition due to fewer qualified bidders, as documented in reviews of and preferences, which show limited spillovers to broader firm growth or quality. oversight has repeatedly flagged implementation flaws in these programs, such as unreliable certifications and goal-attainment pressures that incentivize agencies to overlook cost overruns, though official reports often underemphasize trade-offs due to institutional mandates favoring participation metrics over fiscal outcomes. Post-2023 rulings limiting racial classifications in other contexts have intensified legal challenges to these FAR provisions, arguing they fail by lacking compelling, evidence-based justifications beyond outdated disparities. The debate underscores tensions between social engineering and procurement's core fiscal accountability, with recent executive actions signaling a shift toward . A explicitly terminated race- and gender-based requirements for federal contractors, mandating evaluations based on objective criteria to restore competitive integrity. While advocates warn of reduced in contracting, causal suggests identity preferences do not reliably build disadvantaged firms' capacities, often entrenching reliance on favors rather than market-driven , as seen in stagnant graduation rates from programs like 8(a). Sources defending these preferences, frequently from or advocacy groups, exhibit systemic biases toward equity narratives that undervalue cost data, whereas procurement-specific studies prioritize verifiable metrics like bid pricing and execution rates to reveal the preferences' net drawbacks.

Reforms and Recent Developments

Pre-2025 Reform Efforts

Efforts to reform the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) prior to 2025 focused on legislative acts, advisory panels, and executive initiatives aimed at simplifying procurement processes, promoting commercial practices, and reducing administrative burdens, though these often resulted in incremental changes amid ongoing additions of socioeconomic mandates. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) of 1994 represented a pivotal early reform, enacted on October 13, 1994, to revise and streamline federal acquisition laws by increasing the simplified acquisition threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 (later adjusted), establishing FAR Part 12 for streamlined commercial item acquisitions, and minimizing certified cost or pricing data requirements for such items to facilitate access to innovative commercial technologies. FASA's provisions emphasized maximum reliance on the commercial marketplace, exempting many commercial contracts from new statutory requirements unless explicitly mandated, which led to updates in FAR Parts 13 and 15 to expedite low-value purchases and enhance competition. In the 2010s, the Section 809 Panel, established under Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 and chartered in 2016, conducted a comprehensive review of Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition processes, issuing three volumes of reports between 2017 and 2019 containing 98 recommendations to transform the system for 21st-century threats. Key FAR-related proposals included eliminating non-essential clauses such as FAR 52.223-18 on texting while driving, revising source selection procedures to prioritize best value over lowest price technically acceptable in more cases, and clarifying relationships between FAR Parts 12 and 13 for commercial simplified acquisitions to reduce overlap and compliance costs. While not all recommendations directly amended the FAR, several influenced pre-2025 NDAA provisions and Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) revisions, such as enhanced use of Other Transaction Authority and prototyping contracts to bypass traditional FAR procedures for rapid innovation. Implementation tracking showed partial adoption, with DoD incorporating elements like streamlined auditing and protest reforms by 2021, though broader FAR changes required Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council action. The (GAO) consistently advocated for FAR streamlining through reports highlighting inefficiencies, such as redundant reviews in acquisitions, recommending elimination of outdated requirements to accelerate and lower costs. During the first administration (2017-2021), executive actions under NDAA authorities expanded flexible pathways like Section 804 , indirectly pressuring FAR evolution by demonstrating alternatives to rigid compliance, but direct FAR rewrites were limited to targeted rulemakings rather than comprehensive overhaul. These pre-2025 initiatives, while achieving some threshold increases and procedural clarifications—such as periodic adjustments to micro-purchase limits—failed to prevent the FAR's expansion beyond 2,000 pages, as new statutory mandates frequently offset simplification gains, underscoring persistent tensions between uniformity and efficiency.

2025 Executive Orders and Revolutionary Overhaul

On April 15, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 14275, "Restoring to ," initiating the most extensive revision of the (FAR) in its . The order mandates agencies to strip away non-statutory rules, rewrite the FAR in , and limit its scope to essential statutory mandates, aiming to eliminate bureaucratic redundancies that have accumulated over decades. This directive responds to longstanding critiques of the FAR's , which spans over 2,000 pages and imposes costs estimated in the billions annually on contractors and agencies alike. Complementing EO 14275, a presidential (M-25-25) issued on May 2, 2025, provided detailed implementation guidance, requiring the FAR to lead a public comment process and coordinate interagency reviews to identify and excise superfluous provisions. The overhaul targets the removal of more than 1,000 prescriptive requirements, such as layered approvals and documentation mandates not rooted in law, to foster faster acquisitions and greater reliance on commercial practices. By mid-2025, initial progress included proposed amendments to six FAR sections, focusing on streamlined evaluation criteria and reduced reporting obligations. A related on April 9, 2025, "Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation in the ," extended these principles to Department of Defense procurements, directing the use of flexible authorities like Other Transaction Agreements over rigid FAR procedures where possible. These reforms collectively seek to shift federal procurement toward outcome-based contracting, prioritizing speed and cost-effectiveness over process adherence, with full implementation targeted for completion by late 2026 pending rulemaking. Early analyses from government contracting experts indicate potential savings of 20-30% in acquisition timelines, though challenges remain in reconciling agency-specific needs with the simplified framework.

Projected Impacts of Deregulation Initiatives

The 2025 overhaul of the (FAR), initiated by 14275 issued on April 15, 2025, seeks to eliminate non-statutory and duplicative provisions, including those related to mandates, while retaining only requirements grounded in law or essential executive directives. This "Regulatory First Overhaul" (RFO) approach allows agencies to immediately excise over 1,000 non-critical clauses, with full codification targeted for late 2025 via notice-and-comment rulemaking. Proponents project that these changes will streamline processes, reducing administrative burdens on contractors by aligning practices more closely with norms and thereby lowering costs estimated to exceed billions annually in the current system. Projected economic impacts include accelerated acquisition timelines and expanded for small businesses and vendors, potentially increasing and by attracting non-traditional participants deterred by the existing FAR's . Historical precedents, such as the item test program evaluated by the in 2014, demonstrated that simplified procedures reduced contracting lead times and administrative overhead without elevating risks beyond standard transactions. In the context of broader efforts, including those under the Department of Government Efficiency (), initial implementations have aimed at fixed-price contracts and to yield taxpayer savings, though some analyses question the verifiability of early claimed reductions in federal spending. Potential drawbacks include transitional uncertainties, such as disrupted compliance workflows and legal challenges to the expedited "adopt first, finalize later" strategy, which may limit public input and expose agencies to litigation risks. Additionally, streamlining suspension and debarment processes could centralize authority, raising concerns over for contractors while aiming to expedite resolutions. Despite these, the overhaul's focus on statutory essentials is anticipated to enhance overall efficiency without compromising core oversight, drawing from prior simplifications that preserved performance while cutting .

Alternatives to FAR Procedures

Other Transaction Authority

Other Transaction Authority (OTA) enables federal agencies, particularly the Department of (DoD), to enter into other transactions (OTs)—legally binding agreements distinct from contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements—for acquiring prototypes, research, production items, or services. Unlike Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based contracts, OTs are not governed by FAR or FAR Supplement (DFARS) requirements, allowing greater flexibility in negotiation, rights, and payment structures. This stems primarily from 10 U.S.C. § 4021 for DoD prototype projects, with expansions via the National Authorization Acts (NDAAs), including the FY2016 NDAA that broadened eligibility to follow-on production OTs after successful prototypes. Agencies like the (DIU) and Advanced Research Projects Agency () administer OTs through consortia or direct awards, often requiring only basic competition thresholds rather than full FAR source selection processes. OTs differ from FAR procedures by emphasizing speed and commercial practices, enabling rapid engagement with non-traditional contractors who avoid FAR's compliance burdens, such as standards and detailed audits. For instance, permit fixed-price or milestone-based payments tied to outcomes, reducing administrative overhead and fostering in areas like dual-use technologies. usage has surged, with OTA awards increasing from 2,091 in FY2021 to 2,532 in FY2023, and obligations totaling over $4.4 billion since FY2018, reflecting their role in accelerating acquisition timelines—often delivering prototypes in months versus years under FAR. Empirical evidence from (GAO) reviews indicates successfully attract novel providers, as seen in DIU's prototype-to-production transitions for capabilities like unmanned systems, though comprehensive outcome data remains limited due to inconsistent tracking. Successes include DARPA's early OT projects for advanced materials and the Army's use via the Medical CBRN Defense Consortium, which supported rapid development during operational needs, contributing to a 75% rise in DoD OTA obligations by FY2023. The FY2016 NDAA's reforms enabled "tag-along" awards, where multiple DoD components leverage a single OTA, enhancing efficiency without duplicative FAR compliance. Critics, including GAO, note risks of inadequate oversight or unverifiable cost savings, as OTs incorporate similar substantive terms to FAR contracts but with less standardization, potentially leading to untracked failures if not followed by traditional contracts for sustainment. Nonetheless, OTA's causal advantages in bypassing FAR delays have empirically driven innovation inflows, with studies showing higher participation from commercial firms deterred by regulatory complexity.

