The FAR is being rewritten by OMB as we speak

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is far too complex of a regulation. A LOT of vendors abuse it by launching protests that are frivolous. Plus there are all these incredibly stupid and arcane rules for source selection and publicizing requirements. What would take a private company a week to buy 500 laptops could take an agency up to 3 months. The FAR should be no more than 30 pages in length plus NO agency supplements should be allowed.

Streamline it asap!!!!

Publicizing requirements and having rules about how to select the source sounds crazy! Why would they want to do that? That would totally get in the way of just funneling money to their preferred vendors.

There are plenty of ways currently to get contracts without competing for them.

8(a) set asides up to 100m with no questions asked.
SBIR contracts are another popular way to have zero competition at all.

Hopefully trump fixes some of these scams.

he will fix it by making it easier for his kids and Elon Musk to get those 100 mn contracts, no questions asked. That's the MAGA way.

[Anonymous]

The real reason they are doing this is to choke off the flow of taxpayer money to Democratic Party aligned groups. If this was just about Elon’s greed, this would be less of a problem. These guys are dismantling a lot if structures that help Democrats win elections. Not great news. It just makes everything more of an uphill battle for us at a time when we’re already struggling to attract voters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real reason they are doing this is to choke off the flow of taxpayer money to Democratic Party aligned groups. If this was just about Elon’s greed, this would be less of a problem. These guys are dismantling a lot if structures that help Democrats win elections. Not great news. It just makes everything more of an uphill battle for us at a time when we’re already struggling to attract voters

What structures?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm afraid to acknowledge this is good and something I would do if I were in charge.

But you would do it thoughtfully with people who are FAR experts, I'd assume. Regulations arise in response to problems encountered when legislation is unclear or gives a general 'do this' without filling in the practicalities of how. If you eliminate years of regulations developed out of real world experience, it will just create waste and delay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is far too complex of a regulation. A LOT of vendors abuse it by launching protests that are frivolous. Plus there are all these incredibly stupid and arcane rules for source selection and publicizing requirements. What would take a private company a week to buy 500 laptops could take an agency up to 3 months. The FAR should be no more than 30 pages in length plus NO agency supplements should be allowed.

Streamline it asap!!!!

Publicizing requirements and having rules about how to select the source sounds crazy! Why would they want to do that? That would totally get in the way of just funneling money to their preferred vendors.

There are plenty of ways currently to get contracts without competing for them.

8(a) set asides up to 100m with no questions asked.
SBIR contracts are another popular way to have zero competition at all.

Hopefully trump fixes some of these scams.

Not true that those contracts aren't competed. Nor is your insinuation these programs are not valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real reason they are doing this is to choke off the flow of taxpayer money to Democratic Party aligned groups. If this was just about Elon’s greed, this would be less of a problem. These guys are dismantling a lot if structures that help Democrats win elections. Not great news. It just makes everything more of an uphill battle for us at a time when we’re already struggling to attract voters

What structures?

Democrats inside government directing procurement dollars to Democrats outside government. It’s similar to all the government funding of leftist NGOs, which Trump is also disrupting. Politics is a messy business, and the federal government is heavily involved in politics, not just governing. Trump is trying to hurt Democrats’ ability to succeed in politics, and this is part of that effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm not a fed. Can you explain the implications of these changes?

They will privatize everything and give billions of dollars in government contracts to their corporate cronies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real reason they are doing this is to choke off the flow of taxpayer money to Democratic Party aligned groups. If this was just about Elon’s greed, this would be less of a problem. These guys are dismantling a lot if structures that help Democrats win elections. Not great news. It just makes everything more of an uphill battle for us at a time when we’re already struggling to attract voters

What structures?

Democrats inside government directing procurement dollars to Democrats outside government. It’s similar to all the government funding of leftist NGOs, which Trump is also disrupting. Politics is a messy business, and the federal government is heavily involved in politics, not just governing. Trump is trying to hurt Democrats’ ability to succeed in politics, and this is part of that effort.

Blah blah blah.

You're delulu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is far too complex of a regulation. A LOT of vendors abuse it by launching protests that are frivolous. Plus there are all these incredibly stupid and arcane rules for source selection and publicizing requirements. What would take a private company a week to buy 500 laptops could take an agency up to 3 months. The FAR should be no more than 30 pages in length plus NO agency supplements should be allowed.

Streamline it asap!!!!

Publicizing requirements and having rules about how to select the source sounds crazy! Why would they want to do that? That would totally get in the way of just funneling money to their preferred vendors.

There are plenty of ways currently to get contracts without competing for them.

8(a) set asides up to 100m with no questions asked.
SBIR contracts are another popular way to have zero competition at all.

Hopefully trump fixes some of these scams.

Not true that those contracts aren't competed. Nor is your insinuation these programs are not valuable.

They are competed at the discretion of the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm not a fed. Can you explain the implications of these changes?

It's over 2000 pages of spaghetti legislation.