The United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) produced another decision focused on SAM registration and related FAR updates. We previously discussed the changes to the FAR no longer requiring constant SAM registration to be awarded a contract. We have also blogged on a recent COFC decision regarding solicitation amendments based on the new FAR rule. But, what happens if the old FAR rule, such as one regarding SAM registration, is still in a solicitation and the agency does not amend the solicitation?

In Analysis, Studies, and Training International, LLC (ASTI) (April 14, 2025), the COFC builds off of the recent Zolon decision we wrote about regarding SAM registration FAR updates.

The procurement was a WOSB set aside to train United States Air Force drone pilots. The solicitation was created before the recent updates to the FAR regarding SAM registration, and thus, had the old version of FAR 52.204-7 incorporated as a solicitation requirement. As you may know, the old version of FAR 52.204-7(b)(1) stated that offerors were “required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation, and shall continue to be registered until time of award.” In comparison, the FAR 52.204-7(b)(1) version currently in effect in 2025 states: “An Offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer or quotation and at time of award.” The new FAR simply focuses on the SAM registration being current as of the time of offer, and at time of award, rather than the previous requirement of continuous SAM registration. Under the current regulation, an offeror could accidentally have a very short SAM registration lapse between offer and award, and so long as the SAM is current again at time of award, the offeror should not lose its award. Unfortunately for ASTI, the solicitation did not have the new FAR regulation incorporated.

The Solicitation in this ASTI case required submission of printouts of SAM registration, which would show WOSB status. The Solicitation also included the previous FAR 52.204-7 version that required continuous SAM registration to receive award. ASTI had what it framed as a mechanical error that didn’t show WOSB status, and SOFIS (another protester) had a short lapse in SAM registration. Due to these issues, both ASTI and SOFIS were not selected for award. Both offerors protested, generally basing their arguments on interpretation of the Solicitation’s SAM registration terms.

In regards to ASTI, COFC found that the failure to mark WOSB on SAM registration was a material error. This of course is a good reminder to always check that all your representations and certifications are accurate. However, the ruling regarding SOFIS has a broader take away for contractors.

SOFIS argued that it had submitted revised proposals that fixed the lapse in SAM registration and that the new FAR 52.204-7 retroactively applies, negating any issues in SAM registration lapses. In its ruling, the COFC clarified that at the time of the SAM registration lapse, the FAR mandated continuous SAM registration, and a revised submission didn’t change that requirement. In fact, the COFC cites to Zolon, stating that the old FAR 52.204-7’s registration clock is not “triggered” by the latest offer submitted, but rather, simply when “an offer” is submitted. Thus, the continuous SAM registration requirement was triggered by SOFIS’ initial offer, and was unaffected by subsequent revisions. Additionally, the COFC clarified that “[g]enerally, FAR amendments are not retroactive” unless the FAR explicitly states such. Therefore, changes to FAR 52.204-7 only apply to solicitations issued on or after its effect date in November 2024. Consequently, SOFIS could not take refuge in the new FAR language and had to maintain continuous SAM registration. Since SOFIS had a lapse in SAM registration, COFC found in favor of the agency.

While, on the surface, contractors could look at this decision and simply think it was about SAM registration, but that would be missing the bigger picture. This case is a reminder to all contractors to keep an eye on FAR updates, and what FAR provisions are incorporated into a solicitation and at what time. Here, during an evaluation and ongoing protests related to a solicitation, the FAR was updated to directly negate or address the issue at the center of the case. However, since the Solicitation did not make an amendment to change the FAR provision, and the FAR update does not directly state that it is retroactive, it means that the FAR update does not retroactively apply. With large changes to the FAR planned under the so-called “FAR 2.0” this is a lesson for contractors to keep in mind for future procurements. The FAR may change, but if the procurement already had offers submitted, such changes may not have effect unless there is explicit language to the contrary. Of course, contractors should also make sure their SAM registration continues to be up to date and current to avoid issues felt by SOFIS and ASTI. If you find yourself questioning contract terms or FAR provisions, make sure to reach out to a federal contracting lawyer such as ourselves to help.

Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Call us at 785-200-8919.

Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.