Commercial Item and Simplified Acquisitions

The acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, as outlined in FAR Part 12, establishes policies and procedures that prioritize market-driven practices over traditional government-unique requirements, enabling federal agencies to procure items sold in substantial quantities to the general public or non-governmental entities. This framework, defined in FAR 2.101, applies mandatory streamlined methods except in specified exemptions, such as certain acquisitions, and integrates with other FAR parts like 13 for simplified procedures. By limiting applicability of numerous statutes—over 20 laws are inapplicable to such contracts under FAR 12.102—these acquisitions reduce burdens, flows, and post-award audits compared to non-commercial procurements under FAR Parts 14 or 15. These procedures facilitate faster timelines and lower administrative costs by permitting contract types, such as firm-fixed-price agreements based on or , and minimizing oversight of internal processes. For instance, agencies conduct to confirm commercial availability before proceeding, which supports integration of innovative technologies and broader supplier participation without custom specifications. In 2025, FAR Part 12 underwent significant revisions to further emphasize uniformity in commercial determinations and reduce agency-specific deviations, directing all qualifying acquisitions to use fixed-price structures where feasible. Simplified acquisition procedures under FAR Part 13 complement commercial item acquisitions by applying to procurements of supplies, services, or construction below the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), which was adjusted to $350,000 effective , 2025, via inflation indexing under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act. These methods waive formal advertising, sealed bidding, and extensive competition for most cases, allowing techniques like requests for quotations, governmentwide commercial purchase cards, or blanket purchase agreements, with written records limited to price abstracts for efficiency. Certain laws, including those mandating labor standards or socioeconomic clauses, do not apply below the SAT, further streamlining execution. For commercial items exceeding the SAT but not $7 million ($13 million for certain R&D), FAR 13.5 authorizes expedited procedures akin to Part 12, combining minimal solicitation with pricing to achieve acquisitions in weeks rather than months. Empirical outcomes include reduced times—often 50% shorter than full-and-open competitions—and cost avoidance through avoided compliance overhead, as evidenced in Department of Defense analyses of commercial leveraging. As alternatives to cumbersome FAR pathways, these mechanisms promote fiscal responsibility by aligning government buying with private sector norms, though agencies must still justify non-commercial determinations to prevent abuse.

Non-FAR Pathways and Their Advantages

Non-FAR pathways refer to statutory and regulatory authorities that enable federal agencies to acquire goods, services, or conduct without full adherence to the (FAR), often leveraging assistance instruments, interagency mechanisms, or specialized agreements. These pathways, governed by specific laws such as Title 10 and Title 15 of the U.S. Code, prioritize flexibility and efficiency for targeted objectives like or resource sharing, bypassing FAR's prescriptive competition, documentation, and compliance requirements. Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) under 15 U.S.C. § 3710a allow federal laboratories to partner with private entities for technology commercialization, sharing resources and without FAR-based procurement processes. Advantages include streamlined collaboration that accelerates , flexible allocation of invention rights to promote , and reduced administrative overhead compared to FAR contracts, enabling outcomes beneficial to both government and commercial applications. Partnership Intermediary Agreements (PIAs), authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 3715 and 10 U.S.C. § 4124 for the Department of Defense, facilitate agreements with nonprofit intermediaries to expedite technology transition from research to production. These non-FAR instruments offer advantages such as customized terms for and funding, broader engagement with non-traditional performers, and faster maturation of technologies by minimizing bureaucratic delays inherent in FAR compliance. Technology Investment Agreements (TIAs) per 32 C.F.R. Part 37 and 10 U.S.C. § 4021 support defense-related research with firms through cooperative agreements or other transactions, exempt from many FAR clauses. Key benefits encompass adaptable provisions that encourage participation, reduced oversight to foster , and quicker deployment, often achieving cost efficiencies by aligning with practices rather than standardized FAR terms. Intergovernmental Support Agreements (IGSAs) enable installations to procure services from or local governments on a sole-source basis, avoiding FAR competition mandates. These pathways yield advantages including award timelines shortened to weeks versus months under FAR, potential cost reductions of up to 30% through , and access to specialized local expertise without extensive bidding processes. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, established under 15 U.S.C. § 638, fund phased R&D with small businesses via grants or contracts outside full FAR applicability for initial stages. Advantages involve and commercialization support, attraction of innovative small entities deterred by FAR complexity, and empirical evidence of accelerated tech development, with Phase I awards often completed in under six months to evaluate feasibility before scaling. Procurement for experimental purposes under 10 U.S.C. § 4023 permits acquisition of limited quantities for testing without standard FAR justification or competition. This method's primary advantages are expedited evaluation of , minimal documentation to support rapid , and cost containment by limiting scope to essential trials, thereby enhancing agency agility in high-risk innovation environments. Overall, non-FAR pathways demonstrate advantages in empirical metrics such as reduced award times—often 50-80% faster than FAR equivalents—and lower administrative costs, as evidenced by implementations where flexibility has broadened the supplier base and improved outcomes in R&D and support services. However, their use requires statutory alignment to prevent misuse as acquisition proxies, with oversight varying by agency to ensure fiscal accountability.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION
    The FAR is the primary regulation for executive agencies acquiring supplies and services with appropriated funds, effective April 1, 1984.
  2. [2]
    48 CFR Part 1 -- Federal Acquisition Regulations System - eCFR
    (2) This regulation may be referred to as the Federal Acquisition Regulation or the FAR. (3) Using the FAR coverage at 9.106-4(d) as a typical illustration ...
  3. [3]
    Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
    The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) assists in the direction and coordination of Government-wide procurement policy.
  4. [4]
    Federal Acquisition Regulation - GSA
    Oct 16, 2023 · The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the primary regulation for use by all executive agencies in their acquisition of supplies and services with ...
  5. [5]
    DFARS | Acquisition.GOV
    Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. Full DFARS Download in Various Formats. Browse DFARS Part/Subpart and Download in Various Formats.
  6. [6]
    An Overview of federal acquisition regulation - Management Concepts
    The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is a crucial regulation that oversees the acquisition process by which the US government purchases products and ...
  7. [7]
    Revolutionary FAR Overhaul - Acquisition.GOV
    Under the President's Executive Order, Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement, the Federal government is undertaking the first-ever comprehensive ...
  8. [8]
    1-1. Overview - Acquisition.GOV
    The Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) Appendix EE provides policy guidance and procedures for the management of the Army Government ...
  9. [9]
    1.102 Statement of guiding principles for the Federal Acquisition ...
    The vision for the Federal Acquisition System is to deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the customer.
  10. [10]
    Part 1 - Federal Acquisition Regulations System
    The Federal Acquisition Regulations System (FAR) sets basic policies for acquisition, and codifies uniform policies for all executive agencies. It includes the ...
  11. [11]
    1.104 Applicability. - FAR - Acquisition.GOV
    1.104 Applicability. The FAR applies to all acquisitions as defined in part 2 of the FAR, except where expressly excluded.
