The Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council has posted proposed rules under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) covering FAR Cases 2026-001, 2026-002, 2026-005, and 2026-007. The biggest structural change: FAR Part 10 (Market Research) has been merged into FAR Part 7 (Acquisition Planning). The definition of "service contract" was also changed in ways that will affect how Contracting Officers determine severable versus non-severable services — and funding decisions that follow. Here is what each case does and what you need to track.
I spent eighteen years in federal acquisition as a Contracting Specialist and Contracting Officer at GSA, IRS, DoD, and DOI. I sat in rule-making working groups. I understand how these processes translate from Federal Register text to what actually happens at the contracting shop level. The FAR Rewrite is not theoretical — proposed rules become final rules, and final rules change how your contracts are written, how your mods are processed, and how your prices are evaluated. Here is the plain-English breakdown of what has been proposed so far.
What is the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) and why does it matter now?
The RFO is a complete structural rewrite of the Federal Acquisition Regulation — the first since the FAR was codified in 1984. The goal is to reduce complexity, eliminate redundancy, and align the FAR with current acquisition practices. Proposed rules are now appearing in the Federal Register as individual FAR Cases. Each case targets a specific Part or set of Parts.
The RFO is not an amendment to the existing FAR. It is a parallel document being built at acquisition.gov that will eventually replace the current FAR. Proposed rules published as FAR Cases are the mechanism for moving RFO language through the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act.
As of July 2026, four proposed rules are public. A fifth, covering cybersecurity and contractor information systems, is expected later in 2026. Comments on the posted cases are open through the Federal Register — and as of early July 2026, very few contractors have submitted comments, which means this is a window to shape these rules before they are finalized.
What did FAR Case 2026-001 change in FAR Part 1?
FAR Case 2026-001 eliminates the four-year automatic sunset clause that was proposed in the original RFO FAR Part 1 draft. Under that draft, the new FAR would have automatically expired four years after taking effect unless renewed. The proposed rule removes that provision entirely.
From a rule-making standpoint, an automatic expiration on a regulatory framework makes no sense. Rules promulgated through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act do not expire automatically — they are modified or repealed through additional rulemaking. An automatic sunset that bypasses that process creates legal uncertainty for every contract written under the RFO FAR. The FAR Council recognized this and eliminated it in Case 2026-001.
For contractors, the practical implication is stability: once the RFO FAR takes effect, it will not automatically expire, and any changes to it will go through the standard rulemaking process with a comment period.
What did FAR Case 2026-002 change — and why does the Part 10 merger matter?
FAR Case 2026-002 makes three significant changes: it merges FAR Part 10 (Market Research) into FAR Part 7 (Acquisition Planning), clarifies what is not a utility service, and changes the definition of "service contract" by removing the phrase "identifiable task."
The Part 10 merger is the structural change that will affect day-to-day contracting operations most. FAR Part 10 currently requires Contracting Officers to conduct market research before developing new requirements and before soliciting above the simplified acquisition threshold. Moving that requirement into FAR Part 7 makes market research a formal sub-step of acquisition planning — which is where it always should have been operationally.
The change that concerns me from the CO seat is the "service contract" definition. The current FAR defines a service contract in terms that include performing an identifiable task. The proposed rule removes "identifiable task" because, according to GSA, it "doesn't align with the use of Performance Work Statements (PWS)." That rationale assumes every service contract uses a PWS. It does not. Statement of Work (SOW) contracts exist, are allowable under the FAR, and do not always involve a cleanly identifiable task.
Why this matters operationally:
- Severable vs. non-severable determinations: Whether a service is severable affects when appropriations can fund it — severable services are funded with current-year money; non-severable services may span fiscal years. Without "identifiable task" in the definition, the boundary between service and supply becomes harder to draw in mixed contracts.
- Bona fide need rule: For non-severable services, the bona fide need must exist in the fiscal year of the funds used. Contractors whose work straddles fiscal years need clarity on whether their contract is severable — and the new definition makes that harder to determine for SOW-based work.
- FAR 37.101: The current Part 37 service contract definitions remain in the proposed rules. Watch whether the new definition in Part 2 conflicts with Part 37 in the final rule — that gap will generate protests and disputes.
