An official website of the United States Government
You Said, We Did
You Said, We Did
How Public Feedback on Model Deviations Informed the Proposed Rules
In Phase 1 of the RFO, the FAR Council issued model deviations associated with each FAR part, which agencies used to execute related agency RFO class deviations. An important element of Phase 1 was the opportunity to receive public feedback on the model deviations, intended to directly inform the formal rule-making process, RFO Phase 2.
The RFO Phase 2 rule-making process has been organized in 12 FAR Cases, as outlined in the chart. The FAR Council has published Proposed Rules (PR) for the first 4 of 12 RFO-related FAR cases.
With this publication, it’s the perfect time to show how public feedback informed key changes from the model deviations to the proposed rules. Your voice made a difference. The FAR Council received almost 1,600 valuable comments, primarily from industry (80%), but also from industry associations (7%) and federal government employees (13%). The public feedback received informed the FAR Council’s work in preparing the proposed rules.
While all public comments received may not be reflected, the tables below highlight examples of key policy updates that resulted from some of the public feedback submitted via acquisition.gov. The tables are organized by the RFO-related FAR rules, and will be continuously updated as the remaining RFO-related rules are published over the coming months.
| FAR Part & Theme | What You Said | What We Did (Gov Response) | Impact (Why It Matters) |
|---|---|---|---|
FAR Part 1 Sunset Clause | FAR Subpart 1.109 introduced a four-year sunset clause for non-statutory FAR language, and required regular review and justification for each requirement. However, you expressed concerns that while the intent of the sunset language is understood, the automatic expiration creates uncertainty and eliminates the opportunity for public comment. The small business community states that this language would harm small businesses who lack the resources to navigate continuous changes, giving larger businesses a competitive advantage. | Modified the rule to state that there will not be automatic expirations. The FAR clarifies that sections, provisions, and clauses do not expire until removed through rulemaking. The FAR Council will standardize the review process by issuing a future proposed rule at regularly timed increments requesting public input on policies for sunset review. | Eliminating automatic expirations reduces uncertainty by clarifying that sections, provisions, and clauses will only be removed through a formal rulemaking process. This guarantees contractors the opportunity to provide input on sunset review policies, and maintains transparency and stakeholder engagement. The elimination of continuous, resource-intensive changes alleviates the burden on small businesses, which removes a competitive barrier and helps to level the playing field with larger, more resourced companies. |
FAR Part 4 Service Contract Reporting | The language stating that Service Contract Reporting (SCR) is no longer required for commercial services contracts is vague. | Clarified language to state “Service contractor reporting is required for contracts and first-tier subcontracts for services, excluding commercial services, based on type of contract and estimated total value.” | By explicitly excluding commercial services contracts from the SCR requirement and clearly stating the criteria (contract type and estimated total value), the revised language ensures correct application of the rule, reduces confusion, and increases the efficiency and accuracy of contract management for acquisition professionals. |
FAR Part 4 SAM Registration | The administrative burden for all contractors to register in SAM is too high and serves as a deterrent to new market entrants. | In Part 4, we proposed eliminating over half the information required to register to do business with the Federal Government and SAM will be updated to reflect these changes. | This change enhances efficiency by simplifying the registration process, making it faster and easier for all businesses. This could also increase market entry by encouraging new entrants, particularly small and emerging businesses, to seek federal contracting opportunities. |
FAR Part 33 Source Selection Decision Disclosure | Provide a redacted source selection decision document and the offerors' technical evaluation to all offerors. | For protests reviewed at a level above the contracting officer, FAR 33.104-4(a)(5)(ii)(B) proposes a significant enhancement by allowing the disclosure of a redacted copy of the agency’s final technical evaluation of the protester’s proposal and a redacted copy of the source selection decision. | This enhancement substantially increases transparency and information sharing within an agency's protest process. This increased information sharing strongly incentivizes parties to pursue the faster, less costly agency-level protest as an effective alternative to filing with other venues, leading to a more efficient resolution of protests. |