  12. [12]
    2.101 Definitions. - Acquisition.GOV
    2.101 Definitions. A word or a term, defined in this section, has the same meaning throughout this chapter (the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)) unless ...
  13. [13]
    The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Answers to Frequently ...
    The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Answers to Frequently Asked Questions ... official). In other cases, the FAR articulates general standards that ...
  14. [14]
    17.502-2 The Economy Act. - Acquisition.GOV
    The FAR applies when one agency uses another agency's contract to obtain supplies or services. ... executive of the requesting agency. (3) The requesting ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Memorandum - Office of Construction & Facilities Management
    Jul 28, 2021 · In as much as the FAR does not apply to leasehold acquisitions of real property unless specifically cross-referenced in General Services ...
  16. [16]
    A History of Defense Contract Administration
    Mar 5, 2020 · In 1792, in the first law regulation federal procurement, Congress authorized the Treasury Department to make all purchases for the War ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] ORIGINS AND HISTORY OF COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS IN ...
    As the Federal Government expanded, the need for centralized purchasing became apparent. 2 In 1894, Congress created a “general supply schedule” for fuel, ice, ...
  18. [18]
    Supply Corps - Naval History and Heritage Command
    May 30, 2024 · On 23 February 1795, the law creating the office of the Purveyor of Public Supplies within the Treasury Department was enacted. The law provided ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] The Young Republic
    In 1792, it stripped the secretary of war of his procurement authority and gave the.Treasury Department full control over contracts for military and naval sup-.
  20. [20]
    Historical Research - U.S. Defense Procurement - GW Law Library
    Aug 19, 2025 · Issued under the Armed Services Procurement Act, the ASPR established defense procurement regulations and was in effect from 1948 to 1978. To ...<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    Act49 - GSA Real Property Disposition
    The General Services Administration (GSA) was officially created in June 1949 with the enactment of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] The Modern Era: A Sea of Paperwork
    After the Armed Services Procurement Act of I 94 7, the commission ranks as the second major event affecting government contracts in the post-war period.
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Federal Register 1964-07-24: Vol 29 Iss 144
    This revision of the Federal Procure¬ ment Regulations (FPR) constitutes a complete republication of the FPR. It is the first such republication since the.
  24. [24]
    Understanding the Past - Federal Government Contracting
    CICA was a significant overhaul of federal acquisition law largely intended to increase competition from contractors to improve federal procurement outcomes.
  25. [25]
    Happy 40th Birthday to the FAR! | www.dau.edu
    Apr 16, 2024 · Congress enacted the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act Amendments of 1979 (P.L. 96-83), which amended the Office of Federal Procurement ...
  26. [26]
    [PDF] The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR): Answers to Frequently ...
    Nov 16, 2012 · The FAR does not apply to legislative branch agencies or judicial branch agencies, although agencies in the other branches of government (or ...
  27. [27]
    Long Ago and FAR Away: The Federal Acquisition Regulation Turns ...
    Apr 1, 2024 · The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) first went into effect on April 1, 1984. For many of us, hitting age 40 is a time to take stock of our lives.
  28. [28]
    [PDF] 12954 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 63 / Friday, March 30, 1984 ...
    Mar 30, 1984 · Civilian agency implementations of the. Federal Procurement Regulations will become obsolete as a result of the promulgation of the FAR. For ...
  29. [29]
    S.1587 - Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 - Congress.gov
    (Sec. 2353) Requires FAR to include provisions for expedited contracting officer responses to small business requests involving matters relating to contract ...
  30. [30]
    fac90_45 - Acquisition.GOV
    Federal Acquisition Circular 90-45 amends the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) as specified below: Case Summaries For the actual revisions and/or amendments ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] The Clinger Cohen Act of 1996 - DoD CIO
    Authorizes the establishment in the FAR of simplified procedures for acquisitions within a certain dollar range (not to exceed $5,000,000) when the contracting ...
  32. [32]
    Federal Acquisition Circular 97-20; Introduction
    Oct 11, 2000 · This document summarizes the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rules agreed to by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense ...Missing: major 1990s
  33. [33]
    [PDF] SMALL BUSINESS Trends in Federal Procurement in the 1990s - GAO
    Jan 18, 2001 · To identify procurement changes that could affect small business contractors, we reviewed FASA, the Clinger-Cohen Act, the Small Business.
  34. [34]
    [PDF] Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 238/Monday, December 13, 2010 ...
    Dec 13, 2010 · Reauthorization Act of 2000, the. Consolidated Appropriations Act of. 2005, and other various policy changes. The FAR is amended to—.<|separator|>
  35. [35]
    Subpart 1.1 - Purpose, Authority, Issuance - Acquisition.GOV
    The Federal Acquisition Regulations System consists of the Federal Acquisition Regulation ... objectives. Participants in the acquisition process should ...
  36. [36]
    Part 2 - Definitions of Words and Terms | Acquisition.GOV
    A word or a term, defined in this section, has the same meaning throughout this chapter (the Federal Acquisition Regulation ... means the official who has overall ...
  37. [37]
    2.000 Scope of part. - FAR - Acquisition.GOV
    This part- (1) Defines words and terms that are frequently used in the FAR; (2) Provides cross-references to other definitions in the FAR of the same word or ...
  38. [38]
    Part 3 - Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest
    The general rule is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships.Part 36 - Construction and... · Part 35 - Research and... · Part 38 - Federal Supply...
  39. [39]
    Part 4 - Administrative and Information Matters - Acquisition.GOV
    (a) This part prescribes policies and procedures relating to the administrative aspects of contract execution, contractor-submitted paper documents, ...
  40. [40]
    Subchapter B - Competition and Acquisition Planning
    8.1100 Scope of subpart. 8.1101 Definitions. 8.1102 Presolicitation requirements. 8.1103 Contract requirements. 8.1104 Contract clauses. Part 9 - Contractor ...
  41. [41]
    Part 7 - Acquisition Planning
    7.503 Policy. Parent topic: Federal Acquisition Regulation. 7.000 Scope of part. This part prescribes policies and procedures for-. (a) Developing acquisition ...
  42. [42]
    48 CFR Part 7 -- Acquisition Planning - eCFR
    (a) Acquisition planning should begin as soon as the agency need is identified, preferably well in advance of the fiscal year in which contract award or order ...
  43. [43]
    Part 5 - Publicizing Contract Actions | Acquisition.GOV
    This part prescribes policies and procedures for publicizing contract opportunities and award information.Missing: Subchapter | Show results with:Subchapter
  44. [44]
    Synopses | www.dau.edu
    The purpose of publicizing contracting actions is to increase competition, broaden industry participation in meeting Government requirements, and to assist ...
  45. [45]
    Part 6 - Competition Requirements | Acquisition.GOV
    (a) Agencies may exclude a particular source from a contract action in order to establish or maintain an alternative source or sources for the supplies or ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Competition Requirements - Department of Energy
    The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) of 1984 requires that all acquisitions be made using full and open competition. Seven exceptions to using full and ...
  47. [47]
    [PDF] July 24, 2025 Class Deviation for Federal Acquisition Regulation ...
    Jul 24, 2025 · FAR Part 6, Competition Requirements, has been streamlined to ensure procedures that support full and open competition are easier to understand.
  48. [48]
    FAR Part 6 Rewrite: What It Means for Small Business Set-Asides ...
    Jul 25, 2025 · FAR Part 6 Rewrite Confirms Removal of Non-Statutory Provisions. The rewrite primarily reflects a reorganization and streamlining of content ...
  49. [49]
    Acquisition Plan | www.dau.edu
    The purpose of this planning is to ensure that the Government meets its needs in the most effective, economical, and timely manner.
  50. [50]
    [PDF] FAR Class Dev 25-32 for FAR Part 7 - Homeland Security
    Sep 17, 2025 · FAR Part 7, Acquisition Planning, is streamlined to emphasize flexibility and move away from prescriptive checklists in favor of a dynamic ...
