48 C.F.R. § 19.805-1

19.805-1 General.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an acquisition offered to the SBA under the 8(a) program shall be awarded on the basis of competition limited to eligible 8(a) participants when—

(1) There is a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a) participants will submit offers and that award can be made at a fair market price; and

(2) The anticipated total value of the contract, including options, will exceed $8.5 million for acquisitions assigned manufacturing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and $5.5 million for all other acquisitions.

(b) Where an acquisition exceeds the competitive threshold (see paragraph (a)(2) of this section), the SBA may accept the requirement for a sole source 8(a) award if—

(1) There is not a reasonable expectation that at least two eligible and responsible 8(a) participants will submit offers at a fair market price; or

(2) SBA accepts the requirement on behalf of a concern owned by an Indian tribe or an Alaska Native Corporation.

(c) A proposed 8(a) requirement with an estimated value exceeding the applicable competitive threshold amount shall not be divided into several requirements for lesser amounts in order to use 8(a) sole source procedures for award to a single firm.

(d) The SBA Associate Administrator for Business Development may approve a contracting office's request for a competitive 8(a) award below the competitive thresholds. Such requests will be approved only on a limited basis and will be primarily granted where technical competitions are appropriate or where a large number of responsible 8(a) participants are available for competition. In determining whether a request to compete below the threshold will be approved, the SBA Associate Administrator for Business Development will, in part, consider the extent to which the contracting activity is supporting the 8(a) program on a noncompetitive basis. The agency may include recommendations for competition below the threshold in the offering letter or by separate correspondence to the SBA Associate Administrator for Business Development.

[54 FR 46005, Oct. 31, 1989, as amended at 61 FR 67421, Dec. 20, 1996; 64 FR 32744, June 17, 1999; 65 FR 46056, July 26, 2000; 68 FR 4051, Jan. 27, 2003; 69 FR 8314, Feb. 23, 2004; 71 FR 57367, Sept. 28, 2006; 75 FR 53133, Aug. 30, 2010; 75 FR 77730, Dec. 13, 2010; 80 FR 38298, July 2, 2015; 82 FR 4729, Jan. 13, 2017; 85 FR 62489, Oct. 2, 2020; 86 FR 61041, Nov. 4, 2021; 90 FR 41879, Aug. 27, 2025]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1992–2013 · leading case: Assessment & Training Solutions Consulting Corp. v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Assessment & Training Solutions Consulting Corp. v. United States (2010) uscfc · cites it 3× “48 C.F.R. § 19.805-1 (emphasis added). Plaintiff insists that the language of FAR 19.”

Eskridge Research Corp. v. United States (2010) uscfc “506 (2009); 48 C.F.R. § 19.805-1 (2009). Because the total value of this contract fell below that threshold, the CO had the discretion to terminate the Bowhead contract and award a separate sole source con *96 tract during the re-evaluation process.”

Advanced American Construction, Inc. v. United States (2013) uscfc “506 (2013); 48 C.F.R. § 19.805-1 (2012). Under the Small Business Act, the president is required to establish goals for the percentage of procurement contracts awarded to various types of small business concerns in each year.”

Mission Critical Solutions v. United States (2010) uscfc “48 C.F.R. § 19.805-1 (2009). On December 17, 2008, the Army requested that the SBA issue an acceptance letter approving the nomination of Copper River Information Technology, LLC (Copper River), an Alaska Native Corporation, as the IT support services provider.”

Action Service Corp. v. Garrett (1992) prd “Where, as here, the contract is valued at more than $3 Million, 48 C.F.R. § 19.805-1 (a)(2), the section [8](a) award must be competitive.”

Innovative Resources v. United States (2004) uscfc · cites it 2× “00, the contracts were again determined to be a Section 8(a) set-aside contract, and designated for sole source Section 8(a) procurement, pursuant to 48 C.F.R. § 19.805-1 . Thus, GSA would enter into a contract with the Small Business Administration, who would in turn…”

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.