FAR Part 39 Cloud, Agile, and AI Modernization | The FAR Part 39 structure fails to capture the nuances of current and emerging procurement models such as those involving Cloud, Agile development, and Artificial Intelligence. | Text was added at FAR 39.001(b) mentioning “new or emerging” technologies in the proposed rule. | This change signals the FAR Council’s intent to expand and evolve FAR Part 39. It establishes a necessary foundation for future requirements and guidance related to the acquisition of cutting-edge technologies. By explicitly acknowledging "new or emerging" technologies, procurement professionals can better address the complexities of modern IT acquisitions, moving away from outdated models and embracing more flexible and efficient contracting methods. |
FAR Part 40 Definitions & Controlled Unclassified Guidance (CUI) | Some of the definitions, such as “covered procurement actions”, are inadequate and could result in overall insufficient details, and inaccurate security classification. FAR Part 40 also lacks guidance regarding the protection of proprietary/commercially sensitive information. | Under FAR 40.201(4)(1), a detailed description of “covered procurement actions” was added at the beginning and throughout Part 40 as applicable. We added detailed descriptions of "telecommunications equipment and services" and "video surveillance and services". Under FAR 40.304, policies and procedures were added to provide guidance on the handling of CUI. | The addition of detailed descriptions for "covered procurement actions" and specific equipment (telecommunications and video surveillance) directly addresses the need for clarity and sufficient detail in definitions, ensuring acquisition professionals have a comprehensive understanding of the rule's scope. Furthermore, the inclusion of CUI policies and procedures under FAR 40.304 provides necessary guidance for protection, mitigating risks of inaccurate security classification and safeguarding proprietary or commercially sensitive information. This enhances the security posture and regulatory compliance of covered procurements. |
FAR Part 6 Justification & Approval (J&A) | FAR 6.103(d) requires a J&A for other than full and open competition, unless the FAR 6.103-5 or FAR 6.103-7 authorities are used. However, this general statement is misleading because FAR 6.103-4 provides exceptions to the J&A requirement, and FAR 6.103-5 sometimes requires a J&A. | FAR 6.103(d) was eliminated. | The elimination of FAR 6.103(d) also eliminated confusion and potential misapplication regarding the requirement for a J&A when using other than full and open competition. It also helps to streamline the acquisition process by removing unnecessary or ambiguous provisions. |
FAR Parts 7 Industry Engagement | Industry engagement should begin early in the acquisition planning process. | In Part 7, we emphasized acquisition planning should be a living, on-going process. Consolidation of market research and acquisition planning in the proposed rule drives home the point that market research is an integral part of the acquisition planning process. | This change highlights early engagement, a critical step that ensures businesses receive opportunities and successfully participate in the federal marketplace. |
FAR Parts 7 & 10 Merge FAR Parts | Merge the overhauled FAR Part 10 (Market Research) into FAR Part 7 (Acquisition Planning), as market research is an intrinsic part of the planning process. | FAR Part 10 was consolidated into Part 7 to simplify processes related to acquisition planning and market research. | By merging these two parts, the revision creates a more logical and cohesive structure within the FAR, improves efficiency, reduces complexity for acquisition professionals, and cements market research as essential to the acquisition planning process. |
FAR Part 26 Indian Incentive Program | The scope section in the codified FAR Subpart 26.100 should be retained in the deviated version of FAR Part 26 because it implements 25 U.S.C. 1544, which provides an incentive to prime contractors for using Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises as subcontractors. | The section on the Indian Incentive program under the deviatied FAR 26.1 has been moved to FAR 26.3 in the proposed rule and the reference to 25 U.S.C. 1544 has been retained. The proposed text, however, significantly streamlines content. For example, the existing policy contains extensive non-statutory procedural detail involving contractor engagement. This content is already captured in FAR Contract Clause 52.226-1, Utilization of Indian Organizations and Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises. | The retention of 25 U.S.C. 1544 in the proposed rule ensures that the statutory incentive for prime contractors to use Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises as subcontractors is maintained. Moving the Indian Incentive program section from the deviated FAR 26.1 to FAR 26.3 and significantly streamlining content, results in a more concise and efficient regulation that removes extensive non-statutory procedural details and eliminates redundancy. |
