FAR Updated to Conform with Prior SBA Changes to its Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.16.21
On August 11, 2021, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration issued two final rules updating the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement provisions from past National Defense Authorization Acts that the Small Business Administration has already implemented in its own regulations.
In 2016, the SBA implemented the new statutorily-required limitations on subcontracting at 13 C.F.R. § 125.6. Effective September 10, 2021, FAR part 19 now reflects the new methodology for calculating compliance with the limitations on subcontracting. For contracts that are set-aside or awarded on a sole source basis due to size and/or status, the contractor may not subcontract more than a certain percentage of the work to subcontractors that are not similarly situated. The final rule revises FAR 52.219-14 as well as adds a new clause, FAR 52.219-33, regarding the nonmanufacturer rule.
In 2019, the SBA updated 13 C.F.R. § 125.3 to provide further direction to contracting officers on what it means for a contractor to make a good faith effort to comply with a small business subcontracting plan and to require that goals in commercial subcontracting plans include indirect costs. Effective September 10, 2021, the final rule updates FAR part 19 to conform to these changes.
To read in-depth analyses about the limitations on subcontracting final rule click here and good faith efforts in subcontracting click here.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
