Navigating the FAR Overhaul and Its Consequences

This is the real-time, interactive resource documenting the ongoing regulatory overhaul of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Here, we track and analyze every change affecting small businesses, economic impacts on congressional districts, and ensure the transparency and public accountability the government is denying.

Featured

Latest Updates

[Date of Update] – Brief description of the recent FAR overhaul update. Read more →
[Date of Update] – Brief description of another relevant update. Read more →

View all updates →

← Return to Main Report

IV. The False Premise: Debunking Claims of Modernization, Efficiency, and Cost Savings

The recent regulatory revisions and executive-driven changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) have been publicly promoted under attractive but misleading terms such as "modernization," "streamlining," and "commercialization." These terms are not only inaccurate—they mask severe negative consequences, including reduced competition, increased market concentration, higher long-term costs, and loss of innovation and flexibility. It is essential to critically examine and debunk these false premises.

False Claim: "Modernization"

The administration frames FAR changes as a modernization effort aimed at simplifying processes and updating outdated regulatory frameworks. While this rhetoric might suggest progress and improvement, the reality is starkly different. Genuine modernization requires transparent, publicly accountable processes and adherence to statutory requirements—not opaque deviations or behind-the-scenes regulatory dismantling that violates the APA.^14,15

False Claim: "Efficiency"

Proponents of the recent FAR overhaul frequently argue that fewer regulations automatically result in faster acquisitions, better procurement outcomes, and reduced costs. However, expert analyses repeatedly demonstrate that reducing the supplier base and concentrating contracts among fewer, larger vendors actually diminishes procurement efficiency over time.¹³

Reality Check on Efficiency: Market concentration leads to vendor lock-in, reducing agencies' negotiating leverage and flexibility, thus creating dependency on large incumbents.¹³

False Claim: "Cost Savings"

Claims of substantial cost savings through consolidation and reliance on fewer, larger vendors are similarly unsupported by evidence. Economic analysis consistently demonstrates that decreased competition drives higher long-term prices, as entrenched incumbents gain pricing power and agencies lose the leverage to ensure fair market rates.¹³

The True Costs: Economic Damage and Innovation Loss

Higher Long-Term Costs: Agencies lose competitive pressure and bargaining power, leading directly to increased procurement costs over time.^12,13
Reduced Innovation: Small businesses are proven innovation drivers. Excluding these agile competitors results in slower technological advancement and diminished solutions for complex government needs.¹³
Loss of Market Flexibility and Resilience: Over-reliance on fewer suppliers creates vulnerability to market disruptions, undermining the responsiveness and resilience of critical federal supply chains.¹³
Local Economic Damage: Small businesses provide vital economic support at the local and regional levels. The systematic dismantling of small business access translates directly into lost jobs, reduced economic vitality, and long-term harm to communities nationwide.^7,8,11

Call to Action

Congress, media, and economic stakeholders must critically challenge these misleading claims of modernization, efficiency, and cost savings. The current path is not genuine progress but a dangerous dismantling of vital economic protections and competitive procurement processes.

Immediate congressional intervention is essential. Restoring statutory compliance, enforcing the Rule of Two, and preserving transparency through mandatory APA compliance are critical steps to halt this damaging trajectory and protect America's economic, competitive, and innovative strength.

Next Section: V. Rule of Two & APA Adherence »