Submit Comments to the FAR Council

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO FAR PART 11 - DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS Submitted By: Name: [Name] Company: [Company Name] Email: [Email Address] Address: [Full Address] Company Description: [Company Description] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I submit these comments regarding proposed changes to FAR Part 11 - Describing Agency Needs, expressing profound concern about the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) methodology and its systematic dismantling of small business protections. The proposed changes eliminate binding regulatory safeguards that have protected small business participation for decades, replacing mandatory requirements with discretionary, unenforceable guidance while circumventing legally-required Administrative Procedure Act processes. THE FLAWED "ADOPT FIRST, FINALIZE LATER" IMPLEMENTATION The unprecedented use of rolling class deviations to implement massive, government-wide policy changes circumvents the transparent, legally-mandated notice-and-comment process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. This "adopt first, finalize later" approach denies stakeholders meaningful opportunity to provide input before rules take effect, rendering the eventual rulemaking process performative rather than substantive. SYSTEMATIC REMOVAL OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS The RFO does not just change individual rules; it severs the connective tissue linking them together. Critical deletions in FAR Part 11 include: - Complete elimination of FAR 11.402(a)(6) requiring contracting officers to consider "capabilities of small business concerns" when establishing delivery schedules - Removal of binding "brand name or equal" procedures (FAR 11.104, 52.211-6), relegating protections to non-regulatory guidance - Deletion of mandatory language ensuring delivery schedules are "realistic" and not unnecessarily restrictive - Elimination of virgin material restrictions that supported sustainable small business investments - Removal of variation-in-quantity protections and pre-award evaluation procedures These changes create a procedural vacuum where contracting officers are no longer explicitly required to document small business consideration, shifting the burden from government to small businesses to police the entire acquisition process. DIRECT ECONOMIC HARM TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES This is not merely regulatory - it is economic with direct consequences for local economies. Over 300 congressional districts each have over $100 million in small business contract revenues at risk annually. For 325 of 435 districts, more than half of small business federal contracting revenue depends on protections now being systematically eliminated. The removal of delivery schedule safeguards particularly impacts small businesses, which historically relied on FAR 11.402(a)(6) to contest unreasonable timelines. Without this protection, solicitations can easily be designed with delivery requirements that exclude small businesses, regardless of their technical capabilities. TRANSFER OF RISK INCREASES COSTS AND REDUCES COMPETITION The replacement of enforceable, mandatory standards with discretionary, non-binding guidance transfers significant financial risks onto small businesses. The shift from "shall" to "may" language throughout Part 11 eliminates contracting officer accountability and removes small businesses' primary legal recourse against exclusionary procurement design. Without binding requirements, small businesses must now challenge decisions under the much higher legal standard of proving "abuse of discretion" rather than citing specific regulatory violations. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON FAR PART 11 CHANGES Critical Removals: - FAR 11.402(a)(6): Elimination of mandatory small business capability consideration in delivery schedules - FAR 11.104/52.211-6: Removal of enforceable "brand name or equal" protections - FAR 11.401(a): Deletion of requirements for "realistic" delivery schedules - FAR 11.301(a): Removal of virgin material restrictions - FAR 11.701-11.703: Elimination of variation-in-quantity procedures - FAR 11.8: Removal of pre-award in-use evaluation protections Regulatory to Non-Regulatory Transfer: Twelve regulatory clauses were moved to the non-binding FAR Companion Guide, eliminating enforceability and protest rights while maintaining the illusion of protection. CUMULATIVE IMPACT WITH OTHER RFO CHANGES FAR Part 11 changes compound problems created by simultaneous changes to Parts 10 (Market Research), 18 (Emergency Acquisitions), and 39 (ICT). The combined effect creates a "perfect storm": - Weakened market research (Part 10) + eliminated requirements safeguards (Part 11) = systematic exclusion - Emergency procedure changes (Part 18) + delivery schedule deregulation (Part 11) = impossible timelines for small businesses - ICT complexity increases (Part 39) + brand name deregulation (Part 11) = incumbent protection RECOMMENDATIONS 1. RESTORE APA COMPLIANCE: Immediately halt the "adopt first, finalize later" approach. Require all FAR changes to follow transparent, legally compliant notice-and-comment processes with genuine stakeholder input before implementation. 2. REINSTATE SMALL BUSINESS SAFEGUARDS: Restore FAR 11.402(a)(6) requiring contracting officers to document and justify evaluation of small business capabilities when establishing delivery schedules. 3. RETURN CRITICAL PROTECTIONS TO REGULATION: Restore FAR 11.104 and clause 52.211-6 to ensure enforceable "brand name or equal" protections with clear evaluation criteria. 4. RE-ESTABLISH BINDING REQUIREMENTS: Return deleted clauses governing delivery schedules, variation procedures, and evaluation methods to enforceable regulatory status. 5. PRESERVE SUSTAINABILITY PROTECTIONS: Reinstate FAR 11.301(a) virgin material restrictions supporting small business environmental investments. 6. RESTORE OVERSIGHT AND PROTEST RIGHTS: Ensure small businesses retain ability to challenge exclusionary requirements design through enforceable regulatory standards. CONCLUSION The proposed changes to FAR Part 11 represent fundamental breakdowns in transparent governance and competitive procurement. The systematic replacement of binding protections with discretionary guidance, implemented through legally questionable class deviations, undermines decades of policy supporting small business participation. Market research provisions must explicitly require contracting officers to document and justify their evaluation of small business capabilities. Delivery schedule protections and brand name safeguards must be fully restored to prevent biased requirements from marginalizing small businesses. Immediate action is required to correct these regulatory rollbacks, which damage the competitive integrity of federal procurement and the economic health of communities nationwide. The FAR Council must ensure that procurement reform enhances rather than eliminates small business opportunities.