  51. [51]
    8.002 Priorities for use of mandatory Government sources.
    Agencies shall satisfy requirements for supplies and services from or through the mandatory government sources and publications listed below in descending ...
  52. [52]
    Part 8 - Required Sources of Supplies and Services | Acquisition.GOV
    (1) Ordering activities may establish BPAs under any schedule contract to fill repetitive needs for supplies or services. Ordering activities shall establish ...FAR Overhaul - Part 8Subpart 8.4 - Federal Supply ...
  53. [53]
    FAR 2.0 Update: Part 8 – Required Sources of Supplies and Services
    Sep 15, 2025 · In particular: “Governmentwide “required use” contracts or BPAs are now required to be used when a commercial product or commercial service ...
  54. [54]
    Part 9 - Contractor Qualifications | Acquisition.GOV
    A contracting officer who makes a nonresponsibility determination is required to document that information in FAPIIS in accordance with 9.105-2(b)(2). 9.104-7 ...Subpart 9.1Subpart 9.4 - Debarment ...
  55. [55]
    48 CFR Part 9 -- Contractor Qualifications (FAR Part 9) - eCFR
    Qualifications Requirements · 9.200 – 9.207. 9.200, Scope of subpart. 9.201, Definitions. 9.202, Policy. 9.203, QPL's, QML's, and QBL's. 9.204, Responsibilities ...
  56. [56]
    Updates to FAR Part 9 – Contractor Qualifications ... - Facebook
    Sep 8, 2025 · Streamlined and Updated↙️ - Subparts 9.1 (Responsible Prospective Contractors), 9.2 (Qualification Requirements), and 9.3 - (First Article ...
  57. [57]
    FAR Part 10 - NASA Acquisition Internet Service
    This part prescribes policies and procedures for conducting market research to arrive at the most suitable approach to acquiring, distributing, and supporting ...
  58. [58]
    FAR Overhaul - Part 10 - Acquisition.GOV
    This part prescribes minimum requirements for conducting market research before procuring supplies and services.
  59. [59]
    Class deviation RFO-2025-10 - GSA
    May 22, 2025 · FAR Part 10, concerning Market Research, has been updated to offer acquisition teams more flexibility in their research methods: Greater ...
  60. [60]
    Part 11 - Describing Agency Needs - Acquisition.GOV
    Part 11 prescribes policies and procedures for describing agency needs, including using market research and specifying needs in terms of functions, performance ...
  61. [61]
    48 CFR Part 11 -- Describing Agency Needs (FAR Part 11) - eCFR
    Selecting and Developing Requirements Documents · 11.101 – 11.107. 11.101, Order of precedence for requirements documents. 11.102, Standardization program ...Missing: standards | Show results with:standards
  62. [62]
    [PDF] 171 PART 11—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS - GovInfo
    standards for agency purchases of printing and writing paper. Section 505 requires that 100 percent of an agency's purchases of printing and writing paper.
  63. [63]
    Part 12 - Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial ...
    (c) Contracts for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services are subject to the policies in other parts of the FAR. When a policy in another ...FAR Overhaul - Part 12FAR
  64. [64]
    Commercial Items (FAR Part 12) - Adaptive Acquisition Framework
    Supplies and services that meet the definition of a commercial item at FAR 2.1 may be acquired using the streamlined procedures set forth in FAR 12.
  65. [65]
    Class Deviation RFO-2025-12 - GSA
    Aug 13, 2025 · A total of 46 clauses and provisions from other FAR parts are removed as they are no longer required for commercial contracts. This change ...
  66. [66]
    Subchapter C - Contracting Methods and Contract Types
    13.005 List of laws inapplicable to contracts and subcontracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. 13.006 Inapplicable provisions and clauses.
  67. [67]
    Part 13 - Simplified Acquisition Procedures
    This part prescribes policies and procedures for the acquisition of supplies and services, including construction, research and development, commercial ...
  68. [68]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-C/part-13
  69. [69]
    Part 14 - Sealed Bidding - Acquisition.GOV
    Sealed bidding is a method of contracting that employs competitive bids, public opening of bids, and awards.Subpart 14.5 - Two-Step ...FAR
  70. [70]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-C/part-14
  71. [71]
    Part 15 - Contracting by Negotiation | Acquisition.GOV
    ... objectives, and a profit or fee objective. 15.406-2 Certificate of Current ... Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and required under FAR subsection ...
  72. [72]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-C/part-15
  73. [73]
    Part 16 - Types of Contracts | Acquisition.GOV
    Contract types include fixed-price, cost-reimbursement, incentive, time-and-materials, labor-hour, and letter contracts.Missing: exclusions | Show results with:exclusions
  74. [74]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-C/part-16
  75. [75]
    Part 17 - Special Contracting Methods | Acquisition.GOV
    (a) Multi-year contracting is a special contracting method to acquire known requirements in quantities and total cost not over planned requirements for up to 5 ...Subpart 17.2 - OptionsSubpart 17.1 - Multi-year ...
  76. [76]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-C/part-17
  77. [77]
    Part 18 - Emergency Acquisitions
    This part identifies acquisition flexibilities that are available for emergency acquisitions. These flexibilities are specific techniques or procedures that ...
  78. [78]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-C/part-18
  79. [79]
    Part 19 - Small Business Programs | Acquisition.GOV
    Part 19 covers small business programs, including eligibility, setting aside acquisitions, the certificate of competency, subcontracting, and the 8(a) program.
  80. [80]
    48 CFR Part 19 -- Small Business Programs - eCFR
    (a) It is the policy of the Government to provide maximum practicable opportunities in its acquisitions to small business, veteran-owned small business, service ...
  81. [81]
    Long-Awaited Release of FAR Part 19: New Rule of Two and More
    Oct 3, 2025 · The revised FAR Part 19 removes many specifics regarding SBA's direct role in promoting small business contracting. At first glance, the ...
  82. [82]
    Part 22 - Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions
    This subpart implements the statutes which prescribe labor standards requirements for contracts in excess of $2,000 for construction, alteration, or repair, ...
  83. [83]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-D/part-22
  84. [84]
    Part 23 - Environment, Sustainable Acquisition, and Material Safety
    This part prescribes acquisition policies and procedures supporting the Government's program to protect and improve the quality of the environment.
  85. [85]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-D/part-23
  86. [86]
    Federal Acquisition Regulation: Sustainable Procurement
    Apr 22, 2024 · Dedicates FAR part 23 to environmental matters by moving content related to drug-free workplaces and encouraging contractors to ban texting ...<|separator|>
  87. [87]
    Part 24 - Protection of Privacy and Freedom of Information
    (a) The Act specifies, among other things, how agencies shall make their records available upon public request, imposes strict time standards for agency ...Part 24 - Protection of Privacy ...FAR Overhaul - Part 24
  88. [88]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-D/part-24
  89. [89]
    Part 25 - Foreign Acquisition
    (b) The restrictions in the Buy American statute are not applicable in acquisitions subject to certain trade agreements (see subpart 25.4). In these ...Subpart 25.1 - Buy American ...Subpart 25.4 - Trade ...
  90. [90]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-D/part-25
  91. [91]
    Part 26 - Other Socioeconomic Programs | Acquisition.GOV
    In fulfilling this requirement, the Indian Incentive Program allows an incentive payment equal to 5 percent of the amount paid to a subcontractor in performing ...
  92. [92]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-D/part-26
  93. [93]
    Part 27 - Patents, Data, and Copyrights | Acquisition.GOV
    This part prescribes the policies, procedures, solicitation provisions, and contract clauses pertaining to patents, data, and copyrights.<|separator|>
  94. [94]
    Part 28 - Bonds and Insurance | Acquisition.GOV
    ### Summary of FAR Part 28 - Bonds and Insurance
  95. [95]
    Part 29 - Taxes | Acquisition.GOV
    ### Summary of FAR Part 29 - Taxes
  96. [96]
    Part 30 - Cost Accounting Standards Administration | Acquisition.GOV
    ### Summary of FAR Part 30 - Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Administration
  97. [97]
    Part 31 - Contract Cost Principles and Procedures | Acquisition.GOV
    31.703 Requirements. Parent topic: Federal Acquisition Regulation. 31.000 ... purpose of meeting specific performance requirements or objectives.<|separator|>
  98. [98]
    Part 32 - Contract Financing | Acquisition.GOV
    Summary of each segment:
  99. [99]
    Part 33 Protests, Disputes, and Appeals | Acquisition.GOV
    ### Summary of FAR Part 33: Protests, Disputes, and Appeals
  100. [100]
    Part 34 - Major System Acquisition
    This part describes acquisition policies and procedures for use in acquiring major systems consistent with OMB Circular No. A-109.
