Browse regulations

DOE procurement regulation requiring contracting officers to include specific supplemental clauses in contracts: electronic invoicing (952.232-7) in all cases; and, where appropriate, counterintelligence (952.204-74), computer security (952.204-77), and energy program priorities (952.211-71). Waivers must be written and approved by the local procurement manager.

Deletion would compromise consistent application of essential security and efficiency standards across federal contracts, creating vulnerabilities, payment inefficiencies, and failure to implement energy priorities as directed by Congress. Uniform clauses ensure reliable government operations in ways ad hoc decisions cannot replicate.

Regulation prescribes acquisition policies for IT/ICT by USAID, mandating specific clauses: IT Authorization (752.239-70), ICT Accessibility (752.239-71), and USAID-Financed Project Websites (752.239-72). It defines IT broadly and requires these clauses in relevant solicitations and contracts.

Imposes significant compliance costs on contractors, especially small businesses, by mandating prescriptive clauses that exceed procurement needs. Accessibility mandates duplicate existing law and distort market competition. Raises taxpayer costs while entrenching large incumbents who can navigate complexity.

A procurement regulation governing how federal agencies acquire utility services. It mandates using GSA-specific clause 552.241-70 instead of standard FAR clause 52.232-19 for all utility acquisitions, and requires insertion of a specialized disputes clause (541.501(b)) for utility services regulated by utility rate commissions.

This is an internal government procurement rule, not a regulation imposing costs or restrictions on private citizens or businesses. It governs how the federal government spends taxpayer money on utilities and provides tailored dispute resolution for regulated utilities. Deleting it would create inconsistency, procurement confusion, and potentially harmful contract gaps for government operations without reducing any regulatory burden on the public. The costs of maintaining this technical rule are negligible compared to the internal government coherence it provides.

GSA-specific regulations governing contract clauses for commercial product/service acquisitions, incorporating deviations from FAR and requiring specific clauses (552.212-71, 552.212-72, 552.212-4) to ensure compliance with statutes like the Anti-Deficiency Act and executive orders.

Imposes substantial hidden compliance costs on contractors through complex, agency-specific clause requirements and FAR deviations, creating barriers to entry for small businesses and distorting market competition; the same statutory compliance goals could be achieved through significantly simpler procurement guidance, eliminating this bureaucratic accretion that contributes to the $2 trillion annual regulatory burden.

This regulation defines key terms used in federal procurement, including commercial supplier agreements, economic price adjustments, GSA information systems (classified by impact and connectivity), packaging types (brand, grouped, shipping, ancillary, redundant), plastic, and single-use plastic packaging. These definitions likely enable substantive rules governing government acquisitions, particularly regarding packaging materials and IT systems.

This definitions section adds unnecessary regulatory complexity and enables market interference. The detailed packaging taxonomy (five categories) and single-use plastic definitions create bureaucratic classifications that distort material choices based on regulatory compliance rather than cost, durability, or environmental lifecycle. It imposes hidden compliance costs on vendors—especially small businesses—who must navigate these arbitrary distinctions. Federal procurement rules should not mandate packaging preferences; market competition and consumer choice determine efficient packaging solutions far better than centralized definitions. The unseen consequences include stifled innovation, higher taxpayer costs, and regulatory capture by favored material industries.

Regulation establishes USDA procurement rules for agricultural commodities used in domestic (e.g., National School Lunch, Emergency Food Assistance) and international (e.g., Food for Peace, McGovern-Dole) food assistance programs. It mandates US-origin products, defines lowest landed cost evaluation with exceptions, requires cargo preference compliance, and details freight and bidding procedures.

Protectionist US-origin mandates and complex procurement processes increase costs for food assistance programs, reducing the amount of aid delivered per taxpayer dollar. These hidden costs distort agricultural markets, waste resources, and contradict principles of limited government and free enterprise.

This regulation comprises four clauses governing USDA federal contracts: (1) contract closeout procedures based on unliquidated funds thresholds; (2) personal identity verification (PIV) compliance requiring contractor workforce eligibility tracking; (3) incremental funding management with allotment schedules and termination triggers; (4) contractor emergency response and fire suppression responsibilities with cost liability classifications.

