Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12560
David KaplanOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter argues that replacing the term "shall" with "must" or "will" in the FAR text is misguided because "shall" is the standard for creating binding legal obligations. They suggest that "will" is too conditional and "must" is better suited for tangible items, recommending a more nuanced use of "shall," "must," "will," and "may" depending on the specific context of the requirement.
The proposed change to the FAR text to replace the use of the term "shall" with "must" or "will" is misguided. The modern legal drafting style would tend to support the use of "shall" or "shall not" to create binding obligations upon parties, whereas "will" or "will not" are conditional, thus could be waived by a party. Further, the use of "must" or "must not" is best suited for tangible items such as documents or products. For example, the "Contractor shall provide a list of personnel working on this contract. The list must contain the following the information." The use of "may" or "may not" could be used the rewrite and implicates permissive actions a party could elect to take or elect not to take. i.e. "the FAR council may change the language of the FAR. The FAR council shall read the public comments. The FAR council will consider the best comments when drafting language that must reflect statutory requirements."