Careers

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Experience

Innovation

Interactive Maps

Locations

About

Pages

Meet our team of innovators
Ask us how we do it

Professionals

Insights

Services

Thompson Hine LLP, a full-service business law firm with approximately 400 lawyers in 8 offices, was ranked number 1 in the category “Most innovative North American law firms: New working models” by The Financial Times and was 1 of 7 firms shortlisted for The American Lawyer’s inaugural Legal Services Innovation Award. The firm has been recognized by the National Law Journal as a Legal Technology Trailblazer and featured by Bloomberg for its innovative service delivery models, which drive accuracy and predictability. The firm’s commitment to innovation is embodied in Thompson Hine SmartPaTHTM – a smarter way to work – predictable, efficient and aligned with client goals. For more information, please visit ThompsonHine.com and ThompsonHine.com/SmartPaTH.

Home | Thompson Hine LLP

Atlanta

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Dayton

Los Angeles

Minneapolis

New York

Washington, D.C.

core/separator

core/heading

SBA attempts to reduce potential barriers to program entry in final rule.

core/list-item

SBA loosens ownership restrictions by increasing the allowable ownership interest a non-disadvantaged individual or non-8(a) business may own in an 8(a) program participant.

core/list

The U.S. Small Business Administration’s (SBA) December 17, 2024 <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/17/2024-29393/hubzone-program-updates-and-clarifications-and-clarifications-to-other-small-business-programs" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">final rule</a> incorporates the comments addressed and changes adopted from its proposed rule, “HUBZone Program Updates and Clarifications, and Clarifications to Other Small Business Programs,” which we explored in a <a href="https://www.thompsonhine.com/insights/key-changes-in-sbas-proposed-rule-hubzone-program/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">prior update</a>. The final rule, which became effective January 16, 2025, applies to existing contracts but will not be applied retroactively. In this third and final installment in our series of updates analyzing the final rule, we examine notable changes to the 8(a) Business Development Program.

contentpilot/introduction

Application Requirements: Operating Revenue

Under 13 C.F.R. § 124.107, SBA requires applicants to establish their “potential for success,” which includes submitting income tax returns demonstrating operating revenue for the two years immediately prior to application submission. Previously, the income tax returns had to reflect operating revenue in the primary industry for which the applicant was seeking certification. In its final rule, SBA modified this requirement to allow income tax returns that show operating revenues generally rather than in the applicant’s primary industry. While a seemingly minor adjustment, this change provides greater flexibility for businesses that have recently expanded or transitioned into a different industry and may not yet have significant operating revenue in that specific sector. By removing this restriction, SBA has reduced potential barriers to program entry and made the program more accessible.

core/paragraph

Under 13 C.F.R. § 124.105(h), SBA sets forth restrictions applicable to non-disadvantaged individuals and non-8(a) businesses with ownership interests in 8(a) program participants. These restrictions limit the ownership percentage a non-disadvantaged owner or non-8(a) business may have in an 8(a) participant if the owner already has an interest in another 8(a) participant or a business in the same or a similar line of business. In its final rule, SBA increased the allowable ownership percentage from 10% to 20% during a participant’s developmental stage (years 1-4 in the program) and from 20% to 30% in a participant’s transitional stage (years 5-8 in the program).

Previously, 13 C.F.R. § 124.105(i)(2) outlined three exceptions to the rule that requires SBA’s prior approval when a participant firm has a change in ownership. In the final rule, SBA made minor changes to the exceptions and added a fourth. Now, prior SBA approval is not required if:

All non-disadvantaged owners involved in a transaction own no more than a 30% interest in the participant concern both before and after the transaction.

The transfer results from a disadvantaged principal’s death or incapacity due to a serious long-term illness or injury.

The disadvantaged owner(s) in control of the participant firm will increase their ownership interest.

The 8(a) participant has never received an 8(a) contract and the owner(s) upon whom initial eligibility was based continues to own more than 50% of the participant firm.

The final rule also clarifies that even if prior approval is not required, SBA must be notified of any changes within 60 days of the transaction or before the firm submits an offer for an 8(a) contract, whichever occurs first.

Program Compliance: Non-8(a) Business Activity Target

To help ensure that 8(a) program graduates continue their success after exiting the program, SBA requires participants to gradually increase their non-8(a) revenues in the program’s latter stages. Participants are required to demonstrate good faith efforts to meet a certain percentage of non-8(a) business activity to enhance their likelihood of success once they exit the program. 13 C.F.R. § 124.509. If a firm fails to engage in a good faith effort to meet its non-8(a) business activity target, SBA may restrict its ability to receive 8(a) sole-source contracts.

What SBA meant by “good faith efforts” was murky, so it provides some guidance and clarification on this requirement in its final rule. For example, SBA previously considered unsuccessful offers a firm made on contracts as good faith efforts, but arguably, this applied even if the participant had little or no chance of receiving an award. The final rule clarifies that SBA will only consider unsuccessful offers on contracts where the firm had a reasonable prospect of success. As an example, SBA explains that if a firm has never received a contract in excess of $5 million, an unsuccessful offer on a contract for $100 million will not be considered a good faith effort because the firm was unlikely to receive this award based on prior contract awards.

SBA also clarifies that only the value of the base year of the contract for which the firm submitted an unsuccessful offer will be included as part the firm’s good faith effort to meet the business activity percentage. Notably, while several commenters reasoned that projected revenue under the contract should be considered, SBA declined.

Our Government Contracts group will monitor the regulations governing SBA programs as they continue to evolve and provide relevant updates.

This advisory bulletin may be reproduced, in whole or in part, with the prior permission of Thompson Hine LLP and acknowledgment of its source and copyright. This publication is intended to inform clients about legal matters of current interest. It is not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained in it without professional counsel.

This document may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.

https://admin.thompsonhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Government-Contracts-Update-Key-Takeaways-in-SBAs-Final-Rule-8a-Business-Development-Program.pdf

Key Takeaways in SBA’s Final Rule: 8(a) Business Development Program

Services