Skip to content
Compliant

The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul deserves a place on your list

The short answer

FAR clause renumbering may require remapping compliance libraries FAR 52.204-21 controls align with but are not equivalent to CMMC Level 1 The FAR Council is seeking public comment now

A shelf of regulation binders, one highlighted

Most of the compliance world is watching CMMC right now, and rightly so. The Phase 2 timeline and the C3PAO landscape are demanding real attention.

But CMMC lives entirely in the DFARS, and while eyes have been on it, something much broader has been reshaping the FAR itself. The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul is rewriting the Federal Acquisition Regulation in its entirety, and one change many teams haven't clocked is a renumbering of provisions and clauses. The FAR Council is considering a new subpart in Part 52 and relocating every provision and clause underneath it, so a clause that sits at 52.2 today could begin with 52.4 tomorrow. If your clause matrices, templates, or compliance libraries reference the current numbering, a mapping exercise is waiting to happen.

This reaches well beyond the defense industrial base. FAR 52.204-21, "Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems," establishes the 15 baseline controls for protecting Federal Contract Information, and it flows into nearly every federal contract that touches nonpublic information. Those same 15 controls are what a contractor implements to meet CMMC Level 1, so applying them satisfies both, but the two obligations are not equivalent or interchangeable.

Here's the part worth acting on: the FAR Council is actively seeking public comment on how this renumbering will affect contractors and compliance teams. That's a genuine opportunity to shape the outcome before it locks in, and windows like that don't stay open for long.

CMMC deserves the spotlight. The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul deserves a place on the list too.

Is the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul on your radar yet? If you have questions or want to think through what it means for your compliance program, reach out to me or The Vizius Group Group. We're glad to help.

#GovCon #FederalContracting #FAROverhaul #FCI #CMMC #ComplianceStrategy The Vizius Group

Where we can help

Related offering · Compliant

CUI & ITAR Enclave Design and Build

"How much of the company really has to be in scope?"

Free tool · about 2 minutes

Take the blind spot check

Four questions for a quick read, then go deeper on your weakest area.

More in Compliant

Compliant

When the "optional" document becomes the one everyone reads

Kyl examines the DoD CIO's voluntary "Brilliant at the Basics" lists, published alongside the CMMC pause, which bring back practices removed in the move to CMMC 2.0. He notes the tension between relieving cost burden and the reappearing expectations.

Kyl Gaston · 2 min read

Compliant

CMMC Phase II is suspended, but NIST 800-171 is not

On the July 13, 2026 suspension of CMMC Phase II, Kyl explains that only the DFARS 7021 certification gate is paused. DFARS 7012, which requires NIST 800-171, and the SPRS self-assessment duties still apply, and a proposed FAR CUI rule could widen 800-171.

Kyl Gaston · 1 min read

Compliant

FCI, CUI, ITAR, EAR, FAR, DFARS: the cheat sheet

Kyl argues that confusing federal data and contract terms (FCI, CUI, ITAR, EAR, FAR, DFARS) can end a contract. The terms overlap but aren't interchangeable, and the post links to a plain-English breakdown of all six.

Kyl Gaston · 1 min read

All Compliant posts · All Insights

Talk to a Principal Engineer

Got a question one of these posts didn't answer? Ask the engineer who would do the work.