The PFAS question federal procurement never asked
For decades, federal audit packets certified environmental compliance without asking whether products contained PFAS. That missing checkbox is now evidence.
Loading the article…
For decades, federal audit packets certified environmental compliance without asking whether products contained PFAS. That missing checkbox is now evidence.
A contracting officer's signature looks like nothing. A name, a date, a box checked on a form certifying that a product met the government's environmental rules before the government bought it. The form covered the usual ground — was the product biobased, did it use recovered material — and then it stopped, because the Federal Acquisition Regulation never told it to ask the one question that now matters: whether the thing in the box contained PFAS. So officers signed. Foam shipped. The question stayed unasked, year after year, in offices doing exactly what the rules required.
Those files are now discoverable.
In a federal courthouse in Charleston, more than 15,000 firefighting-foam cases sit consolidated before a single judge — among the largest product-liability proceedings in the country. The plaintiffs are firefighters, Navy veterans, and the people who lived next to the bases. Their lawyers don't need to prove the government meant any harm. They need the paper: who bought what, when, and on whose signature. The procurement system kept that paper better than almost any institution in American life.
PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the forever chemicals that don't break down in water, soil, or blood — went into firefighting foam, food packaging, carpet, cookware, and the coolant lines of semiconductor plants. By the EPA's own monitoring data, analyzed by the Environmental Working Group, roughly 176 million Americans now draw drinking water where these compounds have been detected. The chemistry has been understood for half a century. The procurement system that bought the products is still, in 2026, two regulatory turns behind it.
I.
Start with where things actually stand, because the ground is moving in more than one direction at once.
On May 18, 2026, the EPA proposed two rules that pull apart what had been a single 2024 regulation. The first keeps the enforceable drinking-water limits for PFOA and PFOS — the two most-studied compounds — at four parts per trillion each, while offering water systems an optional two extra years, to April 2031, to comply. The second proposes to rescind the limits the 2024 rule had set for three other compounds — PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX — along with the formula that governed them in mixtures. Both are proposals, not final rules; the comment window runs to July 20, 2026.
Interactive evidence
| Measure | Maximum contaminant level |
|---|---|
| PFOA retained | 4 ppt |
| PFOS retained | 4 ppt |
| PFHxS rescission proposed | 10 ppt |
| PFNA rescission proposed | 10 ppt |
| GenX rescission proposed | 10 ppt |
Meanwhile the Defense Department is trying to get the chemical out of its own operations. Under a deadline that began life in the 2020 defense authorization and has since moved three times, most recently by a July 2026 waiver, the military is now supposed to stop using PFAS-based firefighting foam at its bases by October 1, 2027. It is mid-transition: more than 7,400 vehicles and mobile units and roughly 1,000 facilities are moving to fluorine-free foam. The cleanup behind that switch is not cheap. The Government Accountability Office found DoD's PFAS investigation-and-remediation bill has tripled, into the billions, with more to come.
So three federal machines are running at once and not in step. One is loosening the drinking-water rules. One is racing a statutory deadline to purge the chemical from its bases. And the third — the procurement system, the part that actually moved the money — is doing what it has always done, which is ask the questions on the form and no others.
II.
A federal environmental audit packet is a real document with real contents, and it is worth being precise about what they are, because the gap is specific.
When an agency buys cleaning supplies, lubricants, paints, or foam, the sustainability questions are largely biobased and recovered-content questions. FAR 23.107-2 requires agencies to run an affirmative procurement program for biobased products — the BioPreferred designations, the minimum-content thresholds, the documentation that a product qualifies. FAR 23.103 sets the broader expectation that agencies buy sustainable products and services to the maximum extent practicable. These are the checks an officer is trained to make and the boxes the packet provides. None of them is a PFAS box.
