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 | 3 min read | 06.03.26
Important EU Court Judgment Clarifies Rules on Interest Due in Cartel Damages Cases
In a judgment that will have direct and immediate consequences, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified that for all competition damages actions brought after 26 December 2014, interest runs from the date on which the harm occurred. The ruling addressed two important questions: (1) whether national provisions implementing Article 3(2) of the EU Damages Directive — which requires interest to run from the date harm occurred —apply to cases in which the harm preceded the adoption of those provisions; and (2) how the date of harm should be determined in cartel cases involving the purchase of goods at inflated prices.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.02.26
SBA OHA Confirms That the Submission Date for a Proposal with Pricing Controls Size Determination
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
