Back on August 19, 2026, SBA issued proposed rules–one covering what would change and one covering the underlying methodology. This would, in most cases, monumentally increase the size standards for the various industries that perform federal contracts, along with simplifying how industries are categorized and switching several industries from receipts-based to employee-based size standards. Indeed, we had two separate posts on these changes, one exploring the actual size standard increases and the other exploring the recategorization and switch to employee-based size standards. SBA initially set a deadline of September 21, 2026, for comments on these changes. Now, it is extending that date, as we’ll explore briefly below.
Continue readingAuthor Archives: John Holtz
SBA Proposes Monumental Changes to Small Business Size Standards (Part 2)
As we discussed last week, on August 19, 2026, SBA proposed what can only be described as a complete shift in the paradigm of the small business size standards. In the first part of our review of these changes, we looked at the actual planned size standards themselves and how massive of a jump they represent from the norm. In that post, we also mentioned that SBA is proposing to simplify and combine several NAICS codes, as well as move several NAICS codes from receipts-based to employee-based size standards. Today, we’re going to explore this latter observation.
Continue readingSBA Proposes Monumental Changes to Small Business Size Standards (Part 1)
Every few years, SBA updates its size standards for small businesses. In most years, these updates, while notable, are not groundshaking, and usually just account for inflation. That cannot be said of the most recent proposed changes. We do not use hyperbole here, but, sometimes, emphatic language must be used. SBA is proposing what can only be described as absolutely massive changes to its size standards for small business contracting. On August 19, 2026, SBA released its proposal for what can only be described as a new size standard paradigm. We explore these in greater detail here, and plan on one or more follow-up posts as there are multiple aspects of the system that would be changed if the proposal is finalized.
Continue readingNot Quite Tribally Owned: A Lesson on Tribally-Owned Entities and the 8(a) Program
Not every participant in the 8(a) Business Development Program is owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. There are also a sizable number of entities that are owned by Native American tribes, Native Alaskan entities, Native Hawaiian organizations, either directly or through other entities (collectively, we’ll call them Tribally-Owned Entities). While the presumption of social disadvantage for 8(a) eligibility for members of certain ethnic and racial minorities was found unconstitutional (and is formally being removed), Tribally-Owned Entities go by a different set of rules that makes admission into the 8(a) Program easier. That does not, however, mean that these rules apply to any and all entities owned by a Native American or even where actions are supposedly taken on behalf of a Native American tribe. A company learned this the hard way in a recent SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) decision that we’ll explore today.
Continue readingBREAKING: Department of War Suspends Introduction of Phase Two of CMMC
Last year, we noted in a couple posts that the federal government had finally began implementation of its Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program. Apparently, however, the government has concluded that a pause is needed on further implementation due to what it describes as structural issues with the program. On July 13, 2026, the Department of War (DoW)[1] announced that it is suspending the introduction of Phase Two of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program. We explore that decision in this post.
Continue readingCOFC: Limitation on Subcontracting Certification Trips Up Contractor Where Solicitation Requires it to be Signed and Attached
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 readingImportant 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 reading