It is not that the federal government can't write a chemical-specific disclosure clause. It already has one. DFARS 252.223-7008 prohibits contractors from delivering items containing hexavalent chromium above a set concentration — a single hazardous compound, named, with a flow-down requirement and a contractor certification. That clause is the proof of concept. The machinery for "do not sell us the thing with the chemical in it, and certify that you didn't" exists and has existed for years. PFAS simply doesn't have its equivalent on the procurement side.
What PFAS does have lives one tier up, at the factory. The EPA's significant new use rule on long-chain PFAS, and the reporting obligations of Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, govern manufacturers — who must notify the agency before they make or import certain PFAS. That is real regulation. It is also invisible to a contracting officer, because it operates at the point of manufacture, not the point of purchase. The information exists. It just never flows into the packet.
That is the whole problem in one sentence: PFAS is regulated where it's made and litigated where it ends up, but not examined at the moment the federal government decides to buy it — which is the one moment the government controls completely.
PFAS is regulated where it's made and litigated where it ends up, but not examined at the moment the federal government decides to buy it.
— Michael Few
Founder, Patriot BioSolutions
III.
Here is the part that should concern anyone whose name goes on these forms.
Mass-tort litigation runs on records. Plaintiffs' lawyers in a proceeding the size of the Charleston foam docket don't reconstruct what happened from memory; they subpoena the paper and follow it backward — purchase orders, specifications, certifications, sign-offs — to find who bought what and who knew. A procurement file that documents a compliant purchase and is silent on PFAS is not a shield. It is a dated, signed, government-authenticated record that the purchase occurred.
Silence in the file is not the absence of evidence. It is evidence of the absence of a question.
The defense that an officer didn't know is weakest precisely where the knowledge existed somewhere in the system and wasn't carried into the file. The manufacturer's tier knew enough to file a TSCA notice. The litigation tier is built to surface exactly that asymmetry. The procurement tier sat in between with a form that didn't ask. None of this requires bad faith by anyone. It requires only that the rules lagged the chemistry, which they demonstrably did.
This is not a novel trajectory. Purchasing and specification records have been the connective tissue of product-liability cases for decades — the documents that turn a diffuse harm into a traceable chain of decisions. PFAS is moving down the same path, and the federal government is the largest single buyer in the economy, with the most complete records of anyone.
IV.
There is a more hopeful way to read all this, and it runs through the same procurement system.
The thing that makes federal purchasing a liability — its scale, its documentation, its rule-bound consistency — is also what makes it the most powerful environmental lever the government owns. When the federal government decides it will only buy products that disclose, or that meet a standard, the market reorganizes around that decision faster than most regulations can be written. The biobased program is the working example: a procurement preference, not a ban, that pulled an entire category of products into existence by guaranteeing them a buyer.
That program is, as of this spring, being renewed. The 2026 farm bill that cleared the House on April 30 — the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 — reauthorizes the BioPreferred program through 2031 and, in the same section, would require agencies to report annually on what they're actually buying and where the gaps are. The bill is not law yet; it sits in the Senate, and farm bills are not famous for moving cleanly. But the mechanism it extends is the one that matters here. Procurement preference is how the federal government has already moved a market toward less-harmful chemistry once. Nothing about that machinery is specific to soybeans.
The same lever could ask a PFAS question. Not a ban — bans are slow, contested, and someone else's fight. A disclosure line. A certification, modeled on the hexavalent-chromium clause that already exists, that asks the vendor to say whether the product contains intentionally added PFAS and to put a name behind the answer. That single addition would start building the supply-chain record that doesn't exist today, and it would give the contracting officer the one thing the current packet denies them, which is the ability to have asked.
The forever chemicals earned the name honestly; they outlast the products they were added to, the agencies that bought them, and the careers of the people who signed the forms. What doesn't have to be permanent is the gap in the packet. The chemistry was settled fifty years ago. The litigation is settled enough that 15,000 plaintiffs found the same courthouse. The only piece still genuinely open is whether the system that buys the products decides to start asking — before the next file is the one being read aloud in Charleston.
