The “Once 8(a), Always 8(a)–Or HUBZone, SDVOSB, or WOSB” Rule, Where Are We Now?

Key Takeaways

• RFO adds HUBZone/SDVOSB/WOSB exception to 8(a) release rule
• Contracting officers can release follow‑ons without SBA approval if set‑aside
• SBA’s original “Once 8(a), Always 8(a)” rule remains on paper
• Enforcement mechanisms (GAO, Court) may become uncertain under RFO
• Small businesses must monitor set‑aside eligibility to protect 8(a) opportunities

Pulse Analysis

The Federal Acquisition Regulation’s transition to FAR 2.0, dubbed the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul, represents the most comprehensive rewrite of federal procurement rules in decades. Among the many updates, the revision of the “Once 8(a), Always 8(a)” rule stands out because it directly alters the balance of power between the Small Business Administration (SBA) and contracting officers. Historically, once a requirement entered the SBA’s 8(a) Business Development program, any follow‑on work had to stay within that program unless the SBA explicitly released it. This safeguard ensured that 8(a) firms retained a pipeline of work and that the government met its small‑business participation goals.

The RFO’s new language, codified in FAR 19.108‑11, introduces a broad exception: follow‑on contracts may be released from the 8(a) program provided the subsequent award is set aside for HUBZone, Service‑Disabled Veteran‑Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), or Women‑Owned Small Business (WOSB) programs. Crucially, the rule removes the mandatory written concurrence from the SBA Associate Administrator, granting contracting officers unilateral discretion to make the release. While the SBA’s own regulation still mirrors the older, stricter approach, the statutory hierarchy now favors the RFO’s provisions, creating a regulatory gap that could dilute SBA’s oversight and shift decision‑making to agency procurement staff.

For small‑business owners and legal counsel, the practical implications are immediate. Firms that rely on 8(a) status must closely track whether upcoming follow‑on requirements will be re‑sought under the alternative set‑aside categories, as losing SBA protection could jeopardize future work. Agencies, meanwhile, gain flexibility to meet diverse socioeconomic goals without navigating a separate SBA approval process, potentially accelerating award timelines. However, the ambiguity around enforcement—traditionally handled by the GAO or the Court of Federal Claims—means litigants may see a rise in disputes over whether the RFO’s exception was properly applied. Monitoring forthcoming guidance, case law, and agency notices will be essential to navigate this evolving landscape.