  101. [101]
    Part 35 - Research and Development Contracting | Acquisition.GOV
    35.000 Scope of part. (a) This part prescribes policies and procedures of special application to research and development (R&D) contracting.
  102. [102]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-F/part-34
  103. [103]
    FAR Part 34 – Major System Acquisition | Thompson Hine LLP
    FAR Subpart 34.2, which addresses requirements for Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS), remains in the revised regulations but with notable changes.
  104. [104]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-F/part-35
  105. [105]
    FAR Part 35 Update: Making R&D Contracting More Accessible and ...
    Jul 29, 2025 · FAR Part 35 included information on intellectual property, data, insurance, government property, subcontracting, and publicizing requirements ...
  106. [106]
    Part 36 - Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts
    Mar 2, 2023 · This part prescribes policies and procedures peculiar to contracting for construction and architect-engineer services.FAR Overhaul - Part 36Subpart 36.6
  107. [107]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-F/part-36
  108. [108]
    The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul has arrived to FAR Part 36 ...
    Jul 30, 2025 · Specific evaluation requirements for architect-engineer contracts, previously at 36.602-1 and 36.603, are removed. Contracting activities ...
  109. [109]
    Part 37 - Service Contracting - Acquisition.GOV
    This part prescribes policy and procedures that are specific to the acquisition and management of services by contract.<|separator|>
  110. [110]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-F/part-37
  111. [111]
    Class Deviation RFO-2025-37 - GSA
    Sep 23, 2025 · FAR part 37, Service Contracting, has been updated with a new structure that is more logical and easier to follow. The changes focus on two key ...<|separator|>
  112. [112]
    Part 38 - Federal Supply Schedule Contracting | Acquisition.GOV
    This part prescribes policies and procedures for contracting for supplies and services under the Federal Supply Schedule program.FAR Overhaul - Part 38Subpart 38.2
  113. [113]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-F/part-38
  114. [114]
    Class Deviation RFO-2025-38 - GSA
    Aug 12, 2025 · FAR part 38, Federal Supply Schedule Contracting, is removed in its entirety. Guidance and procedures for the Schedule program will be moved ...
  115. [115]
    Part 39 - Acquisition of Information Technology
    39.103 Modular contracting. 39.104 Information technology services. 39.105 Privacy. 39.106 Contract clause. Subpart 39.2 - Information and Communication ...Part 39Subpart 39.2 - Information and ...
  116. [116]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-F/part-39
  117. [117]
    How to Survive and Thrive Under FAR Part 39 Changes | Lohfeld
    Jul 1, 2025 · FAR Part 39 changes include decentralizing acquisition, expanding scope to ICT, mandatory Section 508 compliance, and requiring modular ...
  118. [118]
    FAR | Acquisition.GOV
    An official website of the United States Government. Home Federal Acquisition Regulation Full FAR Download in Various Formats Browse FAR Part/Subpart and ...Part 1 - Federal Acquisition... · Part 16 - Types of Contracts · Part 52 - Solicitation...
  119. [119]
    Part 41 - Acquisition of Utility Services
    501 to prescribe policies and methods governing the acquisition and supply of utility services for Federal agencies. This authority includes related functions ...Subpart 41.2FAR Overhaul - Part 41Subpart 41.1 - GeneralPart 41 - Acquisition of Utility ...Subpart 41.4 - Administration
  120. [120]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-F/part-41
  121. [121]
    https://www.va.gov/oal/docs/business/pps/deviation-far-part-41.PDF
  122. [122]
    Part 52 - Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses | Acquisition.GOV
    Summary of each segment:
  123. [123]
    https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52#FAR_Subpart_52_2
  124. [124]
    48 CFR Part 52 -- Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses - eCFR
    Part 52 provides instructions for using provisions and clauses in solicitations and contracts, sets forth prescribed clauses, and presents a matrix of ...
  125. [125]
    https://www.acquisition.gov/smart-matrix
  126. [126]
    Part 53 - Forms | Acquisition.GOV
    ### Summary of FAR Part 53: Forms
  127. [127]
    https://www.gsa.gov/forms
  128. [128]
    Supplemental Regulations - Acquisition.GOV
    Supplemental Regulations: Federal Agencies and their Procurement Regulation Websites, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Defense Logistics Agency.
  129. [129]
    Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)
    The DFARS implements and supplements the FAR. The DFARS contains requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of FAR authorities, ...
  130. [130]
    NFS | Acquisition.GOV
    Feb 22, 2024 · NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement​​ The NFS is issued as Chapter 18 of Title 48, Code of Federal Regulations. This is not an ...
  131. [131]
    DPC | Defense Acquisition Regulations System | DFARS/PGI
    The DFARS and PGI provide uniform acquisition policies and procedures for the Department of Defense. An electronic version of the official DFARS is available ...
  132. [132]
    48 CFR Part 201 -- Federal Acquisition Regulations System - eCFR
    The FAR and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) also apply to purchases and contracts by DoD contracting activities made in ...<|separator|>
  133. [133]
    https://law-store.wolterskluwer.com/s/product/department-of-defense-far-supplement-dfars-as-of-july-1-2023/01t4R00000P42DBQAZ
  134. [134]
    NFS Part 1807 - NASA Acquisition Internet Service
    The FAR and NFS requirements for justification, review, and approval of bundling of contract requirements also apply to an order from a Federal Supply Schedule ...
  135. [135]
    Part 501 - General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation ...
    Aug 29, 2023 · (1) GSA's implementation and supplementation of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is issued in the GSAM, which includes the GSAR. The ...
  136. [136]
    48 CFR Part 501 -- General Services Administration Acquisition ...
    The General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) contains agency acquisition policies and practices, contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and forms
  137. [137]
    HHS Acquisition Regulations (HHSAR) Overhaul Initiative
    Apr 15, 2025 · The HHSAR Overhaul aligns with the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) initiative to remove outdated, duplicative, or unnecessary language.Part 307—Acquisition Planning · Part 315—Contracting by... · RFO HHSAR Part 301
  138. [138]
    4.606 Reporting Data. - Acquisition.GOV
    Those agencies not subject to the FAR must first receive approval from the FPDS Program Office prior to reporting to FPDS.
  139. [139]
    The IAE systems - GSA
    Jul 7, 2025 · Federal Procurement Data System​​ Contract data reports, the reporting function of FPDS, was integrated into SAM.gov on October 17, 2020. The ...
  140. [140]
    About This Site - SAM.gov
    Contract data reports provide detailed information on awarded contracts using data directly from the Federal Data Procurement System (FPDS). The report data ...
  141. [141]
    USAspending: Government Spending Open Data
    USAspending is the official open data source of federal spending information, including information about federal awards such as contracts, grants, and loans.Federal Award Recipient Profiles · Federal Spending Guide · Search Award Data
  142. [142]
    Capabilities - Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE)
    PIEE is a cloud-based enterprise platform, managed by the Defense Logistics Agency, that hosts many of DoD's enterprise procurement capabilities.
  143. [143]
    Government Acquisition: How to Address 4 Data Integration ...
    While procurement policies like the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) are in place to ensure uniform guidelines for efficient government acquisition and ...
  144. [144]
    [PDF] Actions Needed to Help Ensure Procurement Data Quality
    Sep 25, 2025 · 3The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) governs the acquisition of goods and services by executive branch agencies and articulates the ...
  145. [145]
    G. L. Christian and Associates v. the United States, 312 F.2d 418 (Ct ...
    However, the Government, though mentioning the point, has not stressed the "Severin doctrine", and we do not believe that it applies in these circumstances.
