Eight Key Points Emerging from The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul Comments

Comments have now been submitted to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council on the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul ("RFO") proposed rules that were released on June 23, 2026. A total of 109 comments to the four proposed rules were posted. 

FAR Case 2026-001 attracted the largest response, with 45 posted comments, likely because it covers foundational government contracting issues affecting the federal contractor community. These include definitions, administrative requirements, cybersecurity obligations, protest procedures, and contract disputes. Comments express concern that changes in these areas could affect transparency, predictability, and the preservation of contractor rights.

While comments generally support the RFO’s objective of creating a leaner, faster, and more flexible procurement system, a pattern emerges from the comments. Many comments warn that simplification should not come at the expense of transparency and predictability. Comments from industry associations, contractors, Native-owned businesses, and procurement practitioners suggest that several parts of the proposed rules should undergo revision before the final versions are issued. 

Several comments express concern about the short 30-day comment period provided by the government to respond. The comments argue that the breadth of the RFO warrants additional review time. Despite this, industry associations, contractors, procurement practitioners, and legal organizations used the provided comment period to provide recommendations concerning protest procedures, cybersecurity requirements, transparency, small-business protections, contract disputes, termination for convenience procedures, the role of the FAR Companion, and proposed contract clause renumbering. Collectively, these issues may play a role in whether the final RFO achieves its goal of simplification without sacrificing predictability.

Below are eight key points seen in the filed comments. 

1. Flexibility Versus Predictability 

A guiding principle behind the RFO is that acquisition officials should have more discretion and fewer prescriptive requirements. Comments support that goal. However, several comments express concern that the proposed rules eliminate regulatory language that, while not strictly required by statute, has provided important guidance to both agencies and contractors. Examples include changes to competition requirements, acquisition planning provisions, termination procedures, and procurement integrity requirements. 

A recurring concern is that removing explanatory language from the FAR may create inconsistent agency practices and uncertainty regarding how procurement statutes should be applied. Comments, while generally supporting streamlining, argue that predictability remains a critical feature of an acquisition system. 

Why This Matters 

For contractors, uncertainty can be costly. Many would prefer predictability and not an environment where different agencies interpret principles differently. 

2. The FAR Companion’s Role is a Concern 

Several comments focus on what the FAR Council proposes to move into the non-regulatory FAR Companion. The proposed rules rely on the FAR Companion to house explanatory material, examples, best practices, and acquisition guidance. Comments generally support moving advisory material but question whether certain contractor-facing requirements should be relocated outside the formal rulemaking process. 

For example, comments expressed concern that guidance affecting contractor compliance could change without the notice and comment procedures that traditionally accompany FAR revisions. Some also questioned whether incorporating the FAR Companion into the FAR system could cause acquisition personnel to assign greater weight to guidance that is ostensibly non-binding. The comments also express concert ha the FAR Companion may technically fall outside the regulatory regime.

Why This Matters 

The final rules may establish a new boundary between binding regulation and non-binding acquisition guidance. Contractors should watch what requirements remain codified and what migrate to the FAR Companion. 

3. Cybersecurity Requirements May Become More Burdensome 

Although the RFO is frequently described as a deregulatory initiative, the proposed cybersecurity revisions could expand compliance obligations for many contractors. 

Comments highlight concerns regarding proposed requirements, for example those involving NIST SP 800-171 Revision 3, NICE Framework workforce alignment requirements, incident reporting obligations, and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) identification standards. Several comments recommend phased implementation periods and greater clarity regarding how the requirements will operate in practice. 

Comments express concern that civilian agency contractors could soon face cybersecurity obligations like those traditionally associated with defense contracts. 

We previously addressed those proposed cybersecurity regulation changes here: Proposed Rule Would Impose Cyber Regulations on All Federal Contractors.

Why This Matters 

The cybersecurity portions of the RFO could represent a significant contractor compliance change. 

4. Small Business and Native Contracting Authorities Seek Attention 

Comments submitted by Native-owned contractors highlight concerns that certain proposed revisions could inadvertently create uncertainty regarding small-business procurement preferences and 8(a) authorities. Among other issues, comments emphasize preserving the Rule of Two, protecting ANC, Tribal, and Native Hawaiian Organization sole-source authorities, clarifying statutory references, and ensuring that acquisition-planning provisions do not diminish small-business opportunities. 

Attention is given to proposed acquisition planning language that encourages use of governmentwide contracting vehicles. Some comments argue that the language should more clearly state that existing statutory set-aside and bundling restrictions continue to apply. 

Why This Matters 

The interaction between commercial acquisitions, strategic sourcing vehicles, and small-business requirements may become one of the issues in the next phase of the RFO. 

5. Termination for Convenience Reforms Are Drawing Pushback 

Few proposed changes generated as much concern as the proposed revisions to FAR Part 49. 

The proposed rule substantially reduces the time available for contractors to submit inventory schedules, settlement proposals, and related documentation following terminations for convenience. Industry comments argue that the compressed deadlines do not reflect the realities of modern contract performance, particularly where subcontractors, inventory disposition, indirect cost calculations, or complex accounting issues are involved. The compressed periods may be particularly difficult where contractors must obtain and reconcile subcontractor costs.

