1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |SBA’s July 2013 Small Business Subcontracting Revisions Finally Implemented in the FAR

SBA’s July 2013 Small Business Subcontracting Revisions Finally Implemented in the FAR

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.21.16

On July 14, 2016, DoD, GSA, and NASA published a final rule implementing numerous updates to the FAR to account for regulatory changes affecting the small business subcontracting requirements made by the SBA dating back to July 2013. These changes, which become effective November 1, 2016, range from requiring prime contractors to assign NAICS codes to subcontracts, to providing contracting officers the discretion to establish subcontracting goals at the order level of IDIQ contracts, to protecting subcontractors’ ability to discuss payment or utilization matters with the contracting officer.

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....