COGR, a national authority representing over 230 research institutions, supports the FAR Council's efforts to modernize and simplify the Federal Acquisition Regulation. However, they urge the Council to ensure consistency with other regulatory initiatives, provide clearer definitions for privacy terms, and clarify liability for contractor employees.

The ABA Section of Public Contract Law supports the overall goals of the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul but recommends specific refinements to ensure consistency and transparency. They advocate for aligning trade-agreement notices with Part 25 determinations, maintaining mandatory public announcements for significant awards, and preserving existing FAR Part 52 numbering to avoid confusion.

The Business Software Alliance (BSA) supports the FAR Council's efforts to modernize federal acquisition regulations but requests specific clarifications and revisions to ensure commercial software providers are not unfairly burdened. They advocate for precise definitions of federal information systems, clear CUI designation responsibilities, and the preservation of commercial license terms in contract order of precedence.

The commenter provides technical corrections regarding incorrect Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) citations within specific sections of FAR Part 11. They note that while the proposed actions do not change Part 11, several citations listed in the regulation are outdated and should be updated to reflect the post-RFO FAR.

The law firm Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP is submitting comments on behalf of a global telecommunications client regarding proposed amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). While supporting the goal of streamlining the FAR, the firm argues that specific proposed changes to Parts 5, 24, 29, and 52 create compliance risks and request specific revisions to ensure clarity and maintain existing protections for contractors.

The commenter recommends specific updates to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), including the addition of an award notice definition and requiring both NAICS and PSC codes in certain sections. The commenter argues these changes would improve clarity and better distinguish between industry identification and work acquisition.

Maxwell J. McLaughlin, a private citizen, supports the proposed FAR overhaul and advocates for specific revisions to Parts 5, 24, and 29. He argues that the FAR should adopt "Performance Obligations" (POBs) terminology to align federal contracting with corporate tax law (Public Law 115-97), ensure transparency for taxpayers, and prevent contractors from using "proprietary" labels to shield financial data from government oversight.

Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC), an Alaska Native Regional Corporation, supports the goal of a clearer, streamlined FAR rule but expresses concerns regarding the migration of small-business outreach to non-binding guidance and the lack of accompanying Part 19 text. They recommend specific revisions to ensure enforceable outreach, clear 8(a) sole-source exemptions, and consistent tax-exclusive solicitation requirements.

The commenter is seeking clarification regarding a change in the FAR regulations concerning the requirement to transmit notices of proposed contract actions to the GPE. They specifically ask if the omission of an exception for certain international defense acquisitions was intentional or an oversight.

The commenter is seeking clarification regarding a change in the FAR regarding the requirement to post presolicitation notices to the GPE. They specifically ask why certain exemptions for acquisitions authorized by other agencies or specific sources were omitted in the proposed text.