  146. [146]
    What Is the Christian Doctrine and Why Should You Care?
    Nov 19, 2018 · The Christian doctrine provides that a mandatory statute or regulation that expresses a significant or deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy<|separator|>
  147. [147]
    The Christian Doctrine - Ward & Berry
    Aug 25, 2020 · The Christian Doctrine comes into play when the FAR requires a certain clause be included in a government contract but the government fails to include it.
  148. [148]
    The Christian Doctrine: The Double-Secret Contract Clause
    Apr 2, 2019 · In its most recent decision involving the Christian Doctrine, the Federal Circuit held for the first time that bonding requirements in FAR Part ...
  149. [149]
    The Unpredictable & Often Misunderstood Christian Doctrine of ...
    Oct 16, 2020 · This paper argues that the Christian doctrine adds unnecessary uncertainty and complexity to government contracts and should be supplanted or ...
  150. [150]
    CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE INCLUDES SERVICE CONTRACT ACT ...
    Dec 27, 2023 · The Christian Doctrine requires that SCA provisions will apply to a government contract even where they are left out of the solicitation or contract.
  151. [151]
    Does the Christian Doctrine Apply to Commercial-Item Contracts ...
    2017-2254, the Federal Circuit applied the Christian doctrine to read FAR clause 52.228-15, requiring the contractor to provide performance and payment bonds, ...
  152. [152]
    Christian Doctrine - Government Contracting - Cohen Seglias
    Jul 24, 2018 · G.L. Christian & Assoc. v. United States, 312 F.2d at 424, 427. It has also been applied to incorporate less fundamental or significant ...
  153. [153]
    52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement ...
    (a) The Contractor shall comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses, which are incorporated in this contract by reference, to ...
  154. [154]
    Mastering FAR: 7 Essential Clauses for Government Contractors
    Aug 9, 2024 · Disputes Clause (FAR 52.233-1). The Disputes Clause outlines the process for resolving disagreements between the contractor and the government.
  155. [155]
    FAR Clauses Are in the Contract Whether You Know It or Not
    Nov 19, 2018 · This “Christian doctrine” has been used to remedy errors and omissions by contracting officials who fail to include provisions satisfying two ...
  156. [156]
    The Christian Doctrine in Government Contracts: What You Need to ...
    May 29, 2024 · What is the Christian Doctrine? The Christian Doctrine is named after the 1963 court case G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States.
  157. [157]
    [PDF] The United States Court of Federal Claims
    Apr 2, 2013 · The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing is inherent in every contract. Centex Corp. v. United States, 395 F.3d 1283, 1304 (Fed. Cir ...
  158. [158]
    [PDF] mLki%-lw - Supreme Court of the United States
    The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing is limited by the original bargain: it prevents a party's acts or omissions that, though not proscribed by the ...
  159. [159]
    [PDF] this opinion was initially issued under protective
    Mar 23, 2020 · “The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing cannot expand a party's contractual duties beyond those in the express contract or create ...
  160. [160]
    [PDF] In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    May 26, 2023 · Finally, the government points out that the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing cannot create new obligations and must be keyed to the ...
  161. [161]
    [PDF] In the United States Court of Federal Claims - GovInfo
    claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing to the contracting officer. Resp. at 14–15 (citing Walsh Constr., 132 Fed. Cl. at 291) ...
  162. [162]
    Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing - PCI GovCon Training
    Feb 8, 2023 · The implied covenant prohibits subterfuges and evasions or interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party's performance.
  163. [163]
    72. Principles Of Contract Interpretation - Department of Justice
    Contract interpretation requires examination first of the four corners of the written instrument to determine the intent of the parties.
  164. [164]
    How to Interpret a Government Contract - Christoph LLC
    A contract must be read as a whole. When applying this axiom, courts use two cardinal principles: (1) parts of a contract must be read together and harmonized ...
  165. [165]
    Playing Your Cards at Interpreting Federal Government Contracts
    This article provides a simplified approach to help demystify the often-confusing federal common law rules of contract interpretation.
  166. [166]
    Principle of Whole-Text Interpretation in Federal Contracts
    Nov 6, 2024 · In reading a federal contract as a whole, contractors should interpret the contract provisions in harmony with each other. That is, provisions ...Missing: Regulation | Show results with:Regulation
  167. [167]
    Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Differing Site Conditions ...
    Jun 18, 2014 · Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Differing Site Conditions Claims and Broadens the Scope of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair ...<|separator|>
  168. [168]
    Cutler-hammer, Inc. v. the United States, 416 F.2d 1306 (Ct. Cl. 1969)
    The Board held that the Government was entitled to reduce the price of the contract under the "Price Reduction For Defective Cost or Pricing Data" clause. This ...Missing: important | Show results with:important
  169. [169]
    [PDF] Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States
    Aug 28, 2025 · When Congress enacted the Federal Courts Im- provement Act of 1982, Congress abolished the Court of. Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent ...
  170. [170]
    Legislative and Regulatory Burdens
    Congress and Department of Defense (DoD) leaders have expressed concerns regarding the cost and burdens of excessive legislative and regulatory requirements.
  171. [171]
    The Cost of Compliance for Government Contractors - Unanet
    Jun 20, 2023 · The National Bureau of Economic Research estimated the cost of compliance for US firms in 2022 averaged 1.34% of their total wages.Missing: acquisition | Show results with:acquisition
  172. [172]
    Government Procurement Efficiency List: Reducing Regulatory Burden
    Feb 7, 2025 · This blog will focus on regulatory burdens that impose costs on government contractors and impede entry into the federal market by commercial entities.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  173. [173]
    Defense Acquisition Reform: Persistent Challenges Require New ...
    Jun 11, 2025 · GAO's recent and ongoing body of work on practices used by leading companies could provide a blueprint for reform. Why GAO Did This Study.
  174. [174]
    GAO Calls for Urgent Action to Address IT Acquisition and ...
    Jan 16, 2025 · In this update, GAO identified major challenges to federal IT acquisitions and management, as well as critical actions the government needs to take.
  175. [175]
    GAO Report - Acquisition Reform DOD Should Streamline Its ... - DAU
    Oct 1, 2025 · GAO discussed with DOD officials the factors that lead to inefficiencies. GAO also examined practices used by some classified DOD programs and ...
  176. [176]
    Main Street undermined: The federal decision to shift contracting ...
    May 12, 2025 · This means that over time, taxpayers, through the government, pay higher prices for less innovation, less quality, and a less competitive ...
  177. [177]
    [PDF] Lowering Barriers to Innovation - Defense Innovation Board
    Jan 23, 2024 · Barrier: Companies, especially first-time applicants, face formidable barriers when seeking to do business with the Department due to a unique- ...
  178. [178]
    Barriers to innovation through public procurement: A supplier ...
    Oct 24, 2013 · This paper seeks to understand how barriers related to processes, competences, procedures and relationships in public procurement influence suppliers׳ ability ...
  179. [179]
    [PDF] The Impact of Regulation on Innovation in the United States
    This section examines the empirical evidence on the impact of government regulation on innovation. The review is organized by industry for readability, as the ...
  180. [180]
    [PDF] Defense Contracting: Actions Needed to Increase Competition
    Mar 28, 2013 · GAO analyzed federal procurement data for fiscal years 2008 through. 2012, reviewed DOD policy and competition reports, examined.
  181. [181]
    What is Innovation in Federal Acquisition?
    Stacy Stacks discusses the implications behind federal acquisition and explains the barriers to innovation drawn from the PSC 2016 survey.
  182. [182]
    High-Risk Series: Critical Actions Needed to Urgently Address IT ...
    Jan 23, 2025 · However, for several decades, GAO has reported that federal IT investments too frequently fail or incur cost overruns and schedule slippages ...
  183. [183]
    The Critical Need for Product-Focused Incentives - PM World Journal
    May 5, 2025 · A 2022 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that 53% of major defense acquisition programs experienced cost overruns exceeding 25 ...