What did FAR Case 2026-005 change about pre-solicitation notice thresholds?
FAR Case 2026-005 updates the dollar thresholds in Table 5.2 of FAR Part 5 (Publicizing Contract Actions). The minimum threshold for posting a pre-solicitation notice increases from $25,000 to $45,000.
This change has direct implications for small businesses that use pre-solicitation notices to identify upcoming opportunities and begin teaming conversations before a solicitation drops. Under the current FAR, any acquisition above $25,000 must have a pre-solicitation notice posted on SAM.gov. Under the proposed rule, acquisitions between $25,000 and $45,000 may not require that notice.
| Threshold | Current FAR Part 5 | Proposed Rule (FAR Case 2026-005) |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-solicitation notice required | Above $25,000 | Above $45,000 |
| SAM.gov posting window | Minimum 15 days for competitive acquisitions | Unchanged in this case |
| Simplified acquisition threshold | $250,000 (unchanged) | Unchanged in this case |
If you rely on pre-solicitation notices in SAM.gov to catch smaller agency requirements early, the $25K-to-$45K band is a visibility gap that will open when this proposed rule takes effect. Adjust your opportunity pipeline strategy to account for it — set SAM.gov saved searches for awards in that range to find requirements after award that you missed during solicitation.
What did FAR Case 2026-007 address in FAR Parts 3 and 49?
FAR Case 2026-007 covers FAR Parts 3 (Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest) and 49 (Termination of Contracts). The FAR Council's public summary states that public feedback on the RFO versions of Parts 3 and 49 was considered, but the recommendations — including refinements to termination settlement language — were determined to have already been addressed in the existing policy and/or FAR Companion document.
The FAR Council's dismissal of termination settlement feedback without specifics is notable. Termination for convenience settlements are some of the most contested areas in federal contracting. Contractors and their counsel submitted feedback on refinements to FAR Part 49's settlement procedures, and the Council's response — that it was "already addressed" — provides no audit trail for which recommendations were considered and which were rejected.
From the CO seat, the lack of transparency on Part 49 comment adjudication is a problem. Rule-making working groups are supposed to document why specific comments were accepted or rejected. A blanket "already addressed" response for an entire Part is not standard adjudication practice. If your firm submitted comments on FAR Case 2026-007 and received no substantive response, you have grounds to submit follow-up comments when the proposed rule is open for public comment in the Federal Register — comments on proposed rules must be individually addressed in the final rule preamble.
What did Executive Order 14402 add to the RFO on July 1, 2026?
Executive Order 14402, "Promoting Efficiency, Accountability, and Performance in Federal Contracting" (April 30, 2026), was implemented into the RFO on July 1, 2026 through updates to RFO Part 16 (Types of Contracts) and Part 52 (Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses). The EO directs a preference for fixed-price contracts.
This matters because cost-type contracts — cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF), cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF), and time-and-materials (T&M) — are increasingly difficult to justify under the new policy. Agencies that have historically used cost-type contracts for complex development or research work are being pushed toward fixed-price vehicles. If your firm holds cost-type contracts or prices T&M for government work, expect your next recompete to come out as a fixed-price solicitation. Begin developing your pricing model for a fixed-price structure now.
GSA has posted a Fixed-Price Contracts Training Playlist on Cornerstone-On-Demand (accessible through FAI.gov) for federal acquisition workforce training. The training is targeted at COs, but contractors benefit from understanding what COs are being trained to prefer when selecting contract type under the revised Part 16.
What should contractors do about the FAR Rewrite right now?
Read the proposed rules and submit comments before comment periods close. As of early July 2026, only a handful of companies have responded to posted FAR Cases. That means the current proposed text reflects primarily government views — not industry input. Every comment submitted shapes the final rule.
- Find the proposed rules at acquisition.gov: Navigate to the RFO section and the "You Said, We Did" page for a summary of what public feedback has influenced the rules to date
- Review the Federal Register posting for each Case: FAR Cases 2026-001 through 2026-007 are posted at federalregister.gov — each posting includes the comment deadline
- Submit comments on Part 49: If you have experienced termination-for-convenience settlement disputes, this is the window to create a public record of specific problems with current Part 49 language
- Audit your service contracts for the new definition: Review any contract using a SOW (rather than PWS) and confirm how your work would be categorized under the revised "service contract" definition — flag this for your legal counsel now
- Prepare for fixed-price recompetes: Review your cost structure on any cost-type contract and begin modeling what a fixed-price bid for that work would look like
What Is the Bottom Line?