FAR Part 37 Service Contract Definition | The definition of “service contract” in FAR 37.001 as an identifiable task does not align with FAR 37.102-1(a)(2) regarding the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements. Specifically, the current definition focuses on “identifiable tasks,” which contrasts with the PWS requirement to describe “outcomes.” | The definition was revised to remove the "identifiable task" language. Under 37.101-1(a), outcome-focused approaches were added as part of performance-based acquisition methods. The outcome-focused approach is now seen throughout Part 37. For example, under 37.102-1(3), direction to the CO on how to compile a PWS includes defining the basis by which successful outcomes will be achieved. | This revision successfully resolves the foundational conflict between the task-based definition of "service contract" in FAR 37.001 and the outcome-based requirement for PWS. This ensures all relevant sections of the rule consistently drive acquisition planning towards measurable results, which is key to effective performance-based service contracting. |
FAR Part 41 Definition of Utility Service | Revise the definition of "Utility Service" for clarity. | The definition of "Utility Service" was revised to include a clarifying phrase: " It also does not include the following ...". This makes clear the list of items not considered a "Utility Service". | This revision specifically addresses the structure of the exclusion list, ensuring that items not considered "Utility Service" are distinctly identified, thereby improving user comprehension and reducing potential misinterpretation of the definition's scope. |
FAR Part 8 Best-in-Class Mandate | Withdraw the Best-in-Class mandate as it will reduce small business participation, reduce competition and undermine the government's commitment to supporting small businesses. | Removed the Best-in-Class mandate and instead, made it a prioritized consideration after determining there is no available Office of Federal Procurement Policy "required use" contract or BPA that meets the need of the agency. | This provides the acquisition team more discretion to procure commercial products and commercial services from governmentwide vehicles that best support the agency mission, and allows for continued competition amongst small businesses. |
FAR Part 12 Construction as a Commercial Service | The RFO Part 12.200(b) language was unclear and created confusion as it gave directions for procuring contruction under FAR Part 12 but then required the use of FAR Part 36 for construction contracts. | Clarified that FAR Part 12 is to be used in conjunciton with FAR Part 36 when "procuring construction as a commercial service." | This revised language provides clearer and unambiguous direction for acquisition professionals, ensuring proper application of the FAR parts during the procurement process. |
FAR Part 12 Publicizing | The notice posting requirements under FAR Part 12 are redundant and inefficient as they are also contained in FAR Part 5, which the deviated FAR Part 12 references several times. Move the posting requirements for commercial procurements in FAR Part 5 to FAR Part 12. | Publicizing guidance applicable to commercial products and services were added to FAR Part 12 rather than cross-referencing to Part 5. | By transfering the publicizing guidance for applicable commercial products and services from Part 5 to FAR Part 12, we addressed the redundancy and inefficiency of notice posting requirements under FAR Part 12. This streamlines the process and provides clarity for acquisition professionals. |
FAR Part 12 Provisions and Clauses | The existing language in FAR Part 12.205(a) and (b) lacks clear instruction regarding the application of provisions and clauses prescribed in other parts of the FAR, which may lead acquisition professionals to incorrectly include non-commercial clauses in commercial contracts and burden contractors. | Prescriptions throughout the FAR are being updated to state whether a clause or prescription is prescribed for acquisitions of commercial products and commerial services. Under FAR 12.205(a) and (b), language was added to include provisions and clauses prescribed in other parts of the FAR in contracts, only if the clause is explicitly prescribed for commercial acquisitions. The language directs acquisition professionals to incorporate the clause as prescribed, and not to include clauses that are not explicitly applied to commercial acquisitions. | This change provides clear guidance to acquisition professionals and prevents the incorrect inclusion of clauses not intended for commercial contracts. It also reduces the administrative burden on both the government and contractors, and promotes the use of appropriate commercial contracting practices. |
FAR Part 12 Small Business Set-Asides | In FAR12.201-1, there is no discussion of the use of small business set-asides, particularly for those actions between the Micro-Purchase Threshold (MPT) and Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) even though FAR 52.212-4 as listed in the table at FAR 12.205(b) includes FAR 52.219-6 (and its Alt I) and FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (used only under set-aside awards). There is also no cross reference in FAR 12.201-1 to FAR Part 19. | This issue was addressed to require set asides for small business concerns in procuring supplies or services that have an anticipated dollar value above the MPT, but at or below the SAT. FAR Part 19 is cross referenced. | This ensures acquisition professionals apply proper set-aside policies for procurements between the MPT and the SAT, which promotes economic opportunity for small businesses |
