Photo of Anuj VohraPhoto of Lorraine M. CamposPhoto of John E. McCarthy Jr.Photo of Peter J. EyrePhoto of Allison SkagerPhoto of Kevin Caggiano

On May 2, 2025, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (“OFPP”) and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (“FAR Council”) issued the first round of promised FAR rewrites—to Parts 1, 34, and 52—alongside a guidance memorandum for agencies subject to the FAR, Deviation Guidance to Support the Overhaul of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR Council Deviation Guidance”). The Office of Management and Budget also released a guidance memo, Overhauling the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“OMB Guidance”), that addresses the proposed implementation roadmap for the FAR overhaul. These initial FAR revisions follow the April 15, 2025 Executive Order (“EO”), Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement, which we previously reported on here.

The initial rewrites include FAR Part 1 (Federal Acquisition Regulations System), and FAR Part 34 (Major System Acquisition), with a few corresponding revisions to FAR Part 52 (Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses). Notable changes include the deletion of FAR Subpart 1.5’s public participation terms, and the addition of FAR 1.109, a new clause containing a four-year sunset provision for non-statutory FAR clauses (which was specifically recommended in the April EO). A high-level summary of the initial revisions is included below.

The FAR Council Deviation Guidance instructs agencies to issue agency-specific class deviations within 30 days after the FAR Council publishes class deviation text on the “Revolutionary FAR Overhaul” (“RFO”) website, and such deviations should remain effective until formally implemented in the FAR. Agencies must request approval from the FAR Council before issuing class deviations that differ from the FAR Council’s model deviation text.

According to the OMB Guidance, most non-statutory regulations will be replaced with OFPP-endorsed “buying guides” that, collectively with the streamlined FAR, will be referred to as the Strategic Acquisition Guidance (“SAG”). The buying guides will be “living documents that are updated as best practices evolve and will accommodate varying levels of procurement experience.”

After the FAR Council has posted model deviation guidance for all FAR parts, it will turn to formal rulemaking using the notice and comment process set forth at 41 U.S.C. § 1707. The OMB Guidance notes that the rulemaking will be “informed by the model deviation text, public input on the text received on the RFO website, operational experience with agency deviations, recommendations from agency points of contact [], testing of the buying guides, and other appropriate inputs.” 


FAR Part 1 – Federal Acquisition Regulations System

Sections Removed:

  • Subpart 1.2 – “Administration” has been removed.
  • Subpart 1.5 – “Agency and Public Participation” has been removed, including sections 1.501 to 1.503, which covered solicitation of agency and public views, opportunity for public comments, exceptions, unsolicited proposed revisions, and public meetings.

Sections Added:

  • 1.109, “Regulatory sunset” – As directed in section 6 of the April 15, 2025 Executive Order, Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement, this new section outlines the expiration of FAR sections not required by statute after four years unless renewed.

Sections Revised:

  • Subpart 1.1 – formerly, “Purpose, Authority, Issuance,” now, “Framework” has been revised and shortened, including, among other changes:
    • Emphasis on efficiency and innovation
    • Replacing language in the FAR’s guiding principles favoring awards to contractors with a track record of successful past performance or “current” superior ability to perform with new language favoring awards to “contractors who demonstrate a superior ability to perform.”
  • Subpart 1.3 (now Subpart 1.2) – “Agency Acquisition Regulations” has been revised and shortened.
  • Subpart 1.4 (now Subpart 1.3) – “Deviations from the FAR” has been revised and NASA and DoD-specific terms and exceptions have been removed.
  • Subpart 1.6 (now Subpart 1.4) – “Career Development, Contracting Authority, and Responsibilities” has been revised.
  • Subpart 1.7 (now Subpart 1.5) – formerly, “Supersession and modification,” now, “Replacement and modification” has been revised.

FAR Part 34 – Major System Acquisition

Sections Removed:

  • 34.000, “Scope of part”
  • 34.001, “Definition” – The definition of “Effective competition” was removed.
  • 34.002, “Policy”
  • 34.003, “Responsibilities” – Responsibilities for agency heads and procedures for major system acquisitions, including requirement for written implementation procedures, removed.
  • 34.004, “Acquisition strategy” – The requirement for a written acquisition strategy by the program manager was removed.
  • 34.005, “General requirements” – Sections detailing competition, mission-oriented solicitation, concept exploration contracts, demonstration contracts, full-scale development contracts, and full production contracts removed.

Sections Revised:

  • Subpart 34.1 – Previously “Testing, Qualification and Use of Industrial Resources Developed Under Title III, Defense Production Act,” now, “Postaward”
    • 34.100 (formerly 34.1), “Testing, Qualification and Use of Industrial Resources Developed Under Title III of the Defense Production Act”
    • 34.101, “Scope” (formerly 34.100, “Scope of subpart”)
    • 34.102 (formerly 34.101), “Definitions” – The definition of “Item of supply” has been revised.
    • 34.103 (formerly 34.102), “Policy” – Whereas the current language declared it “the policy of the Government . . . to pay for any testing and qualification required for the use or incorporation of the industrial resources manufactured or developed with assistance provided under Title III of the Defense Production Act,” the new language states that the Government “will generally pay” such costs.
    • 34.104 (formerly 34.103), “Testing and qualification” and 34.105 (formerly 34.104), “Contract Clause” – FAR 52.234-1 reference updated to FAR 52.201. Given that the current FAR 52.201-1 was deleted and reserved, it appears that FAR 52.234-1, Industrial Resources Developed Under Title III of the Defense Production Act, will become FAR 52.201.
  • Subpart 34.2 – Earned Value Management System (EVMS)
    • 34.201, “Policy” – Deletion of 34.201(b), which allowed for submission of a comprehensive plan for compliance with these EVMS standards if an offeror proposed to use a system that had not been determined to be in compliance with the Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748 (EIA-748), and provided that offerors would not be eliminated from consideration for contract award because they did not have an EVMS that complied with these standards.
    • 34.202, “Integrated Baseline Reviews” – The section is substantially shortened and now simply states that “[w]hen an EVMS is required, the agency will conduct an Integrated Baseline Review.”
    • 34.203, formerly, “Solicitation provisions and contract,” now, “Contract Clause” – Insertion instructions deleted for FAR 52.234-2, Earned Value Management System Preaward Integrated Baseline Review and FAR 52.234-3, Earned Value Management System Postaward Integrated Baseline Review.

