Proposed Changes to FAR Part 1 Signal a Shift in Federal Procurement Philosophy
On May 2, 2025, a proposed lineout version of FAR Part 1 was released as part of an apparent Trump Administration-led initiative to re-write and re-structure the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). While these changes have not yet been officially adopted, their implications for federal contractors warrant close attention. The revised draft introduces significant philosophical and structural modifications to the foundational policies and procedures that govern the acquisition process. If implemented, the updates would mark a clear shift toward deregulation, decentralization of authority, and a more business-like approach to federal procurement. Contractors should begin assessing what these shifts could mean for how they compete, negotiate, and perform federal contracts.
One of the most prominent features of the proposed rewrite is the strengthened emphasis on empowering acquisition personnel. The updated language in Sections 1.102 and 1.102-5 provides that government contracting professionals are encouraged to exercise personal initiative and sound business judgment when the FAR is silent, provided their actions are not expressly prohibited by statute, case law, executive order, or other regulation. This change potentially grants much broader discretion to contracting officers and other members of the acquisition workforce. From the contractor’s standpoint, this introduces both opportunities and risks. On one hand, it opens the door to more agile and flexible procurement decisions. On the other, it may reduce predictability and consistency across agencies and procurement actions.
Closely tied to this theme is a distinct shift in acquisition philosophy—from a focus on risk avoidance to one of risk management. Section 1.102-2 specifically calls for the Executive Branch to accept and manage risk rather than avoid it altogether. This is a marked departure from the traditional government approach that often imposes rigid structures and excessive compliance obligations out of fear of audit scrutiny or political fallout. If adopted, this change could encourage contracting officers to explore innovative solutions, including less traditional proposals or contract types. Contractors with cutting-edge solutions or commercial business models may find a more receptive audience among empowered and risk-tolerant government buyers.
The revised FAR Part 1 also reinforces the government's commitment to maximizing the use of commercial products and services. The updated provisions emphasize early and open engagement with industry, acknowledging that a more collaborative relationship with contractors can lead to better acquisition outcomes. Language encouraging constructive exchanges with industry throughout the acquisition lifecycle—so long as those communications comply with law and avoid unfair advantage—is intended to break down the longstanding communication barriers that have often stifled innovation. Contractors that invest in proactive outreach and educate government customers about their capabilities may benefit in this new landscape.
Another noteworthy addition is the formalization of the Acquisition 360 voluntary feedback survey process. Sections 1.102-3 and 52.201-1 lay out a framework under which actual and potential offerors can provide feedback on the preaward and debriefing processes. Though feedback will not be reviewed until after award and cannot be used to protest a decision, the survey represents a new, formal avenue for contractors to communicate systemic concerns to the government. While the mechanism is voluntary and nonbinding, its institutionalization suggests a growing willingness by the federal acquisition community to be held accountable for transparency and effectiveness.
Also embedded in the proposed changes is a more flexible interpretation of FAR silence. The draft clarifies that the absence of a policy in the FAR should not be interpreted as a prohibition on a given approach. Instead, acquisition professionals are to treat silence as permission to act, so long as the proposed action is in the government’s best interest and not otherwise restricted. This is a fundamental reorientation in how the FAR is applied and interpreted. For contractors, this could make space for more creative procurement strategies and teaming arrangements that previously may have been considered off-limits simply due to a lack of precedent.
The draft also expands the ability of agencies to authorize both individual and class deviations from the FAR, and it encourages agencies to propose formal FAR amendments when such deviations become recurring. This decentralization could lead to greater variability in how procurement rules are implemented across agencies. Contractors should monitor agency supplements and deviations closely and be prepared for more customized or agency-specific requirements.
Additionally, the revised sections on Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) clarify training, authority, and limitations. Notably, the draft includes language making CORs personally liable for unauthorized acts that exceed their delegated authority. This change could incentivize CORs to act more cautiously and strictly within the bounds of their written responsibilities, which may affect day-to-day interactions with contractors and the handling of performance matters.
Finally, the draft encourages innovation at the agency level. It explicitly permits internal agency guidance—even at the sub-agency level—provided it is consistent with the FAR and broader laws. This opens the possibility for more tailored procurement practices, but also demands that contractors stay vigilant about each agency’s unique rules and preferences.
In sum, the proposed revisions to FAR Part 1, if adopted, would signal a meaningful evolution in the government’s acquisition culture. They promote flexibility, discretion, risk tolerance, and industry engagement—all while preserving the guardrails of legality and fairness. While this draft remains just that—a proposed rewrite not yet formally incorporated into regulation—it provides a clear roadmap of where acquisition policy may be heading. Contractors would be well-advised to understand the potential shifts, begin aligning internal practices accordingly, and remain alert for formal rulemaking and opportunities to comment.
Disclaimer: This blog post is based on a proposed draft of FAR Part 1 and reflects a preliminary analysis of changes that have not yet been formally adopted. This summary is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or official guidance. Contractors should consult legal counsel or regulatory experts before acting on any information contained herein.
