Fact check: Why wasn't the White House Expansion contract bid under FAR? What was the exception applied?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, none of the sources directly address the specific White House Expansion contract bid or explain why it was not conducted under FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) or what exception was applied. The sources instead focus on broader federal procurement policy changes and FAR reforms.

The analyses reveal several relevant policy contexts:

• The Trump administration maintained a Biden-era rule mandating project labor agreements (PLAs) on large publicly funded jobs, though with exemptions ^{[1] [2]}
• Current FAR overhaul initiatives aim to create a more agile, effective, and efficient procurement system by removing undue barriers and unnecessary regulations ^{[3] [4] [5] [6]}
• Executive Order 14222 directs agency heads to review and potentially terminate or modify existing government contracts and grants to reduce federal spending ^[7]
• There is an emphasis on using commercially available products and services in federal procurement to the maximum extent practicable ^[8]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal significant gaps in addressing the original question:

• No specific information about the White House Expansion project itself - its scope, timeline, or contracting authority
• No explanation of which specific FAR exception might have been applied - though the sources mention potential exceptions such as contracts below the simplified acquisition threshold, national security considerations, or emergency procurement needs ^[3]
• No details about the contracting agency responsible for the White House Expansion or whether it falls under special security or operational requirements
• Missing information about whether this project falls under specialized procurement authorities that might bypass standard FAR requirements, such as those related to presidential security or facility operations

The ongoing FAR overhaul efforts mentioned across multiple sources ^{[3] [4] [5] [6] [9]} suggest that federal procurement practices are currently in flux, which could provide context for why certain contracts might be handled differently than traditional FAR processes.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question assumes that a White House Expansion contract exists and was not bid under FAR, but the analyses provide no evidence to confirm either the existence of such a contract or its procurement method. This could represent:

• An assumption without factual basis - the question presupposes facts not established in the available sources
• Potential confusion with other federal construction projects mentioned in the sources, such as those subject to PLA requirements ^{[1] [2]}
• Lack of understanding of specialized procurement authorities that might legitimately apply to White House-related construction projects

The question's framing suggests potential bias by implying impropriety in the procurement process without establishing that standard FAR procedures were actually bypassed inappropriately, rather than through legitimate exceptions or specialized authorities.