Both industry and legal comments question whether a 90-day settlement proposal deadline is realistic. Several comments recommend pilot programs, longer implementation periods, flexible deadlines, or more objective extension criteria. 

Why This Matters 

Contractors should monitor this issue. The final Part 49 rule could affect termination recovery rights and post-termination administration. 

6. Transparency Remains a Core Industry Concern 

Several comments raise concerns over reducing transparency in the procurement process. 

One example is the proposal to make public announcements of contract awards above $5.5 million discretionary rather than mandatory. Critics argue that reducing transparency may make it more difficult for industry participants to identify procurement opportunities, monitor agency purchasing activity, and assess potential protest rights. 

Similarly, some comments express concern that simplifying competition-related regulations could unintentionally obscure the rationale for sole source decisions and other exceptions to full and open competition. 

Why This Matters 

Transparency benefits both agencies and contractors by improving market participation and reducing disputes. Several comments urge the FAR Council not to sacrifice transparency for flexibility. 

7. Protests and Disputes Could Become More Consequential  

Although much attention has focused on the RFO's revisions to acquisition procedures and compliance requirements, several proposed changes affecting bid protests and contract disputes could influence how contractors pursue and resolve disagreements with the government. 

While many of these changes increase transparency, they also create ambiguity regarding timelines, restrict the parties’ ability to negotiate informally, and force them into litigation posture much sooner than the current rules. 

The proposed revisions to FAR Part 33 substantially increase transparency in agency-level protests. Under the proposed rule, agencies would provide protesters with redacted evaluation materials and source selection information. Currently, protesters seeking to resolve procurement disputes at the agency level receive no such information. Even when they believe the evaluation and award decisions were not reasonable, they rarely have sufficient information to address those concerns. This puts them in the familiar “fire and forget” bind – making their case on their evaluation alone without additional information. Most comments support the proposed approach because it provides greater transparency and increases confidence that protesters and the government can resolve protests at the least formal level without having to escalate their concerns to the Government Accountability Office or the Court of Federal Claims. 

At the same time, comments request that the RFO changes explicitly recognize statutory safeguards, such as exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, to ensure that proprietary information, source-selection-sensitive material, and other protected information remain adequately protected. 

Comments also focus on language encouraging protesters to use "best efforts" to resolve concerns with contracting officers before filing agency protests. Comments are also generally supportive of early communication as a means for resolving potential disputes and urge the FAR Council to clarify that this language is not intended to create an exhaustion requirement or procedural prerequisite to filing a protest. Contractors are concerned that these informal discussions may jeopardize statutory timeliness requirements or impair access to established protest forums. 

Proposed changes to the FAR Disputes clause also create challenges. The proposed rule would effectively make the current Alternate Disputes clause the default clause across a much broader range of federal contracts, including commercial contracts. Comments argue that this would expand obligations to continue performance during disputes and eliminate contracting officer discretion that has existed under the Contract Disputes Act framework for decades. Several comments contend that applying the Alternate clause more broadly could discourage participation by commercial and non-traditional contractors. 

Comments also urge the FAR Council to clarify that agencies and contractors may continue to enter into tolling agreements that extend the six-year Contract Disputes Act statute of limitations. Such agreements are increasingly used to facilitate negotiated settlements and alternative dispute resolution without forcing parties into premature litigation. Several comments noted that the revised FAR should avoid language that could be interpreted as discouraging or prohibiting this practice. 

Why This Matters 

The proposed protest and disputes reforms extend beyond housekeeping reforms. While they create meaningful opportunities for less formal challenges at the agency level, they also bump up against statutory restrictions on information disclosure without addressing those restrictions and create ambiguity regarding administrative exhaustion.  Similarly, changes to the Disputes clause could affect risk allocation, performance obligations, and claims strategy across a large segment of the federal marketplace. 

8. Clause Renumbering Resistance 

There appears to be consensus over the proposal to renumber FAR clauses. Multiple comments argue that wholesale renumbering would create substantial disruption for agencies, contractors, compliance systems, contract writing platforms, subcontract templates, legal research resources, and decades of procurement case law. Comments generally recommend relying on clause dates rather than new numbering conventions to distinguish pre-RFO and post-RFO versions. 

Why This Matters 

Given the breadth of opposition, clause renumbering may be a revised part of the proposed rules. 

Looking Ahead 

The first wave of comments suggests that the RFO enjoys broad support as a modernization effort. However, the comments also show that stakeholders are seeking a careful balance between flexibility and certainty. 

While many comments agree that the FAR should be shorter, clearer, and easier to use, they also emphasize that federal procurement depends heavily on stability, transparency, and decades of precedent. 

For contractors, important issues to monitor include cybersecurity requirements, treatment of small-business authorities, the FAR Companion role, termination for convenience procedures, and clause numbering conventions. These issues will play a role in determining whether the RFO delivers a simpler acquisition system without diminishing the predictability that contractors and agencies rely upon today.