FAR Part 13 Determinations and Findings | Requiring that a Contracting Officer (CO) makes Determinations and Findings (D&F) that only one source exists under FAR 13.101(b), contradicts the simplified nature of FAR Part 13. The D&F language should be removed. | The language was revised to delete the D&F requirement and states instead that COs may solicit from a single source based on a "documented decision" to conduct a sole source acquisition. | Requiring a "documented decision" instead of a "D&F" reduces the administrative burden on COs while maintaining necessary accountability. This ensures that simplified acquisitions remain efficient and agile, allowing for faster procurement cycles without sacrificing the integrity of the decision-making process |
FAR Part 13 Posting Requirements | FAR Part 13 should include the information for posting requirements rather than directing the Contracting Officers (CO) to FAR Parts 5 and 12 for that information. | FAR Part 13 still refers the CO to the posting requirements in FAR Part 5. However, detailed posting requirements were added to FAR Part 13 to address when an exemption in FAR Part 5 applies. | This hybrid approach enhances efficiency by providing COs with immediate access to specific posting requirements within FAR Part 13 and reduces the need to cross-reference FAR Part 5 when it does not apply. |
FAR Part 15 Late is Late Rule | The "late is late" policy remained unchanged. The policy states that when a proposal is received after the date and time specified in the Request for Proposals, it is considered “late” and cannot considered for award, unless certain conditions exist. | The proposed rule amends this policy to permit contracting officers to accept late proposals when they determine that doing so is in the Government’s best interest and would not unduly delay the contract award. | This simplifies the problematic 'late is late' policy and will prevent the exclusion of potentially superior proposals on a technicality, ensuring the Government receives the best value while maintaining an efficient procurement schedule. |
FAR Part 15 Definitions | There were requests for clarity on certain terms such as "clarifications", "negotiations" and "competitive range". | The definitions section was expanded to include definitions for "clarifications","competitive range" and "negotiations". | The addition of these definitions enhances the clarity and consistency of the rule. This ensures a common understanding of these critical terms among acquisition professionals and offerors, reducing ambiguity and facilitating a more streamlined and fair procurement process. |
FAR Part 44 Updated Clauses | There were requests to make editorial and clarifying changes to clauses referenced in 52.244-6 | The clauses in 52.244-6 were updated to align with the dates of the overhaul of all provisions and clauses. They were also updated to correct numbering. | These changes resolve confusion regarding the applicability of certain clauses to commercial subcontracts. |
FAR Part 5 Conflicting Requirements | FAR Subpart 5.302 contains conflicting language. It states, “Contracting officers must make information available on awards of contract actions over $4.5 million in sufficient time for the agency concerned to publicly announce it by 5 p.m., Eastern Time (ET), on the day of award. Agencies shall not release information on awards before the public release time of 5 p.m., ET.” This language is impractical and makes it hard to both award and release the award information publicly in a timely fashion. | Revised the language to state, "agencies may publicly announce awards of contract actions over $5.5 million as soon as practicable on the day of award, consistent with agency procedures. Public announcement under this section is distinct from the automated posting to the Governmentwide Point of Entry required by part 5.301. Agencies may use any appropriate method to inform the public of significant contract awards." | By changing the requirement from a restrictive 5 p.m. ET release time to allowing public announcement "as soon as practicable on the day of award," the rule provides necessary flexibility. This makes it more practical for agencies to complete the award process and release information efficiently, removing a procedural hurdle for contracting officers. |
FAR Part 5 Simplified Acquisition Procedures | The Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) procedures in FAR Parts 5, 12, and 13 contradict each other. Resolve these contradictions using clear and consistent language in all three parts. | References to the SAT as they relate to FAR Part 12 and the acquisition of commercials products and services were removed from FAR Part 5. | This eliminates contradictions between different FAR Parts. It also creates a more cohesive and unambiguous set of procedures for acquisition professionals, making it easier for them to accurately apply the correct SAT procedures, particularly when acquiring commercial products and services. |
