Source: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/4094-far-complexity-reduction-two-for-one/&tab=comments
Timestamp: 2018-10-23 06:02:26
Document Index: 28183212

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 30', 'art 99', 'art 30', 'art 19', 'art 26', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 22', 'art 22']

FAR Complexity Reduction - Two for One - Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions - The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
By ConTraCula, September 6, 2017 in Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions
ConTraCula 0
I stumbled across this closed topic earlier and was curious about which parts of the FAR you would propose to eliminate? Our Agency went through a discovery exercise earlier and I am not sure if we identified as many regulations for elimination as we would have liked.
An example: Subpart 4.3—Paper Documents and 11.303 Special requirements for paper are possibly an example of complexity created by private interests.
First on my list is FAR part 19. I'm not saying eliminate small business programs, but the FAR Councils shouldn't be implementing SBA regulations. Just provide cross-references to the applicable SBA regulations for topics in FAR part 19.
First on my list is FAR Part 30. I'm not saying eliminate CAS Administration, but the FAR Councils shouldn't be implementing CAS Board regulations. Just provide cross-references to the applicable CASB regulations, which are already located in FAR Part 99, for topics in FAR Part 30.
Deleting FAR Part 19 sounds good.
At a minimum, delete FAR Part 26, Other Socioeconomic Programs, and move its contents into FAR Part 19, renamed "Small Business and Socioeconomic Programs."
(Then delete FAR Part 19, anyway!)
Also, to keep this troll going:
FAR Part 22. I'm not saying eliminate labor law, but the FAR Councils shouldn't be implementing Department of Labor regulations. Just provide cross-references to the applicable Department of Labor regulations for topics in FAR Part 22.
Also, just raise every threshold you can get your webbed feet around. That's the easiest and laziest method of "acquisition reform"-- exemption. A rising pond lifts all lily pads!
Herein lies the problem . . .
The FAR (and its supplements) parts, sections, etc., that implement law or legal decision should be highlighted in bold and italics. In that way, one will know which text of the FAR can be eliminated without further action. It's time that each regulation should be shown its true source very clearly so that we know who to blame for the regulatory clutter.
Let's not forget that while size (or quantity) can increase complexity, complexity is also a function of clarity (or quality). I'd encourage anyone concerned with FAR complexity to visit http://www.plainlanguage.gov/ and read the "Federal Plain Language Guidelines." Those who do will likely find him/herself wondering what the FAR (and other Government regulations/documents) might look like if they followed such guidelines.
After reading the Federal Plain Language Guidelines, assess how well the FAR Councils did here:
On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 6:35 AM, bob7947 said:
It's time that each regulation should be shown its true source very clearly so that we know who to blame for the regulatory clutter.
See this: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blogs/entry/3401-streamlining-the-far/