Author Archives: John Holtz

Wrong Place: GAO Weighs in on 8(a) Program GSA Schedule Eligibility under MAS 8(a) Pool and Finds that SBA Eligibility Finding had to be Challenged at SBA

Posted on by

The GSA instituted a program that would allow 8(a) Program participants to enter into an 8(a) pool for GSA schedules (AKA, GSA Multiple Award Schedule) called the MAS 8(a) Pool. This program would allow 8(a) GSA schedule holders to maintain their 8(a) eligibility for a limited time even after they had graduated from the 8(a) Program. GSA described it this way in 2023:

“MAS 8(a) pool contractors will be eligible for sole source awards for as long as they remain active in the 8(a) Program, and continue to qualify as small for the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the sole source order, at the time of award. 8(a) pool contractors will continue to remain eligible for competitive set aside awards for up to five (5) years from the date of award, or until rerepresentation in accordance with FAR 19.301-2(b) (whichever is first), even after the contractor has exited the 8(a) Program.”

In this case, the agency requested a check on 8(a) eligibility, despite the existence of the MAS 8(a) Pool, and GAO was asked to decide if an agency had the discretion to check 8(a) eligibility, even if regulations did not require it.

As another point, The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) both provide oversight for federal procurements but over different areas. Generally, GAO reviews protests of agency compliance with federal procurement regulations and statutes and solicitation criteria, and SBA hears protests regarding the size and status of federal contractors for set-aside procurements. This can create, however, some confusion where their activities overlap. This is something that we have, over the years, addressed in other blog posts. Today, we look at a GAO protest where GAO and SBA crossed paths again and this MAS 8(a) Pool issue arose.

Continue reading →

Overview of Recent Updates to Cybersecurity Requirements Under the CMMC Program (Part 2)

Posted on by

Not long ago, we discussed the basics of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program at DFARS subpart 204.75. Of course, with such a large new system as the CMMC Program, there is more to it than what we reviewed there. In this second set of posts, we will dive deeper into the requirements and procedures of the CMMC Program implemented by DoD back in September 2025, among other items. We will explore what the general rules on what systems are covered by the CMMC Program, when the contractor must be in compliance with the CMMC Program, and what levels will apply for contracts.

Continue reading →

Overview of Recent Updates to Cybersecurity Requirements Under the CMMC Program (Part 1)

Posted on by

On September 10, 2025, the Department of Defense (As all the documents we address use the Department of Defense naming, we will go by that to prevent confusion.) (DoD) implemented the acquisition rules for the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program at DFARS subpart 204.75. This follows the federal government’s institution of the CMMC program last year (We explored this a bit with a review of the proposed rules some time before that and noted that initial rules have been in place since 2020.) These rules are present at 32 C.F.R. Part 170. Despite these rules having now been in place for a little while, the scope and complexity of the CMMC program can nonetheless be daunting for contractors to deal with. In this first in a series of posts, we will explore the basics of the CMMC program and what it means for you.

Continue reading →

Finalized Increases to Micro-Purchase, Simplified Acquisition, and Other Thresholds

Posted on by

Last year, we noted that the FAR Council (DoD, GSA, and NASA) issued a proposed rule to adjust the statutory acquisition thresholds for inflation. Under 41 U.S.C. § 1908, the federal government must adjust these thresholds every five years to account for inflation. Effective October 1, 2025, the updated thresholds have gone into effect. In this post, we’ll look at the new thresholds.

The finalized rule, issued on August 27, 2025, mostly matches the proposed rule from 2024, although there are some differences.

Continue reading →

A Refresher on How the Small Business Rule of Two Generally Works

Posted on by

We have talked a good deal about the Small Business Rule of Two (not to be confused with the separate VA rule of two for veteran-owned businesses) over the years. The (very) general gist of the rule is this: If the procurement is above the simplified acquisition threshold, the agency must set it aside for small businesses if two or more small businesses can perform the work at fair prices. If the agency has a reasonable expectation that two or more SDVOSB/VOSBs, EDWOSBs/WOSBs, 8(a) participants, or HUBZone participants can perform work under a procurement, the agency must consider setting aside the procurement for that particular category (i.e., if it believes two or more 8(a) participants can perform the work, it can set aside the procurement for 8(a) participants). However, it appears there remains a good deal of confusion about what the Rule of Two requires, as opposed to what it simply permits. In a recent GAO protest, a contractor learned this the hard way, and today, we’ll explore that decision.

Continue reading →

TAA Can Apply to Small Business Set-Aside: COC Clarifies Trade Agreements Act and Buy American Act Applicability

Posted on by

The Trade Agreements Act (TAA) and Buy American Act (BAA) are among the most complex regulatory systems in federal contracting. There’s been a lot of confusion from both contractors and agencies on when they apply to a procurement and how. We have written on the BAA and TAA in the past. Recently, the Court of Federal Claims issued a decision discussing how the two laws interact, and showed that how they apply depends significantly on the circumstances of the procurement, providing some clarification on a past GAO decision we wrote on as well (which held that the TAA is inapplicable to small business set-asides). We will explore that here. 

Continue reading →

Timing is Everything: GAO Dismisses Post-Bid Protest of Solicitation Terms as Untimely

Posted on by

It is safe to say that every federal contractor, at one time or another, has felt the terms of a solicitation were unfair or otherwise didn’t make sense. Federal agencies are comprised of people, and people make mistakes. Sometimes, then, mistakes make it into the solicitation. Unfair or erroneous terms in a solicitation are a valid grounds for a protest, but it is crucial to know when such a protest is timely. In most cases, if the time for bids has passed, any protest of the terms of the solicitation, be it at GAO or the Court of Federal Claims, will be untimely. There are rare exceptions, but, in general, a protest of terms of the solicitation must be brought before bids are due to be timely. Untimeliness equals dismissal. In this post, we will explore a protest GAO dismissed for this very reason.

Continue reading →