FAR Part 52 – Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses

Sections Removed and Reserved:

  • 52.201-1, Acquisition 360: Voluntary Survey, deleted and reserved. Based on the revisions to FAR Part 34 and this deletion, it appears that FAR 52.234-1, Industrial Resources Developed Under Title III of the Defense Production Act, will become FAR 52.201.
  • 52.234-2, Earned Value Management System Preaward Integrated Baseline Review, deleted and reserved.
  • 52.234-3, Earned Value Management System Postaward Integrated Baseline Review, deleted and reserved.

Sections Revised:

  • 52.234-1, Industrial Resources Developed Under Title III, Defense Production Act,” has been slightly renamed (“Industrial Resources Developed Under Title III of the Defense Production Act”) and revised.
  • 52.234-4, Earned Value Management System, has been revised.
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Anuj Vohra Anuj Vohra

Anuj Vohra litigates high-stakes disputes on behalf of government contractors in federal and state court, and maintains an active bid protest practice before the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He also assists clients with an array of…

Anuj Vohra litigates high-stakes disputes on behalf of government contractors in federal and state court, and maintains an active bid protest practice before the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He also assists clients with an array of issues related to contract formation (including subcontracts and teaming agreements), regulatory compliance, internal and government-facing investigations, suspension and debarment, organizational conflicts of interest (“OCIs”), intellectual property and data rights, and the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

Prior to entering private practice, Anuj spent six years as a Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Commercial Litigation Branch. At DOJ, he was a member of the Bid Protest Team—which handles the department’s largest and most complex protests—and served as lead counsel in dozens of matters representing the United States in commercial disputes before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Photo of Lorraine M. Campos Lorraine M. Campos

Lorraine M. Campos is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group and focuses her practice on assisting clients with a variety of issues related to government contracts, government ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying laws. Lorraine…

Lorraine M. Campos is a partner and member of the Steering Committee of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group and focuses her practice on assisting clients with a variety of issues related to government contracts, government ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying laws. Lorraine regularly counsels clients on all aspects of the General Services Administration (GSA) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) programs. She also routinely advises clients on the terms and conditions of these agreements, including the Price Reduction Clause, small business subcontracting requirements, and country of origin restrictions mandated under U.S. trade agreements, such as the Trade Agreements Act and the Buy American Act. Additionally, Lorraine advises life sciences companies, in particular, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, on federal procurement and federal pricing statutes, including the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992.

Lorraine has been ranked by Chambers USA since 2013, and she was recognized by Profiles in Diversity Journal as one of their “Women Worth Watching” for 2015. Additionally, Lorraine is active in the American Bar Association’s Section of Public Contract Law and serves as co-chair of the Health Care Contracting Committee.

Lorraine joined the firm from Reed Smith, where she chaired their Government Contracts & Grants Team since 2010. Prior to that, she worked as a consultant for Grant Thornton, where she advised the Intelligence Community, analyzed the Department of Defense utility privatization program, and performed numerous Circular A-76 studies for the Office of Management and Budget.

Photo of John E. McCarthy Jr. John E. McCarthy Jr.

John E. McCarthy, Jr. is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring and member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group. John has spent more than thirty years litigating all forms of government contracts cases for both large and small…

John E. McCarthy, Jr. is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring and member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group. John has spent more than thirty years litigating all forms of government contracts cases for both large and small government contractors, with a particular emphasis on bid protests. Because of John’s strong engineering background, he has particular experience in technology related issues, including litigation regarding complex technology and data rights, patent and other intellectual property issues.

Photo of Peter J. Eyre Peter J. Eyre

Peter J. Eyre is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group. He is also a member of the firm’s Management Board. Peter was named to BTI Consulting Group’s list of “Client Service All-Stars” in 2016, 2017, and 2019 and…

Peter J. Eyre is a partner and co-chair of Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group. He is also a member of the firm’s Management Board. Peter was named to BTI Consulting Group’s list of “Client Service All-Stars” in 2016, 2017, and 2019 and has been named an Acritas Star, Acritas Stars Independently Rated Lawyers (2016, 2017, 2019). He is nationally ranked by Chambers USA in Government Contracts since 2014, and by Super Lawyers since 2017.

Photo of Allison Skager Allison Skager

Allison Skager is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s Los Angeles office, where she is a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group.

Allison’s practice covers a range of transactional and regulatory matters for both startups and mature companies, including government contractors, large…

Allison Skager is an associate in Crowell & Moring’s Los Angeles office, where she is a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group.

Allison’s practice covers a range of transactional and regulatory matters for both startups and mature companies, including government contractors, large retailers, and developers of emerging technology. She performs due diligence for complex transactions involving government contractors, advises on regulatory compliance issues, and adds critical support on matters related to mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, and private investments.