Submit Comments to the FAR Council

To the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council: I am writing to express my profound concern about the process and cumulative impact of the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) on my small business and the federal industrial base. Submitted By: Name: [Submitter’s Name] Company: [Company Name] Email: [Email Address] Address: [Full Address] Company Description: [Brief Description] (1) My Personal Experience: As a small business owner, the market research provisions of FAR Part 10 have historically provided essential visibility and access to contracting opportunities, driving innovation, employment, and local economic growth. The recent changes significantly threaten these vital outcomes and directly harm my ability to participate fairly in federal procurement. (2) 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 a meaningful opportunity to provide input before a rule takes effect, rendering the eventual rulemaking process performative rather than substantive. (3) The Systemic Removal of Procedural Safeguards Dismantles the Small Business Safety Net: The RFO does not just change individual rules; it severs the connective tissue that links them together. The removal of explicit small business considerations from FAR Parts 10 (Market Research), 6 (Competition), and 11 (Describing Agency Needs) has created a procedural vacuum. Contracting officers are no longer explicitly prompted to actively seek and document small business capabilities, consult with the SBA regarding bundling, or avoid unnecessarily restrictive schedules. Without actively seeking and documenting small business capabilities, contracts could easily be designed in ways that exclude small businesses, thereby limiting competition. Contract design is critical to ensuring open competition and fair opportunities for small businesses. The burden has been shifted from the government to the small business community to police the entire acquisition process, which is an unfair and unsustainable expectation. (4) Direct Economic Harm to Local Communities: This is not merely a regulatory issue—it is an economic issue with direct consequences for local economies and jobs in every congressional district. Over 300 congressional districts each have over $100 million in small business contract revenues at risk annually. For nearly three-quarters of all U.S. congressional districts (325 out of 435), more than half of their small business federal contracting revenue comes directly from set-asides driven by the statutory requirement for maximum practicable participation, supported through the Rule of Two. In my district, small businesses heavily rely on set-asides, which have already been severely undermined by policies favoring contract consolidation. The latest data indicates a significant decline in unique small business federal suppliers. The changes to FAR Part 10 will accelerate this decline, resulting in job losses and weakening the economic health of our communities. (5) The Transfer of Risk to Contractors Will Increase Costs and Reduce Competition: The removal of enforceable, mandatory standards and the shift toward discretionary, non-binding guidance in market research transfers significant financial risks onto small businesses. Contracting officers are now procedurally directed to prioritize large, existing government-wide contracts, which limits the opportunity for small businesses to compete for new contracts. This practice will reduce competition, inflate costs, and hinder innovation. Specific Comments on FAR Part 10: Additions and Refinements: - Introduction of a new explicit hierarchy in 10.001(f), prioritizing the use of existing government-wide contracts. This prioritization inherently favors large, established contractors who dominate these existing contract vehicles, severely limiting fair access and opportunities for small businesses to compete. - Replacement of mandatory rules with discretionary, non-binding guidance, significantly reducing accountability. This reduction in accountability means contracting officers have less obligation to ensure small businesses are considered fairly, weakening the enforcement and oversight that protect fair competition. Critical Removals: - Complete elimination of mandatory language requiring contracting officers to actively seek and document small business capabilities. - Removal of explicit market research triggers related to small business set-asides and the Rule of Two. - Deletion of regulatory requirements to consult SBA on matters such as bundling. - Elimination of grounds for protest based on inadequate market research. Recognition of USDA Deviation: We specifically congratulate and recognize the USDA for their deviation from the broader FAR Council’s changes. USDA’s decision to retain explicit small business considerations, mandatory documentation requirements, and consultation with SBA regarding bundling demonstrates commendable leadership and a commitment to productive small business inclusion. This deviation should serve as a model for all federal agencies. Conclusion and Recommendation: Market research provisions must explicitly require contracting officers to document and justify their evaluation of small business capabilities, ensuring the Rule of Two remains viable and enforceable. SBA oversight and protest rights must be fully restored to prevent biased or inadequate market research from marginalizing small businesses. Immediate action is required to correct these regulatory rollbacks, which are damaging the competitive integrity of federal procurement and the economic health of our communities.