  184. [184]
    Schedule Delays and Cost Overruns Plague DOD Automated ...
    GAO found that: (1) all eight systems experienced significant cost growth; (2) the cost to develop and deploy the systems doubled to more than $2 billion.
  185. [185]
    Federal Government Cost Overruns | Cato Institute
    A GAO analysis the same year found similar cost overruns and delays on a range of projects. The report said, “For more than two decades, ATC system ...
  186. [186]
    Actions Needed to Help Ensure Procurement Data Quality | U.S. GAO
    Sep 25, 2025 · In fiscal year 2024, federal agencies reported about $755 billion in procurement obligations to FPDS. FPDS is part of the Integrated Award ...Missing: failures overruns delays<|separator|>
  187. [187]
    The GAO flagged 10 'critical' legacy IT systems. Years later, most ...
    Jul 17, 2025 · Just three of those 10 modernization projects have been completed, per the GAO, which revealed lackluster planning for most of those that remain.
  188. [188]
    Socioeconomic Programs | www.dau.edu
    The Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 established that “a fair proportion of total federal purchases and contracts be placed with small business concerns” ...
  189. [189]
    [PDF] SBA Set-Asides: Big Problems for Small Businesses
    When the SBA was created in 1953, no set-aside program existedA Set-asides were given life when the Small Business Act was amended in 1958.0 At that time ...
  190. [190]
    [PDF] Benefits of Small Business Set-Asides in Public Procurement
    Specifically cited in this US law are the following justifications for small business set-asides: small businesses demonstrate reduced capability to compete in ...
  191. [191]
    Set-aside procurement | U.S. Small Business Administration
    Jul 11, 2025 · Set-asides and sole-source for socio-economic programs. Both SBA's regulations and the Federal Acquisition Regulation require you to consider ...
  192. [192]
    Set-Asides and Subsidies in Auctions
    Set-asides and subsidies are used extensively in government procurement and resource sales. We analyze these policies in an empirical model of US Forest ...
  193. [193]
    Set-Asides and Subsidies in Auctions | NBER
    Mar 3, 2011 · Set-asides and subsidies are used extensively in government procurement and natural resource sales. We analyze these policies in an empirical model of US ...
  194. [194]
    Are bid preferences benign? The effect of small business subsidies ...
    The higher procurement cost in preference auctions is attributed to reduced participation by lower cost large firms. Structural estimates of latent firm costs ...
  195. [195]
    Set-Asides and Subsidies in Auctions
    Mar 7, 2011 · S Athey , J Levin. Information and Competition in U.S. Forest Service Timber Auctions. Journal of Political Economy , volume 109 , issue 2 , p ...
  196. [196]
    Misuse of SBA's 8(a) Program Increased Cost for Many ADP ...
    GAO reviewed the use of contracts under Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act by various federal agencies as a means of acquiring automatic data...Missing: premium | Show results with:premium
  197. [197]
    [PDF] GAO-22-104621, SMALL BUSINESS CONTRACTING
    Oct 14, 2021 · Contracts awarded under these set-aside procedures are competitive, but only small businesses may compete. Source: GAO analysis of federal ...
  198. [198]
    [PDF] The Impact of Reserved Contracts in U.S. Federal Procurement
    Jul 5, 2024 · 75 Thus, in theory, contracts reserved for small businesses do not incur additional procurement costs to the agency. This aligns with the ...
  199. [199]
    [PDF] An economic analysis of the Small Business Administration's 8(A ...
    Administration's 8(a) program outweigh the associated economic costs and inefficiencies created under the program? Page 21. 2. Subsidiary Research Questions.
  200. [200]
    [PDF] The Compelling Interest to Remedy the Effects of Discrimination in ...
    Introduction. This report summarizes recent evidence required to justify the use of race- and sex-conscious provisions in federal contracting programs.
  201. [201]
    DOJ Rescinds Report on Race & Sex in Federal Contracting Programs
    Apr 23, 2025 · The DOJ rescinded the 2022 report because it was no longer considered accurate, aligned with executive orders ending DEI programs, and to ...
  202. [202]
    Ending Racial Favoritism in Government Contracting
    Oct 5, 2023 · Unfortunately, government contracting today contains a vast system of racial favoritism, which costs taxpayers billions of dollars and degrades ...
  203. [203]
    [PDF] Evidence from Veteran Set-Asides - GitHub Pages
    Small business set-asides in procurement auctions: An empirical analysis. Journal of Public Economics 100, 28–44. Rosa, B. (2023). Diversity versus equity ...
  204. [204]
    Small Business Administration: Recent Changes to the 8(a ...
    Aug 30, 2022 · GAO analyzed financial data on 8(a) applicants and federal contracting data, reviewed 8(a) program reports, and interviewed SBA officials and ...
  205. [205]
    Racial Preferences in Economic Benefits: From Widely Accepted to ...
    Apr 10, 2024 · Beginning in the 1970s, American governments began to use racial preferences to distribute economic benefits and public procurements.
  206. [206]
    New Executive Order Would Terminate Race and Gender Affirmative ...
    Jan 23, 2025 · President Donald Trump issued an executive order (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”) to eliminate race- and sex-based “ ...Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
  207. [207]
    Effects of federal socioeconomic contracting preferences
    Aug 10, 2025 · The 8(a) business development program supports small disadvantaged U.S. federal contractors through benefits such as set-aside and ...
  208. [208]
    [PDF] The impact of preference programs in public procurement: Evidence ...
    We find no evidence of relevant spillovers to awards by other federal agencies, no decline in competition for awards, and no deterioration of contract execution ...
  209. [209]
    [PDF] Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 - Congress.gov
    To revise and streamline the acquisition laws of the Federal Government, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the ...
  210. [210]
    Congress Must Again Strengthen the Federal Acquisition ...
    Nov 8, 2024 · FASA was first and foremost about streamlining laws to enable and encourage new leading-edge commercial companies to support the government.
  211. [211]
    Section 809 Panel – Defense Technical Information Center - DTIC
    The panel was charged to deliver recommendations that could transform the defense acquisition system to meet the threats and demands of the 21st century.
  212. [212]
    [PDF] List of Section 809 Panel Recommendations - DTIC
    10. IR-4 Eliminate FAR section on texting while driving. (FAR Clause 52.223-18) 17. IR-5 Eliminate the requirement to accept and dispense dollar coins at.
  213. [213]
    [PDF] Section 809 Panel Recommendation to Streamline and Simplify Sel
    Jun 1, 2019 · • Panel Recommendation: Revise FAR 12.102 and 13.000 to clarify the relationship between FAR Parts 12 and 13. That is, contracting officers ...<|separator|>
  214. [214]
    Section 809 Panelists unpack defense acquisition reform ... - Army.mil
    Apr 30, 2019 · The panel has published a three-volume final report that includes 98 recommendations aimed at changing the overall structure and operations of defense ...Missing: FAR | Show results with:FAR
  215. [215]
    Section 809 Panel Recommendations: Overhaul Audit Practices and ...
    Jan 28, 2019 · The Section 809 Panel recommends that DoD implement a newly-drafted professional practice guide that explains how to interpret and apply auditing concepts.
  216. [216]
    Acquisition Reform, at a Crossroads - Stimson Center
    May 5, 2025 · Examining recent executive and legislative efforts to reform the defense acquisition system.
  217. [217]
    Acquisition Reform in the 1990s: Lessons from a By-Gone Era for ...
    Aug 12, 2020 · Reflecting on acquisition reform in the 1990s as well as the work of the Section 800 panel, bring backs memories of a different era in ...
  218. [218]
    Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement - The White House
    Apr 15, 2025 · The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was implemented to establish uniform procedures for acquisitions across executive departments and agencies (agencies).
  219. [219]
    Revolutionary FAR Overhaul - Acquisition.GOV
    May 2, 2025 · This initiative will return the FAR to its statutory roots, rewritten in plain language, and remove most non-statutory rules.
  220. [220]
    President Trump Issues Executive Order Calling for Reform of the ...
    On April 15, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement” (the Order). The Order calls ...