- Four FAR Cases under the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul have been proposed in 2026 — 2026-001 through 2026-007 (with gaps; not all numbers are consecutive)
- The most significant structural change: FAR Part 10 merged into FAR Part 7, making market research a formal step in acquisition planning
- The most operationally risky change: removal of "identifiable task" from the service contract definition — contractors with SOW-based contracts should flag this for legal review
- Pre-solicitation notice threshold rises from $25,000 to $45,000 under FAR Case 2026-005 — a visibility gap for small businesses tracking requirements below that line
- EO 14402 is now in the RFO — fixed-price contracts will be the default preference; cost-type work will need justification
- Very few companies have commented on these rules — comment periods are open and your submission shapes the final text
If you hold GSA Schedule contracts or are pursuing OASIS+ task orders and want to understand how the FAR Rewrite affects your pricing, teaming, and compliance obligations, Blackfyre provides acquisition strategy support from a team with direct federal CO experience — including 18 years across GSA, IRS, DoD, and DOI.
Frequently Asked Questions
When will the FAR Rewrite take effect?
The RFO is in the proposed rule phase as of mid-2026. Each FAR Case must complete the Federal Register notice-and-comment process before it can be finalized. There is no single effective date for the entire RFO — individual FAR Cases will finalize on different timelines. Monitor the Federal Register and acquisition.gov for finalization notices on specific Cases that affect your contracts.
Does the RFO apply to existing contracts?
Final rules under the FAR Rewrite will apply to new contracts and modifications issued after the effective date of each specific rule. Existing contracts will generally continue under the clauses in place at time of award unless a mass modification implements new clauses — which GSA routinely does for MAS contracts. Your PCO will notify you of any mass mod that incorporates new RFO-derived clauses into your existing contract.
Why did FAR Part 10 get merged into Part 7?
The FAR Council's stated rationale is to make acquisition planning more cohesive by integrating market research into the planning sequence rather than treating it as a standalone requirement. In practice, market research under FAR Part 10 and acquisition planning under FAR Part 7 were always sequential — the merger formalizes that relationship. Whether it creates actual efficiency gains depends on how agencies implement the merged Part in their acquisition plans.
What is the risk of the new service contract definition for contractors?
The removal of "identifiable task" from the definition of service contract creates ambiguity in mixed contracts — those that combine services and supplies. The most direct impact is on severable vs. non-severable determinations, which control how appropriations fund the work. If your contract uses a Statement of Work rather than a Performance Work Statement, have your legal counsel review whether your scope of work still clearly qualifies as a service under the new definition.
How do I submit comments on a FAR Case?
FAR Case proposed rules are published in the Federal Register. Each Federal Register posting includes a comment deadline and submission instructions. Comments are submitted at regulations.gov using the docket number from the Federal Register posting. Comments must address specific proposed regulatory text to receive individual responses in the final rule preamble — general statements of support or opposition are less effective than targeted technical comments on specific provisions.
What is the difference between the RFO document on acquisition.gov and the Federal Register proposed rules?
The RFO document on acquisition.gov is a working draft that GSA updates as policy decisions are made — it is not legally binding. The proposed rules published in the Federal Register are the formal regulatory action that creates legal obligations once finalized. Always reference the Federal Register version for actual regulatory requirements. The acquisition.gov RFO document is useful for tracking the direction of proposed changes before they enter formal rulemaking.
Does EO 14402's fixed-price preference apply to all contract types?
EO 14402 directs a preference for fixed-price contracts across federal acquisitions, but it does not prohibit cost-type or time-and-materials contracts. Contracting Officers must document their justification for using cost-type contracts when a fixed-price structure is feasible. Contracts for basic research, developmental work with substantial technical uncertainty, and complex services with undefined workloads are most likely to retain cost-type structures — but even those will face increased scrutiny at each option renewal and recompete.