Submit Comments to the FAR Council

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO FAR PART 6 – COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS Submitted By: Name: [Name] Company: [Company Name] Email: [Email Address] Address: [Full Address] Company Description: [Company Description] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I submit these comments regarding proposed changes to FAR Part 6 – Competition Requirements, which continue the deeply troubling trend of the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO): the systematic removal of enforceable protections for small businesses and the substitution of mandatory requirements with vague, discretionary guidance. These changes dismantle core regulatory architecture supporting competition, and—critically—position the Rule of Two and Part 19 small business programs for further erosion. Although presented as a structural reorganization, the changes to FAR Part 6 in substance represent a profound weakening of small business participation safeguards, particularly when considered alongside parallel revisions to FAR Parts 10, 11, and 18. Together, these changes are creating a procedural vacuum that will further accelerate the steep decline in small business federal suppliers and concentrate federal contracts among fewer, larger firms. KEY ISSUES IMPACTING SMALL BUSINESSES A. Direct Economic Impact and Market Consolidation Over 300 congressional districts each risk losing $100+ million annually in small business contract revenues. Small business federal suppliers have already declined 49% since FY2008. These changes will accelerate vendor attrition, reduce competition, increase costs to taxpayers, and undermine the competitive marketplace that drives innovation and value. The proposed changes to FAR Part 6 delete the foundational policy statement from 6.000 that explicitly affirmed full and open competition "after exclusion of sources," a phrase long used to justify small business set-asides. Its removal is not a mere editorial revision—it is the removal of a legal anchor that reinforced the Rule of Two. When combined with similar removals from FAR Parts 10 and 11, this change severs the interdependent regulatory structure that supported equitable small business access. Result: Small business set-asides—while technically still available—are stripped of key regulatory support and transformed into optional exercises of discretion rather than enforceable obligations. B. Shift from Mandatory to Discretionary Language Throughout revised FAR Part 6, mandatory language requiring competitive practices and small business consideration is replaced with discretionary phrases such as "may" and "as appropriate." This is consistent with the RFO's broader methodology and has the effect of neutralizing longstanding small business protections. Example: Where the prior FAR imposed procedural obligations on contracting officers to justify sole-source awards or brand-name specifications, the revised version allows for such actions without meaningful documentation or consequence. Result: The burden of ensuring fair access shifts away from the government and onto small businesses, who must now navigate higher legal standards to challenge exclusionary or arbitrary procurement behavior. C. Elimination of Cross-References that Support the Rule of Two The revised FAR Part 6 removes all cross-references to FAR Part 19 and eliminates language supporting set-aside programs. This structural omission should be viewed as a signal: without reference or reinforcement, the Rule of Two becomes untethered from the broader competition framework. Stakeholder Concern: The FAR Council’s stated intention to retain only those provisions it deems “statutory” introduces serious risk to foundational protections like the Rule of Two. While the Rule of Two is codified in regulation, it is the essential mechanism by which the government implements the statutory requirement to provide small businesses with the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in federal contracting. The removal of all references to the Rule of Two and related set-aside authorities in FAR Part 6 raises serious concerns that these requirements could be weakened—or omitted entirely—in the forthcoming revision of FAR Part 19. Any attempt to separate the regulatory mechanism from the statutory mandate would undermine the lawful implementation of the Small Business Act itself. Importantly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has already demonstrated that preserving small business protections is both lawful and administratively feasible. USDA’s class deviation maintains explicit language requiring “consideration of small business set-aside authority” and “ensuring maximum practicable opportunity.” This deviation proves the FAR Council’s necessity claims are demonstrably false—retaining the Rule of Two is statutorily required and easily implemented through straightforward regulatory language. Result: Small businesses are left without the regulatory scaffolding that has historically ensured their inclusion in competitive acquisition planning. D. Reinforcement of Incumbent Privilege The revised Part 6 explicitly expands scenarios where agencies can justify awarding contracts to incumbents or sole-source providers without full and open competition, citing cost duplication and delay avoidance. These justifications may be valid in rare cases, but codifying them as routine carve-outs—without corresponding safeguards—directly undermines new entrant opportunities. Result: The government codifies pathways to bypass competition, rewarding established firms while structurally excluding emerging small businesses. E. Procedural Breakdown and APA Violation As with other FAR parts revised under the RFO, the changes to FAR Part 6 are being implemented through rolling class deviations—without prior notice-and-comment rulemaking. This “adopt first, finalize later” methodology violates 5 U.S.C. § 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act and denies stakeholders due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment. The RFO circumvents lawful regulatory process, imposes shifting standards on contractors, and ensures that small businesses are reacting to finalized decisions rather than participating in their development. F. Cumulative Compliance Burden and Fragmentation The introduction of the revised Part 6 adds to an already fragmented rulemaking environment where small businesses must now simultaneously interpret 214+ agency deviation memos—a number growing weekly. Small businesses must now simultaneously interpret: – The original FAR text – The new proposed FAR Part 6 – Over 214 agency-specific deviation memos – Non-regulatory guidance (e.g., the FAR Companion Guide) Result: This creates an impossible compliance environment that functionally excludes small firms from procurement participation. No small business can afford to track, analyze, and reconcile this regulatory chaos. IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS COMPETITION The revisions to FAR Part 6 are not isolated—they are part of a coordinated overhaul that removes key safeguards across the entire acquisition process. When considered alongside changes to FAR Parts 10, 11, 18, and 39, the following systemic harms are evident: – Loss of Competitive Access: The Rule of Two is no longer supported through triggering mechanisms like market research (Part 10), agency need descriptions (Part 11), or emergency procedures (Part 18). – Reduced Oversight: Protest rights and enforceable documentation requirements are vanishing, leaving only vague discretion and optional practices. – Procurement Consolidation: The growing emphasis on sole-source justifications and brand-name specifications increases the likelihood of large firms dominating awards, including for repeat contracts. – Vendor Attrition: As federal acquisition becomes more opaque and harder to contest, more small businesses are exiting the federal supplier base entirely—accelerating the 49% decline already documented since FY2008. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. **Restore Foundational Language Supporting Exclusion of Sources** Reinstate language in FAR 6.000 affirming “full and open competition after exclusion of sources,” including explicit recognition of small business set-asides and the Rule of Two. 2. **Reinstate Mandatory Standards** Wherever the prior FAR included binding language requiring justification for non-competitive actions (e.g., brand-name only, sole-source awards), that language must be restored to ensure enforceability. 3. **Affirm the Role of FAR Part 19** FAR Part 6 must reaffirm that small business programs under Part 19 are essential elements of the federal competition strategy. 4. **Halt De Facto Implementation Through Class Deviations** Withdraw the use of class deviations to implement proposed FAR parts prior to completion of APA-compliant rulemaking. 5. **Conduct Cumulative Impact Analysis** Before finalizing further revisions, the FAR Council must assess the combined impact of Parts 6, 10, 11, 18, and 39 on small business competition and make the results publicly available. CONCLUSION The proposed revisions to FAR Part 6 strip away key elements of the federal competition framework that have long enabled small businesses to access federal opportunities. These changes are part of a systemic restructuring that removes small business protections from every stage of the acquisition process. The FAR Council must reverse course and restore the structural foundations of fair competition, transparency, and opportunity. Failure to do so will further accelerate the decline of small business participation, erode innovation, raise costs, and fundamentally alter the character of the federal industrial base.