FAR Overhaul Proposal Would Reshape Data Rights, Supplier Qualification, and Transportation Requirements

The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council proposes substantial changes to government contracting rules with direct implications for export-control compliance and supply chain resilience.

Scheduled for publication September 18, the 647-page proposal would revise FAR Parts 9, 27, and 47 and associated Part 52 provisions and clauses. It is one of twelve proposed rules intended collectively to overhaul the FAR under Executive Order 14275. Federal Register notice.

The proposal warrants particular attention from federal contractors, technology suppliers, and logistics providers. Its principal implications concern access to technical data, qualification of alternative suppliers, and transportation obligations. The proposal itself does not make these changes effective.

Export controls remain a separate condition for foreign disclosure. Proposed FAR 27.402-16 would permit disclosure of technical data, computer software, or software documentation to foreign governments, foreign contractors, or international organizations only when federal export controls and other national-security laws permit it. This condition would apply even when the government holds unlimited rights. Disclosures involving asserted restrictions would also require specified use and nondisclosure protections. For compliance teams, the distinction is consequential: government license rights do not constitute export authorization. Reviews of foreign access must address both contractual rights and applicable export restrictions. Proposed text, pp. 261–262.

Data-rights changes could support alternative sourcing and sustainment. The Council would replace existing FAR Subpart 27.4 with two subparts derived from the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, separating commercial and noncommercial acquisitions. The proposed framework includes government purpose rights for specified technology developed with mixed funding and provisions governing additional rights needed for competitive reprocurement. The Council expects these changes to improve civilian agencies’ options and reduce dependence on sole-source vendors. Whether they improve supply resilience would depend on the data delivered, the rights acquired, and applicable disclosure restrictions. Contractors should examine funding records, restrictive markings, subcontract terms, and rights needed for repair or alternative production. Discussion, pp. 44–46; proposed text, pp. 223–232.

A targeted qualification change could facilitate additional DoD suppliers. Proposed FAR 9.204(a)(2)(i) would remove, for DoD, a determination that anticipated competition savings justify government-funded small-business qualification testing. The determination would remain for civilian agencies. The change concerns circumstances in which fewer than two manufacturers or their products are expected to compete; it would not eliminate qualification standards. Its potential resilience benefit is a lower administrative barrier to qualifying additional small-business sources. Discussion, p. 10; proposed text, pp. 90–92.

Transportation simplification would preserve material shipping constraints. The Council proposes removing 33 transportation provisions and clauses, including several addressing delivery terms and export-offer evaluation. The proposed text retains U.S.-flag cargo-preference requirements and clearance and documentation requirements for shipments to DoD air or water terminals. Logistics teams should assess proposed deletions against their contract templates, freight-cost allocation, routing, and delivery obligations. Fewer FAR clauses would not, by itself, remove these retained shipping requirements. Discussion, pp. 14–18; cargo-preference provisions, pp. 351–355.

Federal procurement counsel, export-control officers, and supply chain leaders should coordinate their review, particularly where alternative sourcing requires sharing controlled technical information. Potential comment topics include data availability for sustainment, supplier intellectual-property protections, qualification costs, and the operational effects of deleted transportation clauses.

The public-inspection copy provides a comment period of 30 days after Federal Register publication, but leaves the calendar deadline unfilled. Confirm the deadline in the published notice and submit comments through Regulations.gov, identifying FAR Case 2026-011; Docket FAR-2026-0011.