RFO Round Two: Proposed FAR Changes Could Reshape Commercial Buying, Negotiations, Contract Types, and Data Rights

On September 18, 2026, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council released the second group of proposed rules implementing the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul, or RFO. The four proposed rules would revise 16 FAR parts, together with associated solicitation provisions and contract clauses in FAR Part 52. Eight of the 12 planned RFO proposed rules have now been released. (WBD previous client alerts on Round One are available here and here.)

The latest issuance addresses commercial acquisitions, simplified procedures, negotiated procurements, contract types, indefinite-delivery contracts, options, research and development, contractor responsibility, data rights, sealed bidding, construction, and architect-engineer contracting.

Although some revisions primarily reorganize or simplify existing text, others could materially affect acquisition strategy, proposal preparation, intellectual-property rights, contract administration, and the systems contractors use to identify and manage FAR clauses.

Round Two covers four FAR cases

The four proposed rules in the four FAR cases are:

• FAR Case 2026-003, covering FAR Parts 8, 12, 13, 15, 38, 44, and 51;
• FAR Case 2026-006, covering FAR Parts 16, 17, and 35;
• FAR Case 2026-010, covering FAR Parts 14, 28, and 36; and
• FAR Case 2026-011, covering FAR Parts 9, 27, and 47.

Each case also includes corresponding changes to FAR Part 52.

Across the four cases, the FAR Council continues the RFO’s broader approach: eliminate or relocate nonstatutory requirements, reorganize the FAR around the acquisition lifecycle, clarify clause prescriptions, replace “shall” with “must” or “will,” and move much of the procedural “how to” material into nonregulatory guidance such as the FAR Companion.

The FAR Council describes the overhaul as a shift from regulations centered on paperwork and process compliance toward a streamlined framework focused on core stewardship principles, contracting officer judgment, and mission outcomes. Across the proposed rules, the Council identifies three principal objectives: faster acquisition and delivery, lower costs and greater spending accountability, and increased competition through reduced barriers to participation in the federal marketplace.

Key observations:

1. Commercial buying and negotiated acquisitions receive major revisions

FAR Case 2026-003 contains several important proposed rules.

• Greater reliance on existing government-wide vehicles

The proposed Part 8 would require agencies to use an Office of Federal Procurement Policy designated “required use” contract or blanket purchase agreement when a suitable vehicle exists. If no suitable required-use vehicle is available, agencies would consider an OFPP-designated Best-in-Class contract and then other existing governmentwide contracts or blanket purchase agreements before creating a new vehicle

. This rule also would broaden agency authority to permit contractors to use government supply sources under contracts awarded through procedures other than sealed bidding.

Contractors should monitor which vehicles receive required-use status and whether their offerings are available through those vehicles.

• Restructuring of commercial acquisitions

The proposed Part 12 would consolidate commercial acquisition procedures into what the FAR Council describes as a more user-centered framework. It would move commercial simplified acquisition and micro-purchase procedures into Part 12 and direct contracting officers to use simplified procedures for commercial acquisitions up to $9 million, or $15 million for certain emergencies and major disasters.

The proposal also would remove FAR 52.212-3, the commercial representations and certifications provision, and FAR 52.212-5, the omnibus commercial-items clause. Instead, individual FAR prescriptions would specify whether each provision or clause applies to commercial acquisitions. An agency generally would need an individual or class deviation to add a clause that is not prescribed for commercial products or commercial services.

If finalized, this could substantially reduce the number of noncommercial clauses included in commercial contracts and would shift to the government much of the burden of determining which provisions and clauses apply.

• Construction may qualify as a commercial service

The proposed rule contemplates using Part 12 when construction satisfies the definition of a commercial service. When construction is treated as commercial, the contracting officer would use Part 12 to structure, solicit, and award the contract while continuing to comply with applicable Part 36 requirements.

• Contracting officers could accept late proposals

A key change appears in Part 15. The proposed rule would allow a contracting officer the discretion to accept a late proposal when acceptance is in the government’s best interest and would not unduly delay award.

This proposal would create a discretionary exception to the traditional “late is late” rule, but it would not give offerors a right to have late proposals considered.

Contractors should continue to treat solicitation deadlines as firm deadlines and not rely on the exercise of discretion if late. This proposal also raises issues that industry may wish to address in comments, including consistency, equal treatment, and protest risk.

2. Contract types and ordering procedures become more flexible, but fixed-price preferences increase

FAR Case 2026-006 would revise Parts 16, 17, and 35.

Part 16 would move toward a more permissive approach to contract-type selection, including the possible use of contract types not expressly identified in the FAR when they serve the government’s interests and are not prohibited by statute. An alternate to FAR 52.216-1 also would permit offerors to propose a different contract type. At the same time, the proposal emphasizes fixed-price contracts with performance-based considerations and would require written justification for non-fixed-price contracts, together with agency-head approval when specified dollar thresholds are exceeded.