Imposes significant compliance costs on contractors (security credentialing, administrative paperwork, fire liability exposure) that are passed to taxpayers. Arbitrary thresholds and rigid procedures create bureaucratic burden without clear marginal benefit over flexible contracting practices. The PIV requirements especially deter small business participation and intrude on contractor personnel management. These matters can be handled through standard contracting clauses and risk-based oversight rather than prescriptive regulation.

Delegates approval authority for FAR part 50 actions to Assistant Secretary for Administration, with non-delegable exception for indemnification actions requiring Secretary approval.

Internal agency delegation detail contributes to regulatory bloat without public benefit; should be managed via internal procedures, not CFR.

Mandates advance approval by the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) for any use of special purpose termination clauses under FAR 49.501, which deviate from standard termination cost provisions in federal contracts.

Without this requirement, contracting officers might include special termination clauses that overcompensate contractors without adequate justification, leading to unnecessary expenditures of taxpayer money. The prior HCA approval ensures senior-level scrutiny that cannot be replicated by after-the-fact audits, which often fail to recover funds once paid out.

Delegates authority to Mission Area senior contracting official to determine rent charges for contractors using government facilities under FAR clauses 52.245-9 and 45.103(a)(5), and to approve non-government use of plant equipment per FAR 45.301(f); requires HCA to submit such requests to SPE for approval.

Deletion would create authority gaps and delays in managing government property, undermining accountability and cost recovery. This clear delegation ensures efficient, consistent decisions at the appropriate level, a structure difficult to replicate ad hoc.

Regulation outlines USDA's statutory authority to hire temporary contractors and external evaluators without regard to civil service laws, with appropriation limits and 6-month term caps.

This authority enables the USDA to rapidly access specialized technical expertise for time-bound projects (e.g., crop inspections, research studies) that civil service hiring cannot accommodate due to rigid classifications and lengthy processes. The statutory time limits (6 months per fiscal year) and appropriation constraints prevent abuse for circumventing permanent civil service positions, while maintaining accountability. Without this flexibility, critical agricultural operations would face costly delays, harming farmers, food security, and rural economies that depend on timely USDA services.

USDA construction procurement procedures covering bidding methods, contract award authority, waiver processes, required contract clauses, architect-engineer evaluation boards, and determination authority delegations.

These procurement safeguards prevent fraud, ensure competition, and protect taxpayer dollars in federal construction spending; removal would increase risks of favoritism, waste, and poor project outcomes while reducing predictability for contractors.

USDA internal regulation defining 'major system' criteria (≥$50M cost or executive designation) and establishing governance structure for acquisition decisions, assigning roles to Secretary, CIO, ASA, and program managers in major IT/non-IT system procurement processes per OMB Circular A-11 and FAR.

This is internal agency management guidance, not a substantive regulation imposing costs or restrictions on the public. It establishes oversight for large USDA acquisitions, which promotes fiscal responsibility. Its removal would not reduce any regulatory burden on citizens or businesses and could lead to wasteful spending, making Americans worse off through misused tax dollars.

Delegates authority for coordinating GAO bid protests to the Senior Procurement Executive and empowers the Assistant Secretary for Administration to determine applicability of the Contract Disputes Act to foreign government contracts, establishing clear lines of responsibility within federal procurement.

Deleting this delegation would create bureaucratic confusion, inconsistent application of procurement dispute rules, and delay resolution of protests, undermining fair competition in government contracting and increasing opportunities for waste and favoritism. The designated roles ensure accountability, specialized expertise, and efficient dispute resolution that would be lost through ad hoc decision-making.

Defines roles and establishes procedural requirements for USDA contract financing, including advance payments, unusual financing, annual reporting, and restrictions on consulting services.

The regulation imposes unnecessary bureaucratic overhead through complex approval chains, mandatory determinations and findings, and procedural requirements that increase compliance costs, delay contracting, and create disproportionate burdens on small businesses without serving any compelling public interest.