FAR Part 5 Outdated Thresholds | Several thresholds are outdated and should be updated. For example, the $25,000 threshold in Table 5.2, Minimum Timeframe for Posting Pre-solicitation Notices, and in other sections of FAR Part 5, has been unchanged for decades. | The thresholds have been updated across FAR Part 5. Specifically in Table 5.2, the thresholds increased from $25,000 to $45,000. | Adjusting the thresholds reflect current economic conditions and the true value of procurement activities, ensuring the regulation remains relevant and functional. This upward adjustment also improves efficiency by allowing a greater number of lower-dollar acquisitions to move forward without the administrative burden of a mandatory posting timeframe. |
FAR Part 16 Consumption Monitoring | Require the contractor to provide tools to track usage and/or require notifications at predefined milestones (e.g., 50% and 75% of the ceiling) as practicable, based on the contractor’s commercial best practices. | Adopted notification requirements at milestones set by the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA). | Requiring specific notification requirements in the FAR allows for consistent application across the Federal Government. It also creates ease of use for the contractor community in setting up business systems to accommodate these notification thresholds. |
FAR Part 16 Consumption-based Solutions | Clarify the ability to establish consumption-based contract types by adding firm-fixed-unit-price type under fixed-price contracts in FAR Part 16. | We adopted consumption-based solutions under FAR 16.202, Firm-fixed Price Contracts. | This change empowers contracting officers with the explicit authority to establish consumption-based contract types. By adding firm-fixed-unit-pricing under FAR 16.202, agencies gain the flexibility to acquire supplies and services based on actual usage while maintaining the structure and predictability of a fixed-price contract. |
FAR Part 16 Organization of FAR Part 16 | Put Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour contract types before FAR 16.5 with the other contract types and separate Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hour from Letter contracts in the section. | The proposed rule reorganizes FAR Part 16 to first address contract types, then contract mechanisms (indefinite-delivery contracts, letter contracts, and agreements). | Clear organization of FAR Part 16 helps to separate contract types versus instruments, allowing for easy reference when determining contract type for acquisitions. |
FAR Part 17 Excerising Contract Options | The revised FAR Part 17 replaces the 'reasonable likelihood' requirement for exercising contract options with a 'probability' standard. This creates a more ambiguous and potentially higher threshold, increasing the administrative burden on defense contractors when building and pricing proposals for solicitations with uncertain options. | We reverted to the "reasonable likelihood" language in the proposed rule. | Retaining the original "reasonable likelihood" language ensures a clear standard for exercising contract options and prevents unnecessary administrative burden and pricing complexity for defense contractors. |
FAR Part 17 Clause Limitations | Modernize option clauses ( FAR 52.217-6 (Option for Increased Quantity) and FAR 52.217-7 (Option for Increased Quantity – Separately Priced Line Item) to explicitly include “services.” Current limitations create operational challenges and necessitate FAR deviations. | The proposed rule removes limitations on the use of FAR clauses 52.217-6, and 52.217-7 in solicitations and contracts for the purchases of services. | By explicitly expanding FAR clauses 52.217-6 and 52.217-7 to include services, the proposed rule resolves longstanding operational challenges and eliminates the administrative burden of requesting agency-level FAR deviations. |
FAR Part 17 Option to Extend | FAR 52.217-8 (Options to Extend Services) should be re-worded so it applies to both services and supplies. The supply option clauses do not work on some types of supply contracts, for example, on IDIQ contracts, when protests extend the necessary ordering period date. | The proposed rule allows for the use of FAR Clause 52.217-8(renamed Option to Extend) in task-order contracts and delivery-order contracts for requirements other than services. | Expanding FAR Clause 52.217-8 (renamed 'Option to Extend') to cover both services and supplies ensures the continuity of critical deliveries, particularly during unforeseen delays such as protests on follow-on IDIQ contracts. This update provides contracting officers with the flexibility to maintain uninterrupted operations and ordering periods without the administrative burden and higher transaction costs associated with issuing sole-source bridge contracts. |
FAR Part 35 Appropriate Agreements for R&D | The overhaul of FAR Part 35 removed language that addressed the appropriateness of the type of contract used for Research & Development (R&D) in FAR 35.002 and FAR 35.006. | Reinstated previously removed langauge regarding the purpose and application of research and development, including types of agreements that may be entered into as a result of Broad Agency Announcements or other R&D solicitations. | By reinstating this language, contracting officers now have clear, codified guidance on the appropriate types of agreements for R&D solicitations. This clarity reduces administrative ambiguity, ensures the correct award medium is selected (including non-FAR based agreements), and helps agencies effectively align their procurements with national scientific and technical goals. |
