A contracting activity shall not make a requirement available for a HUBZone contract if:
(a) The contracting activity otherwise would fulfill that requirement through award to Federal Prison Industries, Inc. under 18 U.S.C. 4124 or 4125, or to Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act participating non-profit agencies for the blind and severely disabled, under 41 U.S.C. 46 et seq., as amended; or
(b) An 8(a) participant currently is performing the requirement through the 8(a)BD program or SBA has accepted the requirement for award through the 8(a)BD program, unless SBA has consented to release the requirement from the 8(a)BD program.
[63 FR 31908, June 11, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 29425, May 24, 2004; 89 FR 102503, Dec. 17, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
DGR Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 189 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
“These memoranda directed executive agencies, including the Air Force, to follow 13 C.F.R. §§ 126.605 and 126.607, and to place qualified HUBZone small business concerns and section 8(a) program participants on an equal footing for the award of contracts.”
Contract Mgmt., Inc. v. Rumsfeld, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Haw. 2003).
“13 C.F.R. § 126.605 . The FAR regulations similarly exclude “[r]equirements currently being performed by an 8(a) participant or requirements SBA has accepted for performance under the authority of the 8(a) Program, unless SBA has consented to release the requirements from the…”
Contract Mgmt., Inc. v. Rumsfeld, 434 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See 13 C.F.R. § 126.605 . CMI challenged that interpretation in district court but does not do so on appeal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.