SBA requires that, for 8(a) Program construction contract set-asides, the contractor must have a “a bona fide place of business in the applicable geographic area.” 13 C.F.R. § 124.501. In 2021, SBA suspended the enforcement of this requirement in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. On June 17, 2025, SBA announced that this moratorium is coming to an end. In this post, we’ll look at the rule and what the end of this moratorium means for 8(a) construction contractors.
Continue readingAuthor Archives: John Holtz
FAR 52.222-46 Again? GAO Sustains Protest that Agency Price Evaluation was Unreasonable
Agencies get a lot of discretion when it comes to evaluating proposals. We’ve explored several different cases where GAO affirmed this principle. However, this principle is not absolute. Contrary to what some might think, there are limits on an agency’s discretion when it comes to how it evaluates proposals. Recently, the Air Force was reminded of this fact in a GAO protest concerning a price evaluation. We explore that decision here.
Continue readingSwitcheroo – FAR Change Allows Agency to Amend Solicitation to Broaden Eligibility for Procurement
This past November, we observed a change in the rules regarding SAM registration requirements for procurements. Prior to this rule change, both GAO and the Court of Federal Claims (COFC) had found that the FAR requires offerors to maintain SAM registration throughout the evaluation period for a procurement. With the rule change, FAR 52.204-7 (the regulation at issue) now only requires that an offeror be registered at the time of offer submission and at the time of contract award. A lapse in SAM registration in between those events, in other words, would not be fatal to an offeror’s proposal. Unfortunately for one company, this resulted in a COFC case that essentially reversed its victory at a prior COFC protest. Today, we’ll look at this second case and what happened.
Continue readingA Look at the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Part III)
For a few weeks now, we have looked at a recent Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision in two parts regarding the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In the first part, we observed how insistence on the terms of a contract is not a breach of good faith and fair dealing. In the second part, we discussed several separate considerations ranging from a decision to not move a project forward to the next phase to rejection of a claim of a government cabal. Now, we will conclude our look at this decision with the court’s review of the SBIR/STTR policy directive and its impact on the case.
Continue readingA Look at the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Part II)
Recently, we looked at part of a Court of Federal Claims (COFC) decision regarding the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In that post, we observed how, unsurprisingly, the government’s insistence that a contractor carry out the express terms of a contract is not strong ground for a claim of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In this post, we’re going to continue our review of this case (with regards to the duty of good faith and fair dealing) and give more general thoughts on this duty. We’ll finish up with a third post that addresses the biggest issue in this case.
Continue readingA Look at the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Part 1)
The duty of good faith and fair dealing in contract law is, admittedly, a bit poorly named. It does not require that a party act in bad faith to breach it. You do not need to act nefariously to run afoul of it. But then the question arises: What is it? How does one breach it? This was (among other things) a question explored in a recent Court of Federal Claims decision regarding an Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contract. We will look at that decision’s review of the duty of good faith and fair dealing here in a 2-part series.
Continue readingConfusion About the Nonmanufacturer Rule: When Does it Apply?
One of the rules we get asked about the most as government contracts attorneys is what’s known as the nonmanufacturer rule, 13 C.F.R. § 121.406 (So much so that we felt it wise to go over the rule in one of our “Back to Basics” posts to help clear some things up). It’s pretty understandable why: It has numerous provisions, exceptions, and requirements that can make it pretty difficult to follow. It also shows up in two different regulations: 13 C.F.R. § 121.406 as mentioned above, as well as FAR 19.505. Unfortunately, this often leads to contractors getting tripped up by the rule, either not realizing it applies where it does or, as we’ll explore here, thinking it applies where it doesn’t. Recently, SBA addressed a size protest that asserted the awardee didn’t meet the requirements of the nonmanufacturer rule, and noted to the unfortunate protestor that the rule didn’t apply for the procurement anyways.
Continue reading