Part 2 of 3: The Overhaul of the FAR - Practical Effects

By RO WIETECHA

September 10, 2025 |

As discussed in my previous article on the Trump Administration’s superficially innocuous but latently dramatic Overhaul of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR Overhaul), the effects of reducing the FAR to its statutory minimum may have unintended consequences.

Specifically, the FAR Overhaul, which the Acquisition.gov page declares is intended to make “faster acquisitions, greater competition, and better results,” may, at least initially, have the exact opposite practical and procedural effects to those intended. For one, the uncertainty and burden of having to learn a greater volume of FAR-related content is likely to chill the risk-taking and flexibility the FAR Overhaul is intending to promote.  Appearing to not recognize that there was already a significant amount of contracting officer (CO) discretion afforded by the FAR, an attempt to increase discretion may be paralyzing, particularly for less experienced or inherently risk-averse COs intimidated by the FAR Overhaul’s “intuitive” descriptions of guardrails. This may be exacerbated by the radical changes and hollowing out of the federal procurement workforce in the last several months as many of the more experienced COs have left US government employment due to Reductions-in-Force and/or Deferred Resignation Programs. Finally, putting similar but complementary content in multiple places not only decreases the likelihood of compliance overall, it also makes it less likely that individual COs will be confident in having a comprehensive understanding without going through what has historically been an already substantial professional burden of developing CO proficiency. 

The FAR Overhaul is also likely to, at least initially, increase procurement action lead times. There will be more to be negotiated and/or internally approved/decided, which inherently will take time, if COs continue to uphold their generally high standards of being meticulous and professionally careful. There is also a likelihood of increased numbers of bid protests and claims litigation due to the lack of certainty the switch to plain language and the removal of previous statutory interpretations will cause. For example,many of the examples enumerated in FAR Part 6 explaining when a particular exception to competition may be applied have been removed, leaving more questions about when an exception legally does apply than previously. This absence of guidance is both liberating to the more creative and anti-competition COs (or those more susceptible to yielding to the pressures and demands of their programmatic colleagues’ demands and biases) and yet chilling because there are likely to be more controversies and disputes to which such expansion of authorized discretion leads.

Moreover, the less robust documentation of rationales and decision-making facilitated by the FAR Overhaul’s “streamlining” and removal of mandatory (but not statutorily required) guidance will actually increase delays and procurement actions due to the need for additional gap-filling extensions and as non-competitive actions increase. Bid protests create a separate line of effort in which the agency must essentially pivot to dispute resolution as part of the procedure for making a new award while at the same time treading water on any ongoing need or program previously being performed or that has to bridge the gap between the present and when the protested contract may eventually be awarded. The usual result is that both (the protested award defense and the work necessary to keep the prior program going or getting some complementary portion of the new program off the ground) go slower.

Also as noted in the first article, the FAR Overhaul is likely to lead to a renaissance of litigation and dispute resolution due to the increased flexibility and ambiguity of a less robust and adjudication-savvy FAR. This proliferation of disputes will undoubtedly slow down procurements and programs, at least temporarily increasing inefficiency and burdens. With a decreasing Federal workforce, the capacity to address the increase in disputes and issue resolution will quickly be outpaced by the radicalization of the processes and uncertainties.

There are some positive or at least neutral changes that help bring certainty and predictability to the interpretation of contracts awarded pursuant to the FAR. A recently finalized clarification that System for Award Management (SAM.gov) registration is only required at the time of submitting a bid/offer and at time of award, removing the continuous registration requirement that had been the source of extensive litigation due to often incompatible timing of SAM registration renewals and procurement action lead times (PALTs). Additionally, the Small Business Administration recently proposed increasing the size thresholds for what monetary size of businesses qualify for the more streamlined and preferential competition treatment under Part 19.

Overall, the FAR Overhaul is likely to be a case of “be careful of what you wish for,” at least in the near term.