Browse regulations

Statement confirming that the Federal Employee Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) program is exempt from Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6 competitive bidding requirements due to statutory authority under 5 U.S.C. chapter 87.

This exemption codifies a government monopoly that violates free market competition. FEGLI's statutory exemption from competitive bidding forces taxpayers to fund a non-competitive insurance program, creating a privileged competitor that private insurers cannot challenge on equal terms. The program distorts the insurance market, raises costs through lack of competition, and represents cronyism — federal employees receive subsidized coverage while private insurers are barred from competing for this captive market. Such special-interest exemptions are precisely the regulatory capture that undermines both economic efficiency and equal treatment under law.

FAR part 5 is inapplicable to FEGLI; eligibility set by 5 U.S.C. 8709.

Extraneous interpretive text adds to regulatory volume; removal simplifies the Code without changing legal obligations.

Defines key terms used in the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Program regulations, including Contract, Contractor, Contract price/year, Director, Employees' Life Insurance Fund, Enrollee, FEGLI Program, Fixed price with limited cost redetermination plus fixed fee contract, Grace period, Insurance company, OPM, Premium, Reinsurer, Subcontract, and Subcontractor.

Deleting these definitions would create legal ambiguity, undermining the rule of law principle that regulations must be knowable. Ambiguity increases uncertainty for federal employees, insurers, and administrators, leading to higher compliance costs, disputes, and litigation. Centralized definitions are the most efficient way to achieve clarity across multiple regulatory provisions and are essential for predictable program administration.

Regulation mandates use of specific procurement forms (FAR 347/348 or equivalent) for purchase orders, with limited exceptions for computer-generated forms, and authorizes Board Procurement Form IA-44 for intermittent nonpersonal services like script writers and translators.

This regulation imposes unnecessary compliance costs for zero public benefit—wasting time and resources on form-filling bureaucracy while stifling procurement flexibility. The 'unseen' costs include barriers to vendor participation, bureaucratic power to approve/disapprove forms, and a culture of process-over-outcome that entrenches administrative bloat without achieving any legitimate policy goal.

Mandates that FEHBP acquisitions use forms specified in FAR subparts 53.2 and 53.3, imposing standard federal procurement requirements on these contracts.

Increases compliance costs and administrative complexity without significant benefit; agencies could adopt more efficient, context-specific procurement methods.

This regulation sets quality assurance and audit requirements for contractors in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). OPM must evaluate contractors' internal controls, issue performance standards based on industry norms, and audit contractors and providers. All FEHB contracts must include the specified clause.

The regulation imposes compliance costs on insurers, leading to higher premiums for federal employees and taxpayers. It mandates a prescriptive approach that stifles innovation and diverts resources from healthcare. Unseen effects include administrative overhead, barriers to small insurers, and risk of regulatory capture. These costs outweigh marginal benefits, as quality could be ensured through simpler, outcome-based contracts and existing industry accreditation.

Clarifies that FEHBP carrier records are not subject to the Privacy Act as they serve commercial purposes, but mandates confidentiality via contract clause 1652.224-70.

Deletion would likely impose Privacy Act compliance costs on carriers, raising premiums for federal employees. The current approach achieves data protection efficiently through contract terms rather than bureaucratic regulation.

The regulation mandates that all contracts under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program include the specific clause from 48 CFR 1652.222-70, imposing a standardized contractual term on every FEHBP agreement.

The mandate imposes hidden compliance costs, reduces negotiation flexibility, and may lock in outdated or special-interest provisions. These costs are passed to taxpayers and suppress competition, while the clause's objectives could be achieved through agile contracting without a top-down regulation.

Regulation states that FAR part 14 (Sealed Bidding) does not apply to FEHBP contracts due to a statutory exemption at 5 U.S.C. 8902, limiting regulatory requirements for federal employee health benefits procurement.

Removing this exemption would impose costly sealed bidding mandates on FEHBP contracts, reducing flexibility, increasing administrative costs, and potentially harming the quality and cost-effectiveness of health benefits for millions of federal employees and retirees, ultimately burdening taxpayers.

The regulation clarifies that Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6, which establishes competition requirements for federal procurement, does not apply to Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) contracts due to an explicit statutory exception under 5 U.S.C. 8902.

Deletion would create confusion about the applicability of competition requirements to FEHBP contracts, potentially leading agencies and contractors to unnecessarily comply with FAR Part 6, wasting resources and delaying the provision of health benefits. The regulation succinctly implements the statutory exemption, ensuring efficient administration and preventing avoidable administrative burdens.

Clarifies that FAR Part 5 (publicizing contract actions) does not apply to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) because OPM does not issue solicitations; eligible carriers are identified under 5 U.S.C. 8903 and participation is voluntary under 5 CFR part 890.

Deletion could invite erroneous application of FAR Part 5 to FEHBP, imposing unnecessary publicizing and solicitation requirements that would raise insurer compliance costs and ultimately increase premiums for federal employees and taxpayers. The explicit exemption preserves program efficiency and prevents regulatory overreach—a clarity that would be difficult to sustain without an express rule.

Regulation requires Contracting Officer to obtain Project Officer concurrence before including warranty clauses in federal contracts, adding a procedural approval step in procurement.

Unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle that increases transaction costs and procurement delays without improving outcomes. Contracting Officers can consult Project Officers voluntarily; this micro-management exemplifies regulatory bloat contributing to the $2 trillion annual compliance burden.

Mandates inclusion of Insurance Liability to Third Persons clause (1552.228-70) in cost-reimbursement contracts, requiring contractors to maintain third-party liability insurance, with exceptions for construction and architect-engineer services.

Imposes uniform insurance requirements regardless of actual risk, raising compliance burdens that fall disproportionately on small contractors. Creates hidden taxpayer costs through inflated contract prices and reduces competition by pricing out smaller firms. The government can better allocate risk through case-by-case negotiation rather than blanket mandates.

FAR clause requiring inclusion of limited rights notice in Superfund contracts to control disclosure of restricted technical data to specific parties (support contractors, evaluators, foreign governments) for purposes including use, evaluation, emergency repairs, and program coordination.

Deletion would create uncertainty in thousands of federal contracts, either blocking necessary data sharing among Superfund responders or exposing contractors' proprietary information, reducing participation. The clause achieves a cost-effective balance between government operational needs and IP protection—coordination that would be prohibitively expensive to negotiate contract-by-contract.

Requires contracting officers to include a standard provision regarding Social Security Numbers of consultants/sole proprietors and a Privacy Act statement in all government solicitations.

Without this requirement, consultants and sole proprietors may not receive mandatory transparency about how their sensitive Social Security Numbers will be collected, used, and protected by the government, undermining privacy rights and accountability in federal procurement.