FAR Part 35 Full and Open Competition for R&D | The language in FAR 35.101 directing contracting officers to solicit only from well-established entities excludes capable start-ups and small businesses. Bidding should remain open to all and merit-based. | The proposed rule removes language regarding providing solicitations to “only a reasonable number of responsible sources” and the requirement for agencies to “continually search for and develop information on sources competent to perform R&D work.” | Removing this restrictive language aligns with full and open competition requirements, ensuring capable start-ups and small businesses are not excluded. This promotes a merit-based approach and expands the pool of potential R&D sources. |
FAR Part 35 Decouple Broad Agency Agreements from FAR Part 15 | FAR 35.202(a) does not clearly state that FAR Part 15 source selection procedures are not required for Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs). Many Contracting Officers mirror Part 15 methods, which is impractical and inefficient given the volume of responses BAAs often generate. | The proposed rule clarifies that FAR Part 35's general R&D evaluation procedures can be used independently, or combined with BAA (FAR 35.102), or the FAR Part 15 evaluation procedures. | This clarification reduces inefficiency and impracticality by making it clear that FAR Part 15 procedures are not required for BAAs, giving contracting officers maximum flexibility to use general R&D evaluation procedures independently or in combination. |
| The government considered the public feedback received on RFO parts 3 and 49, but determined that the recommendations, such as for refinement of language pertaining to termination settlements, had already been addressed in the policy and/or FAR Companion. | |||
FAR Part 50 Uniform Indemnification | Add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph at FAR Subpart 50.101-4: “The clause and its Alternate I must be used without deviation or modification in all contracts where indemnification under Public Law 85-804 is extended.” | We added the suggested language to FAR Subpart 50.101-4. | This language ensures uniform application and mitigates the risk of inconsistent interpretations across all contracts where indemnification under Pub. L. 85-804 is extended. |
FAR Part 32 Fast Payment Threshold | The deviated FAR Part 32 retained a $35,000 threshold for fast payment procedures. However, this threshold was increased, therefore, the threshold needs to be updated to reflect current policy. | The fast payment threshold is increased to the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) to align with statutory intent. | Aligning the fast payment threshold with the SAT streamlines the payment process for a broader range of acquisitions, reduces administrative delays, and ensures consistency with current law. |
FAR Part 14 Late Bid Exception | Clarify with greater specificity the exceptions to the “late bid” rule in FAR 14.301. | We removed the description of the "acceptable evidence" exception to the late bid rule from FAR 14.301 and added a definitions section in FAR 14.001. A very detailed definition of "acceptable evidence" is now contained in FAR 14.001. | Providing a more detailed description enhances clarity and reduces the potential for misinterpretation by both contractors and contracting officers. This increased specificity ensures a more consistent and objective application of the late bid rule exceptions, which reduces the risk of disputes and streamlines the bid evaluation process. |
FAR Part 36 Debriefing | The language about debriefings at the legacy FAR 36.607(b) was deleted. As it stands now, the re-write for FAR subpart 36.6 neither mentions nor compels the Government to provide feedback. | The proposed rule includes instructions in FAR 36.202-3(g) regarding debriefings in accordance with FAR Part 15. | By aligning debriefing instructions with FAR Part 15, the revision ensures a consistent and standardized feedback process for both construction and architect-engineer procurements. This cross-reference eliminates potential ambiguity and provides contractors with a more predictable framework for receiving feedback. |
FAR Part 36 Demolition Clause Prescription | The FAR Part 36 rewrite is confusing in relation to the prescriptions for clauses in FAR 36.101-7. If the "dismantling, demolition or removal of improvements" language is included in construction, then there is no need to separate them in the prescriptions or in form usage. FAR 36.101-7 and FAR 36.201-2 should be edited to remove all such language. | The clauses provision in the prosposed FAR Part 36.101-6 removes the "dismantling, demolition or removal of improvements" language. | Deleting the language reduces confusion and eliminates ambiguity regarding which clause prescriptions and forms apply to demolition-specific projects. |
| The government considered the public feedback received for part 9 and 27, but determined that the recommendations, such as for refinement of applicability of patent indemnity clauses in part 27, or scope of subpart 9.104-3(b) were sufficiently addressed in the policy. | |||
No matching matrix entries found for the selected case. Try selecting a different tab.
