Why FAR Reform Alone might not Fix Federal Acquisition

In his piece for The Nash & Cibinic Report, Lt. Col. Matthew J. Fleharty of the U.S. Air Force delivers a pointed critique of the federal government’s continued obsession with revising the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) while overlooking the root cause of poor acquisition outcomes: underinvestment in people. Drawing on his experience as a Contract Management Office commander within the Defense Contract Management Agency, Fleharty argues that meaningful reform must start with education, not regulation. His message is clear: “People, not policy, produce revolutions.”

Fleharty contextualizes his argument with the latest reform initiative, Executive Order No. 14275, issued by President Trump in April 2025. This directive promises a “revolutionary overhaul” of the FAR to restore “common sense” to federal procurement by eliminating anything not required by statute or essential to procurement efficiency. But Fleharty views this effort as just another turn of the wheel in the Sisyphean cycle of acquisition reform. Unless the government makes foundational investments in the people responsible for executing these rules—namely contracting officers and specialists—even the best-written FAR will fail to yield improved outcomes.

Citing examples such as the Federal Aviation Administration, which has operated free of the FAR since 1995 yet still suffers from outdated procurement results, Fleharty challenges the notion that regulatory burdens are the principal barrier to good outcomes. Instead, he points to widespread deficiencies in professional judgment and execution, such as the tendency to overcomplicate source selections or transform streamlined procurement pathways into bureaucratic mazes. These failures, he argues, are not the result of bad policy but poor application of even reasonable rules.

What truly ails the acquisition system is a hollowed-out professional development structure. The Defense Acquisition University’s “back-to-basics” approach slashes training hours, eliminates in-person instruction, and leans heavily on multiple-choice exams. Meanwhile, the required 80 hours of continuous learning every two years pales in comparison to the demands of the profession. “We spend more time going to the bathroom than studying our profession,” Fleharty writes.

While the Office of Management and Budget’s recent memo mentions “buying guides” and “modernized training,” Fleharty sees little new in these promises. He fears the repetition of ineffective computer-based training modules and the continued marginalization of top-tier instructional content, such as The Nash & Cibinic Report and Briefing Papers, which remain locked behind paywalls. He recommends broader access to these resources and suggests training led by experienced professionals who can guide practical learning through curated content and in-house study groups.

Fleharty’s vision for real reform includes rigorous, in-person instruction focused on core contracting principles, critical thinking, and real-world application. Courses should challenge participants and be structured to mirror the complexity and pressure of the contracting workplace. Those who cannot meet these demands, he suggests bluntly, should be dismissed—underscoring his commitment to excellence over expediency.

Ultimately, Fleharty leaves readers with a sobering but hopeful message: regulations alone do not win contracts, deliver services, or steward taxpayer dollars wisely. People do.

Disclaimer:
This blog post is a summary of the article “The Futility of FAR Reform: It’s About People, Not Rules” by Matthew J. Fleharty and is not guaranteed to be accurate or exhaustive. It does not constitute legal advice.