1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Equality For All - OMB Instructs Agencies To Ignore GAO And Give Equal Consideration To Three SBA Programs

Equality For All - OMB Instructs Agencies To Ignore GAO And Give Equal Consideration To Three SBA Programs

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.23.09

On July 10, 2009, OMB instructed agencies to continue to adhere to the SBA's "parity" regulations despite two recent GAO decisions-Mission Critical Solutions, 2009 CPD ¶ 93, and Int'l Program Group, Inc., 2008 CPD ¶ 172-that required agencies to prioritize Historically Underutilized Business Zone ("HUBZone") small businesses over 8(a) Program participants and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses in satisfying the agencies' acquisition requirements. OMB explained that the GAO decisions were not binding and instead instructed agencies to consider multiple small business programs pursuant to their existing contracting practices and the SBA's "parity" policies.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....