When it comes to federal contracting, there are parts that are very detail-oriented. Countless signatures for countless certifications. We certainly empathize with contractors on this aspect of federal contracting. But just because we are empathetic does not mean that a contractor can ignore such requirements. In a recent decision, Revelations Counseling & Consulting, LLC v. United States, 180 Fed. Cl. 721 (2026), the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) made it very clear: Where the solicitation says sign the certification and include it in the proposal, sign it and include it in the proposal. Anything less and not only should you expect a rejection, the agency is often required to reject the proposal. In this case, the certification was a VA limitations on subcontracting clause that has cropped up multiple times lately in our practice and is an important part of small business contracting. We look at that decision today.
Continue readingAuthor Archives: John Holtz
Important Exception to “Size at Initial Offer” Rule Dooms Award to Mentor-Protégé JV
As a general rule, when it comes to compliance with a solicitation’s size standard, what matters is the size of the entity at the time it submits its initial offer per 13 C.F.R. § 121.404(a). This is something we’ve seen several times before in other cases. However, that is just the general rule, and there are several exceptions that can change things greatly. Indeed, when it comes to compliance with SBA’s joint venture requirements, we noted earlier this year (in a decision that preceded the one we discuss in this post) and before that such is determined at the time of final proposal revisions as opposed to the initial bid. Recently, a mentor-protégé joint venture learned the hard way via a decision from the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) that the initial offer size rule doesn’t change this requirement. Today, we’ll explore that decision.
Continue readingFederal Circuit Refuses to Apply Stricter Injunctive Relief Test to GAO Stays
We have noted in past posts that, in some cases, it may make sense to protest a solicitation evaluation or award decision at GAO simply to get a stay on the award. This is because, if you meet certain deadlines, a stay of award and performance is automatically placed on the procurement for the duration of the protest. Now, there are circumstances in which an agency can override this stay, but the burden is on the agency to show such an override is necessary. The Federal Circuit confirmed this is the case in Life Science Logistics, LLC v. United States, 172 F.4th 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2026), in which an agency tried to get the higher burden for a preliminary injunction placed on GAO protesters. This decision suggests that agencies may think more carefully about attempting overrides of stays going forward.
Continue readingProposed Updates to DFARS Regarding Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence
It sometimes takes a little time for federal statutes to be reflected in federal regulations. Recent proposed updates to DFARS regarding Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) is a good example of this. These updates, meant to implement sections of the National Defense Authorization Acts of 2020 and 2021, are meant to mitigate risks related to FOCI or beneficial ownership. Today, we shall explore these updates and what they mean for federal contractors.
Continue readingA Reversal in Course? SBA Rescinds Several 8(a) Suspension Notices
As you may recall, this past December, SBA launched a massive audit of the 8(a) Program, in which 8(a) participants were required to submit a long list of financial documents for review. Many feared it was the beginning of the end of the 8(a) Program when several 8(a) Participants were hit with suspension notifications earlier this year. Most of these suspensions were a result of SBA’s review of the documents collected during the December data call. The basis was often a claimed failure of these participants to submit all the data asked for. However, as provided for in 13 C.F.R. § 124.305(c), these participants had the opportunity to appeal these suspensions, and many of them took that opportunity. In several cases, it turns out that SBA itself decided that its suspension was unnecessary, and rescinded those actions. Today, we’ll look at this development.
Continue readingBack to Basics: The Two-Year Rule
Something we get asked about a lot with regards to joint ventures is the two-year rule (not to be confused with the “Rule of Two,” which concerns contract set-asides). We have explored this rule in the past on a few occasions, however, it has been a little while since the last such post and it’s been a perennial issue for contractors that we talk to. As such, it would be helpful to have a refresher on this rule, which may help clear up some of those questions.
Continue readingGAO Evaluation of CMMC Program and Important Information for Defense Contractors
Back in October and November 2025, with the Department of Defense putting some finishing touches on the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (“CMMC”) Program, we explored the contours of that program and what it means for contractors like you. During this same timeframe, we were not the only ones reviewing the CMMC Program. The GAO also has been in the process of conducting a review of the CMMC Program and recently released its findings. In a report titled, “Defense Contractor Cybersecurity: DOD Should Address External Factors That Could Impede Program Implementation,” GAO’s position on the CMMC Program is pretty clear: Good but needs tweaking. Today, we’ll take a look at those findings and how they might affect the CMMC Program going forward.
Continue reading