This emphasis would implement Executive Order 14402, Promoting Efficiency, Accountability, and Performance in Federal Contracting, which establishes fixed-price contracts with performance-based considerations as the default and preferred method of procurement. The order identifies cost predictability, budget discipline, contractor accountability, and streamlined contract administration as the principal objectives of that preference, while recognizing that non-fixed-price arrangements remain appropriate in specified circumstances.

For multiple-award contracts, the proposed rule addresses on-ramps and off-ramps, permits blanket purchase agreements under multiple-award contracts in certain circumstances, and reorganizes fair-opportunity procedures. 

Contractors holding indefinite-delivery contracts should assess how the proposed on-ramp, off-ramp, and ordering provisions could affect continued participation, competition for orders, and the information available following an unsuccessful order competition.

3. Options and contract duration warrant attention

The proposed Part 17 would remove the FAR’s existing nonstatutory five-year limitation on general contract duration, while leaving applicable statutory and other regulatory duration limits in place. It also would expand option clauses to support additional quantities of services and would broaden FAR 52.217-8, renamed “Option to Extend,” to cover ordering periods and requirements beyond services.

The expanded option authorities could reduce reliance on bridge contracts and sole-source modifications. They also may produce longer contract relationships and increase the importance of reviewing option pricing and escalation assumptions.

4. Data rights may undergo a restructuring

FAR Case 2026-011 proposes one of the more significant changes for technology, research, and nontraditional contractors. It would replace the existing FAR Subpart 27.4 with two DFARS-derived frameworks: one for technical data and computer software associated with commercial products and services, and another for technical data and software associated with other-than-commercial products and services.

The proposed rule also would revise the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer data-rights framework. Among other changes, it would establish a single, nonextendable 20-year protection period and provide the government with government-purpose rights, rather than unlimited rights, after that period expires.

Companies whose value depends on proprietary technical data, software, or SBIR/STTR rights should review the proposed clauses carefully. Attention should be given to definitions, markings, license categories, flowdowns, and consistency with existing intellectual-property portfolios and subcontract agreements.

5. Contractor responsibility and compliance considerations

The proposed Part 9 would remove or relocate several existing provisions, including coverage relating to pre-award surveys and contractor team arrangements. It also would replace references to FAPIIS with the broader term “integrity records,” reflecting changes in the systems through which contractor responsibility, integrity, and performance information is maintained.

The proposed changes also would identify noncompliance with the contemplated FAR clause addressing racially discriminatory DEI activities as a cause for suspension or debarment. This implements Executive Order 14398, Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors, which states that agencies should not do business with contractors that engage in racially discriminatory DEI activities. 

Because suspension and debarment consequences can extend beyond an individual contract, contractors should follow the final wording of the underlying clause, the standards used to determine noncompliance, and any implementing guidance concerning investigation, notice, remediation, and responsibility determinations.

6. Construction rules would be streamlined

FAR Case 2026-010 would simplify Parts 14, 28, and 36. Many Part 14 and Part 28 revisions are described as administrative. Part 36, however, would eliminate several provisions the FAR Council considers permissive, duplicative, or unnecessary. These include the FAR’s general clause addressing contractor self-performance, although statutory, program-specific, or solicitation-specific self-performance requirements may continue to apply.

Removal from the FAR would not necessarily eliminate the underlying practice. Agencies could continue to address matters such as site visits and preconstruction conferences in individual solicitations. Construction contractors may need to rely less on familiar FAR clause numbers and more on a detailed review.

7. Part 52 renumbering could create an implementation burden

The FAR Council is considering establishing a new FAR Part 52 subpart, potentially Subpart 52.4, and relocating and renumbering all provisions and clauses under the new structure.

Although many underlying clauses may not experience material change, renumbering could affect virtually every federal contractor because clause references are embedded throughout compliance systems, contract templates, flowdown tools, training materials, and contract records. The proposal raises the prospect of substantial implementation and transition costs.

What contractors should follow now

The four proposals are not yet final rules. Nevertheless, contractors should consider submitting comments to explain the consequences of the proposed rules. The comment deadline is October 19, 2026.

Looking ahead

The second RFO package may give contracting officers greater discretion, reduce some prescriptive requirements, and simplify commercial contracting. At the same time, that flexibility may increase variation among agencies and solicitations, leaving contractors with a greater need for careful solicitation review.

Four additional proposed rules remain to be released. Each of the 12 FAR cases will then proceed through its own notice-and-comment and final-rule process, although no completion date for the overall overhaul has been announced.

If you have any questions about the issues raised in this alert, please contact the authors or the Womble Bond Dickinson attorneys with whom you normally work.