  221. [221]
    [PDF] May 2, 2025 - Acquisition.GOV
    May 2, 2025 · Most non- statutory regulations will be replaced with OFPP-endorsed buying guides that highlight proven innovative buying techniques for ...Missing: impact | Show results with:impact
  222. [222]
    Vive la revolution? The Trump Administration Begins to Roll Out its ...
    Aug 20, 2025 · The federal government is simplifying procurement rules with a major FAR overhaul, cutting 1000+ requirements to streamline and modernize ...
  223. [223]
    FAR Council releases changes to 6 sections of acquisition regulation
    Aug 14, 2025 · The White House celebrated the changes as a milestone in its effort to overhaul and simplify the rules surrounding federal buying.
  224. [224]
    Trump Administration Issues Executive Orders Directing Major ...
    Apr 21, 2025 · On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued an EO focused on “Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation in the Defense Industrial ...
  225. [225]
    Trump Administration Issues Two Executive Orders Seeking To ...
    Apr 16, 2025 · The FAR Reform EO primarily aims to streamline and simplify the FAR, which has governed federal procurement of goods and services for more than ...<|separator|>
  226. [226]
    FAR overhaul underway: what contractors need to know | Perspectives
    Aug 22, 2025 · On April 15, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14275, “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement” (EO 14275), initiating ...
  227. [227]
    Continued Signs of Progress in the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul
    Jun 26, 2025 · Since President Trump issued Executive Order (“E.O.”) 14275, “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement” on April 15, 2025 as part of an ...
  228. [228]
    The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul: What Government Contractors ...
    May 6, 2025 · The initial draft revisions—covering FAR Parts 1, 34, and 52—are now open for public comment through September 30, 2025, at 12:00 PM EST ...
  229. [229]
    https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2025/10/overhauling-the-gsa-schedule/
  230. [230]
    FAR 2.0: A Transformative Rewrite of Federal Acquisition Regulation ...
    Jun 26, 2025 · FAR 2.0 seeks to pare down the regulations, potentially reducing compliance burdens and overhead costs for contractors. The rewrite also aims to ...
  231. [231]
    Major Overhaul of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
    Sep 10, 2025 · Executive Track: Agencies may now be required to prioritize commercially available products and services. Custom or government-unique solutions ...
  232. [232]
    Decoding the FAR Overhaul - Wiley Law
    Our Decoding the FAR Rewrite site is tracking the “Revolutionary” FAR Overhaul and provides timely information on the overhaul process and the revised FAR ...
  233. [233]
    The Future of Federal Procurement: Key Executive Orders Aim to ...
    Apr 11, 2025 · Established on July 1, 1949 by President Harry S. Truman through the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., ...
  234. [234]
    Federal Contracting: Commercial Item Test Program Beneficial, but ...
    Feb 4, 2014 · GAO found that the test program reduced contracting lead time and administrative burdens and generally did not incur additional risks above those on other ...
  235. [235]
    How the Trump Administration and DOGE Are Reshaping ...
    Feb 3, 2025 · The removal of DEI mandates, procurement reforms, and increased scrutiny over federal payments signal a shift toward cost-cutting measures that ...Missing: projected | Show results with:projected
  236. [236]
    DOGE released data about federal contract savings. It doesn't add up
    Feb 19, 2025 · DOGE's savings page also does not include any evidence of fraud, waste or abuse in contracts, but does highlight ideological differences between ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  237. [237]
    FAR 2.0: How the New Executive Order Could Transform ... - Fluet
    May 29, 2025 · The Executive Order's mandate to streamline the FAR could result in a more centralized quasi-judicial S&D process, potentially consolidating ...
  238. [238]
    Preparing for a “Common-Sense” FAR: What Federal Contractors ...
    Apr 17, 2025 · This Executive Order has potentially far-reaching implications: Reduced Complexity: Contractors may soon face fewer compliance hurdles ...Missing: projected | Show results with:projected
  239. [239]
    [PDF] Simplifying Federal Procurement to Improve Performance, Drive ...
    Dec 4, 2014 · Federal procurement is being simplified by cutting unnecessary contracts, strategic sourcing, category management, and increasing digital  ...
  240. [240]
    Defense Primer: Other Transactions (OTs) - Congress.gov
    Dec 19, 2024 · The Department of Defense (DOD) is authorized to enter into legally binding contracts, referred to as other transactions (OTs), to acquire goods and services ...
  241. [241]
    Other Transaction Authority: What Is It and How Can I Get It?
    Mar 8, 2018 · Importantly, an other transaction agreement is not a contract. It is not subject to the FAR or DFARS. The transaction also is not subject to ...
  242. [242]
    Other Transaction Authority (OTA) - AcqNotes
    An OTA is a procurement authority that allows federal agencies to enter into agreements with non-traditional defense contractors, such as small businesses, ...
  243. [243]
    What are the advantages of using an Other Transaction ... - AcqNotes
    Jan 8, 2024 · The advantages of OTAs over traditional Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contracts are evident in their flexibility, speed, and emphasis on outcomes.Federal Acquisition... · Benefits Of Ota Contracts... · Main Uses For An OtaMissing: evidence | Show results with:evidence<|separator|>
  244. [244]
    Trends in Defense Use of Other Transaction Authority, FY 2021-2023
    May 1, 2024 · In FY 2021, the DOD awarded 2,091 OTAs. By FY 2023, this number had risen to 2,532. Short term or not, the award of this many OTAs ensures ...
  245. [245]
    The Four C's for Successful Other Transactions | www.dau.edu
    DoD's OT use since Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 has skyrocketed. According to data from the Federal Procurement Data System, the DoD obligated a total of $4.4 billion ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
  246. [246]
    Improved Contracting Data Would Help DOD Assess Effectiveness
    Sep 3, 2025 · DOD can award funds via an “other transaction agreement.” OTAs can attract contractors that haven't worked with DOD before.
  247. [247]
    ACCELERATING SUPERIORITY - USAASC
    Jul 3, 2023 · DOD OTA obligations increased 75 percent in ... other transaction authority strategy was the use of the Medical CBRN Defense Consortium.
  248. [248]
    How 2016 NDAA transformed OTAs into key defense contracting tool
    Mar 12, 2025 · “There's no doubt that the use by DoD of Other Transaction Authority has provided a way in for companies that otherwise would have had a harder ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  249. [249]
    https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-48/chapter-1/subchapter-B/part-12
  250. [250]
    [PDF] Department of Defense Guidebook for Acquiring Commercial Items
    This preference is implemented in the FAR at Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. FAR 12.101, Policy, requires agencies to: • Conduct market research ...
  251. [251]
    Threshold Changes - October 1st, 2025 - Acquisition.GOV
    Oct 1, 2025 · Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), $250,000, $350,000, 2.101, 2.101. SAT - Contingency Operations, $800,000, $1,000,000, 2.101, 2.101. SAT ...
  252. [252]
    Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds
    Aug 27, 2025 · ... regulatory burden on offerors and ... The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council is amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) ...
  253. [253]
    A Plethora of Pathways to Do Business with the Federal Government
    Jan 27, 2023 · All of the ways to do business with the US federal government, including both the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and non-FAR based pathways.
  254. [254]
    Contracting Cone | Adaptive Acquisition Framework
    The Contracting Cone describes the full spectrum of available FAR and Non-FAR contract strategies to provide visibility into new or lesser known strategies ...Simplified Acquisition (FAR 13) · IDIQ (FAR 16.5) · Negotiated Contracts (FAR 15)
  255. [255]
    [PDF] Non-Far-Based Contracts and Acquisition Environmental Factor ...
    CRADAs allow for streamlined processes and create a collaborative environment which can benefit both commercial and military applications without any direct ...
  256. [256]
    Exploring Non-FAR Procurement: 3 Effective Alternatives for Federal ...
    Aug 14, 2023 · Salas O'Brien helps federal agencies successfully deliver affordable, comprehensive, and expedited results through alternative procurement strategies.
  257. [257]
    https://www.sbir.gov/about/about-sbir