In what is quickly becoming an epic saga centered around the repercussions from the Ultima Servs. case, 8(a) program participants should have received a direct communication from the Small Business Administration (SBA) on Monday (August 21), providing direction on next steps regarding social disadvantage eligibility determinations. As that communication stated, if your firm’s 8(a) eligibility was based on an individual or individual(s) who relied upon the rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage, the firm will now be required to submit a social disadvantage narrative. (Entity-owned firms, such as firms owned by Indian tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, or Native Hawaiian Organizations, will not need to submit narratives; nor will 8(a) participants who previously established their social disadvantage through submission of a social disadvantage narrative.) Each owner claiming disadvantaged status must submit a narrative. This is all consistent with our previous coverage on this topic. What is new, however, is that there is now some more specific guidance on timing and how this process is going to play out.Continue Reading The Continuing Saga of 8(a) Social Disadvantage Eligibility
For those of you eagerly awaiting news on the recent shake-up of the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) program, I have updates! (For those of you who have not been following, you can catch up on the legal context and background here.) Consistent with industry predictions, SBA will now require all applicants and certain existing 8(a) program participants to submit a social disadvantage narrative and prove social disadvantage by a preponderance of the evidence. Entity-owned firms, such as firms owned by Indian tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, or Native Hawaiian Organizations will not need to submit narratives; nor will 8(a) participants who previously established their social disadvantage through submission of a social disadvantage narrative. For any company that previously relied on the rebuttable presumption, though, you have some work ahead of you. Read on for more detail.Continue Reading SBA Confirms Social Disadvantage Narrative Is Required for 8(a) Program Participants
On April 27, 2023, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a final rule, finalizing a September 9, 2022 proposed rule, and making a myriad of changes to the Small Business Regulations. Those changes are effective at the end of this month, on May 30, 2023. We will be covering a number of those changes in upcoming posts. But for now, we’re focusing on a change that will make some contractors very happy and other contractors very worried: real, negative consequences for small businesses that fail to comply with 13 CFR 125.6, which governs subcontracting limitations for small business set-aside contracts over the simplified acquisition threshold (presently defined in FAR 2.101 as $250,000).Continue Reading Small Business Contractors Rejoice or Repent: Final SBA Rule Adds Teeth to 13 CFR 125.6 Subcontracting Limitations
Like the sailors of old, the government contracting community ventures forth knowing full well that danger lies ahead – although fortunately not in the form of a kraken, leviathan, or other mythical sea monster. Rather, these perils and risks are embedded in sweeping new regulations that, like an unseen reef, will be arriving and taking effect all too quickly. On July 14, 2020, the FAR Council published a long-awaited (or perhaps long-dreaded) Interim Rule implementing Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 (Section B). Effective August 13, 2020, Section B prohibits executive agencies from “entering into, or extending or renewing, a contract with an entity that uses any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.” Unlike its counterpart, Section 889(a)(1)(A) of the NDAA for FY 2019 (Section A), which prohibits agencies from “procuring or obtaining equipment or services that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component or critical technology,” the restrictions of Section B go far beyond the immediate contract between the contractor and the government. Instead, Section B directs contractors to discontinue any and all use of covered telecommunications equipment or services. Even accounting for the choppy seas caused by the ongoing pandemic, the exceedingly broad scope of Section B promises sharp, jagged, and uncharted hazards to contractors attempting to implement compliant policies and procedures.
Continue Reading Risks, Reefs, and Wrecks: Charting a Course Through the Perils of Covered Telecommunications Equipment and Services
On May 22nd, Practice Group Co-Leaders Franklin Turner and Alexander Major delivered a presentation on Effectively Prosecuting Contract Claims Against the Government to attendees at the annual Native Hawaiian Organizations Association Business Summit in Honolulu, Hawaii. After the presentation, Franklin and Alex also hosted a legal Q&A session for contractors of all sizes.