FAR Companion Change

Back to FAR Companion

Summary

PART_11 updated: 106 lines added, 1 lines removed

Diff

--- previous
+++ current
@@ -1 +1,108 @@
-Part 11 - Describing Agency Needs ..........................................................................................27+Part 11 - Describing Agency Needs
+FC 11.102(a)(2)(i) Modular acquisition strategies.
+Break apart large, complex requirements into separately procurable components that reflect
+logical functional boundaries and technical interfaces, as appropriate (e.g., exceptions may
+apply for major systems programs).
+This approach expands the competitive base by enabling specialized vendors to compete for
+elements within their core competencies, rather than mandating that contractors show expertise
+across all technical disciplines of an integrated system.
+By procuring individual requirement components separately (including software applications,
+hardware subsystems, and specialized services) agencies can reduce system integration risks
+while maintaining clear technical interfaces and performance specifications.
+This modular approach allows incremental technology insertion and component-level
+modernization without requiring complete system replacement. This approach optimizes
+lifecycle costs and enhances operational capability evolution throughout the system's service
+life.
+Also, modular requirements development supports using performance-based specifications that
+focus on required outcomes rather than prescriptive technical solutions. This approach enables
+contractors to propose innovative approaches while maintaining clear accountability for
+27
+Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Companion
+deliverable performance standards and technical interface requirements. This is a common
+strategy for the acquisition of information technology (see more in FAR part 39 and FC 39).
+FC 11.102(a)(2)(i) Rapid capabilities integration.
+Create pathways for quickly testing and adopting emerging capabilities through pilot programs,
+proof-of-concept demonstrations, and accelerated evaluation processes.
+Consider milestone-based line item number structures to incentive performance under contract.
+The government can contemplate one or more than one single-award contract, with line items
+aligned to different phases (e.g., proof of concept, pilot, low rate of initial production, full
+production). Award the first line item, and hold the other line items as options, to be exercised
+as performance and progress is considered under the previously awarded or exercised line
+item.
+This and similar contracting approaches allow for rapid experimentation without full-scale
+commitment, so agencies can explore innovative solutions while managing risk. Flexible
+contract structures support constant development and evaluation and build partnerships with
+commercial innovators willing to show capabilities in government environments. This and similar
+approaches also help the government stay current with technological advancement while
+providing valuable feedback to commercial developers about what the government needs and
+requires.
+FC 11.102(a)(2)(i) Outcome-based contracting.
+Outcome-oriented strategies align contractor success with agency mission achievement. They
+encourage partnership between the government and the contractor focused on timely and
+quality mission delivery.
+● Outcome-based contracting. Focus on what you need to achieve rather than dictating
+how vendors should deliver results. This approach gives commercial providers the
+flexibility to apply their expertise, innovation, and best practices to meet your mission
+needs. Instead of specifying exact methodologies, technologies, or labor categories
+required, define clear performance standards, metrics, and desired outcomes.
+● Partnerships in the process. Focus on developing mutual trust and a shared sense of
+ownership for successful delivery between government and industry. Build relationships
+so both parties can align their financial and non-financial incentives to deliver better
+outcomes for the public. Building these transparent relationships helps offerors trust the
+government acted fairly if they didn’t win the award and encourages them to compete
+again next time.
+● Performance metrics alignment. Develop meaningful performance metrics that directly
+connect to mission outcomes rather than technical specifications. Effective metrics focus
+on user experience, business process improvement, and mission capability
+enhancement rather than system characteristics alone. Structure contracts to include
+incentives tied directly to these outcome-based metrics, rewarding contractors for
+exceeding targets and addressing performance shortfalls when metrics aren't met.
+Recognize the role of the government team to support the outcomes and partner to
+28
+Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Companion
+achieve the mission. This approach keeps both government and contractor teams
+focused on delivering real mission value.
+FC 11.102(c) Collaborative requirements development.
+When possible and consistent with FAR 9.5, give potential contractors meaningful opportunities
+to engage with your requirements development process. While this may not be necessary for
+most simple, commercial procurements, more nuanced, government-specific, and complex
+requirements demand it.
+Providing potential contractors with an opportunity to review and provide comments on draft
+requirements will yield more thoughtful requirements and unearth potential ambiguities early in
+the drafting process. Methods for sharing draft requirements and obtaining such feedback may
+include issuing a Request for Information (RFI) and sharing draft requirements via SAM.GOV, or
+hosting requirements-focused industry days or other collaborative sessions.
+This engagement helps ensure that what the government asks for makes sense in the real
+world and aligns with how industry actually works. Use existing specifications and standards as
+starting points rather than rigid rules and let the collaborative process inform final requirements.
+Avoid getting too specific about exactly how something should be built or delivered too early in
+the process—instead, focus on what you need to accomplish and let industry expertise pick the
+best way to get there. This approach leads to better solutions, more competition, and
+requirements that contractors can meet effectively.
+FC 11.102(c) Identify available specifications.
+The National Institute of Standards and Technology can help agencies identify sources for, and
+content of, nongovernment standards. Department of Defense activities may get non-
+government standards from the Defense Standardization Program Office.
+Agencies may also obtain nongovernment standards from the standards developing
+organization responsible for preparing, publishing, or maintaining the standard, or from an
+authorized document reseller.
+FC 11.2 Treatment of inherently government functions.
+When preparing requirements for services contracts, it is crucial to avoid assigning inherently
+governmental functions (as defined in FAR 7.5) to contractors. The requirements documentation
+should stipulate that contractor personnel whose actions might be perceived as those of
+government officials are properly identified and that all documents and reports generated by
+contractors are suitably marked.
+FC 11.204 Use brand name or equal purchase descriptions.
+While using vendor or product-neutral performance requirements is preferred to encourage
+offerors to propose innovative solutions, using brand name or equal purchase descriptions may
+help under certain circumstances, such as when a certain brand product is currently being used
+but you are open to considering comparable products.
+Brand name or equal purchase descriptions should include, in addition to the brand name, a
+general description of those key salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics of
+the brand name item that an “equal” item must meet to be acceptable for award.
+29
+Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Companion
+Under 6.103-1(d), use of brand-name descriptions, or specification of attributes peculiar to one
+manufacturer, prevents full and open competition and should only be used when justified and
+approved according to 6.104. This does not apply to “brand name or equal” descriptions as they
+provide for full and open competition.