SBA Shakes Up 8(a) Program Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.02.11
On March 14, 2011, sweeping changes to the SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program go into effect, and among the most significant changes are those to the joint venture requirements, including (1) revising the requirement that the 8(a) participant receive 51% of the profits to a requirement that the 8(a) firm receive profits from the joint venture commensurate with the work the 8(a) firm performed; (2) requiring that the 8(a) firm perform at least 40% of the work done by the joint venture; (3) approving both “formal” and “informal” and populated and unpopulated joint ventures; and (4) requiring 8(a) firms to report how the requirements were satisfied. Other notable changes are to the Mentor/Protégé Program to (1) require that protégé assistance be tied to the protégé’s SBA-approved business plan; (2) increase the number of relationships that are permitted; (3) prohibit an 8(a) company from being both a mentor and protégé simultaneously; (4) allow a mentor-protégé joint venture to be deemed small for Federal subcontracts; (5) clarify that a mentor-protégé agreement needs to be approved by the SBA before the two firms can submit an offer as a joint venture to take advantage of the special exception to the size requirements for that procurement; and (6) provide the SBA with discretionary authority to recommend the issuance of a stop work order for contracts with a mentor-protégé joint venture if the mentor fails to provide the protégé with the agreed-upon assistance.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
