Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags '13cfr125'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post, Instructions for Writing Your Question
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • About The Regulations
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions


  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Government Contracts Blog
  • Government Contracts Insights
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • The Contractor's Perspective
  • Government Contracts Legal Forum

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 1 result

  1. Fed Reg Vol 81 No 104, May 31, 2016 finally implemented the “Similarly Situated Entity“ rule of the 2013 NDAA. Specific updates to 13CFR125 change the overall tenor of the Limitations on Subcontracting to a true limit on the amount that can be subcontracted rather than a prime performance requirement. Based on much of the reasoning included in that Fed Reg, the intent was to bring parity to the various programs, including the Limitations on Subcontracting. The Reg however did not change 48 CFR 52.219 and the various FAR clauses -3, -14, -27, -29, and -30 that implement the limitations on subcontracting requirements. Vern will be disappointed to see that in the 13CFR125 revision they REMOVED the definition of “Cost of contract performance incurred for personnel”, yet that term is still used in the aforementioned FAR clauses. Of particular concern, the new 13CFR125.6(a)(3) requirement identifies the limitations on subcontracting for general construction as “not pay more than 85% of the amount paid by the government to it to firms that are not similarly situated”. Similarly (a)(4) requires not more than 75% for special trade contractors. Yet the current FAR 52.219-3 (Notice of HUBZone set-aside) requires that for both types, 50% of “the cost of personnel for contract performance be spent for employees of the concern or employees of other HUBZone small business concerns” (e.g. similarly situated entities) AND requires at least 15% (general) or 25% (trade) performance by employees of the prime. So there is an inherent contradiction between the two. The 50% requirement is very difficult for HUBZone construction and trade contractors and I personally know of at least two former HUBZone contractors that have given up maintaining their HUBZone certification on that basis. It was thought that the new revised rule would bring the requirement back to 15% (general) or (25%) trade consistent with the other programs. So, 1) is there any reason why one would have precedence over the other (13CFR125 vs 48CFR52) as they are contradictory, and 2) is anyone aware of any pending changes to the FAR clauses to reconcile the discrepancies (not just this one) and bring it in-line with the new regulation?
  • Create New...