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 readingAuthor Archives: John Holtz
BREAKING: 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 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 reading