The FAR Part 7 Line-Out: Why It Matters for Contractors

The Federal Acquisition Regulation overhaul has now reached Part 7, and the government has published a line-out showing what text is removed while agencies operate under class deviations pending formal rulemaking. This work sits within the administration’s “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement” initiative and frames the most comprehensive rewrite of the FAR to date. For industry, the Part 7 edits are not cosmetic; they reallocate detail from binding regulation to non-regulatory guidance and invite greater variance across buying commands. (Acquisition.GOV)

At the core of the Part 7 line-out is the treatment of written acquisition plans. The familiar prescriptive checklist formerly housed in FAR 7.105 is removed from the regulatory text and the section is marked “[Reserved],” with planning content channeled into implementation materials rather than the rule itself. That change is visible in the Part 7 deviation table of contents, where 7.105 is now reserved, and in the companion Practitioner Album that supplies the line-out and related training assets. The intent is to streamline the regulation and relocate “how-to” details to non-regulatory artifacts. (Acquisition.GOV)

For a federal contracting company, this shift matters because it amplifies the role of agency-level procedure. The FAR still requires acquisition planning—Subpart 7.1 remains—and agencies must perform planning and market research for all acquisitions. But without a uniform, prescriptive federal checklist in the rule text, the practical rigor of any given plan will increasingly be set by local policy and culture. The Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive, for example, already requires written plans above the simplified acquisition threshold, and many components will keep or tighten such thresholds. The regulatory floor is lighter; the procedural ceiling now depends on your customer. (Acquisition.GOV)

The line-out does not jettison statutory guardrails. Part 7 continues to house the consolidation, bundling, and substantial bundling framework at 7.107, including the solicitation provision requiring agencies to consider offers from small-business teams or joint ventures on multiple-award contracts. For offerors, that means the familiar dynamics of teaming strategy, substantiation of small-business participation, and protest risk around bundling remain part of the planning landscape. In other words, the organization of the rules is streamlined, but the obligations—particularly those rooted in statute—persist. (Acquisition.GOV)

Several practical consequences flow from this redesign. First, the removal of prescriptive federal plan content raises the premium on early capture engagement. If a contracting office leans on oral plans or leaner written plans, critical assumptions about requirements volatility, evaluation methodology, or contract-type risk may be documented in local artifacts you will not automatically see. Contractors should ask targeted questions during market research and draft RFP phases to surface the agency’s planning assumptions, especially where pricing models, EPA mechanisms, or SCA wage treatment are implicated. Second, because model deviations are in effect while formal rulemaking proceeds, the status is fluid: the Part 7 deviation is open for informal feedback until October 20, 2025. That timing argues for continuous monitoring of both the FAR Overhaul site and your customer’s class deviations and supplements throughout the acquisition cycle. (Acquisition.GOV)

Finally, not everything moves. Key Part 7-related provisions and clauses—such as 52.207-4, 52.207-5, and 52.207-6—are expressly retained without changes to their text in GSA’s deviation guidance. For contractors, that continuity limits near-term disruption in solicitation mechanics even as planning narratives grow leaner. The upshot is a more concise Part 7 paired with stable clause architecture, pushing risk to how planning is executed rather than to what clauses appear in your contracts. (U.S. General Services Administration)

For sophisticated vendors, the strategic response is twofold: calibrate your internal playbooks to the non-regulatory Practitioner materials that now carry much of the “how,” and re-baseline customer-specific compliance maps to agency supplements and deviations. The line-out simplifies the FAR’s spine; success will hinge on reading the muscles and tendons that different agencies add around it.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. It may not reflect the most current legal or policy developments. Readers should consult counsel about specific facts and rely on official sources and agency guidance for compliance.