Dear DOGE: We’re A FAR Cry From Efficient

Thanks to the establishment of DOGE, we’ve seen a resurgence in conversations about government efficiency. It’s a noble cause. According to a 2019 GAO report on federal acquisition, inefficiency and lack of proper prior planning cost the federal government billions in lost productivity and administrative overhead each year. However, solutions proposed to date tend to revolve around dramatically reducing headcount. Here is a simpler, more popular, and more structurally effective place to start on the efficiency journey: revising the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

The U.S. federal government is the largest buyer of goods and services in the world, with government spending accounting for roughly $2 out of every $10 of the goods produced and services provided in the United States, according to Treasury.gov. In Fiscal Year 2023, the federal government spent $759 billion, or 22% of total GDP, through contracts. For those of us immersed in these transactions, the letter and practice of complying with FAR provisions urgently need an overhaul.

The FAR, which governs the U.S. acquisition process, has been continuously revised since 1983. It now spans over 1,500 pages of regulations and clauses, containing intricate rules that many find difficult to navigate. The FAR is flanked by additional regulations, including the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This complexity imposes an excessive cognitive load on Contracting Officers (COs) and acquisition personnel, resulting in unnecessarily long acquisition timelines. Variations in FAR interpretations and procedures can lead to contentious contract protests, causing further delays.?

Furthermore, fear of violating FAR provisions has created a “culture of compliance” where innovation is stifled—and it’s no wonder: a CO can be thrown into federal prison for getting it wrong. While intentionally violating the FAR, such as by accepting compensation from contractors, should certainly be regulated, the ambiguity in the regulation rewards timidity rather than confidence. A 2019 RAND Corporation study found that many COs—the only government workers authorized to encumber agencies and award government contracts—err on the side of caution, optimizing for risk aversion.

This resistance puts sand in the acquisition cogs both internally and externally. Internally, it often pits acquisition staff against the very programs that need tools and technology, acting as barriers to progress. Externally, the extra energy of contention has caused some agencies to erect “cyber walls” to block communication with the private sector altogether. These effects are a significant barrier to innovation.

The morass of complexity has made the contracting process more litigious and has eroded trust between the federal government and the private sector. This broken system leads to criminal levels of inefficiency, fraud, waste, and abuse—a bonfire of taxpayer money and a degradation of public services.

I’ve worked in government sales for two publicly traded companies and two Series C through E-stage startups. The labyrinthine process salespeople must navigate to close new government contracts is dizzying. There are no fewer than a dozen government-wide web-based acquisition systems where various pieces of procurement information are recorded. The poor quality of writing, outdated data, and factual inaccuracies often derail even straightforward contract searches. According to a 2021 Professional Services Council Scorecard survey, many member companies noted “incomplete, inconsistent, or out-of-date information in many government forecasts.” Acquisition guidance posted on agency websites sounds promising until you enter the actual process. The system often breaks down completely, and endless follow-up emails are met with either a communications black hole or a government-standard “it’s in progress; we’ll reach out when we need something from you” response. No one can responsibly forecast business in those conditions.

One government client of mine told the unbelievable story of a $10B contract over 10 years to create a logistics management system from the ground up because the system one agency meant to repurpose from another, ironically in the name of efficiency, met less than 44% of their requirements. The newly built system has proven so ineffective that people have died in government-run hospitals, failing to receive the patient care they needed. Many of us who work in the federal marketplace are motivated by a mission to improve our country, yet far too much top talent is leaving the field because the acquisitions logic puzzle no longer makes sense. Over time, this leads to deep demoralization.

Revising the FAR is hardly a new idea. Many recommendations to overhaul the federal procurement system, including simplifying and streamlining the FAR, have been proposed before. In 2016, the Section 809 Panel, created by Congress as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), sought to streamline and improve the defense acquisition process. It released massive reports in three volumes over three years and produced 98 recommendations. Few even made it to Congress for legislative action. The panel found that the current acquisition process "incentivizes inefficiency"; however, the revision process itself proved so inefficient that little actual reform resulted.

So DOGE, for America’s Semiquincentennial birthday, please direct the FAR Council—together with its various constituents, including the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator of NASA—to propose a new, cohesive, straightforward, and slimmed-down version of the FAR, along with a reeducation campaign for both acquisition professionals and industry, delivered in time for America’s 250th birthday. The costly, crumbling trust between the public and private sectors is at the heart of DOGE’s mission to pursue government efficiency.