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 | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.29.26
Clover Insurance v. HHS: S.D. of Georgia Holds 20 Star Ratings Measures Unlawful
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.29.26
