Proposed Rule Would Delete FAR Subpart 9.6 on Teaming and End DoW's Duty to Fund Small Business Qualification Testing

What changed

The same proposed rule that rewrites SBIR/STTR data rights also rewrites FAR Part 9. FAR Case 2026-011 was published at 91 FR 59584 on 18 September 2026, with comments due 19 October 2026.

Under the heading of streamlining, the rule proposes to remove FAR subpart 9.6, Contractor Team Arrangements, as unnecessary. It would also remove subpart 9.7 on defense production and research and development pools, section 9.106 on preaward surveys including the reference to Standard Form 1403, section 9.107 on surveys of AbilityOne nonprofit agencies, section 9.104-2 on special standards, section 9.000, and the definition of "surveying activity" at 9.101. The preamble states that these revisions do not substantively change policy or procedures in the part.

Separately, the rule would implement section 812(a)(6) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 (Pub. L. 119-60), which strikes 10 U.S.C. 3243(d)(2). That provision required a determination before a defense agency bore the cost of a small business and prospective competitor undergoing the testing and evaluation needed to meet a qualification requirement, where fewer than two actual manufacturers were available to compete. FAR 9.204(a)(2)(i) would be changed to exclude the Department from the requirement. The corresponding civilian agency requirement at 41 U.S.C. 3311(d)(2) stays in force.

What a contractor would have to do differently

The qualification testing change is the one with money attached. If you are a small manufacturer trying to break into a defense item that carries a qualification requirement, the cost of qualifying is the barrier, and this would remove the mechanism that could shift that cost to the Department. The same work sold to a civilian agency would still be covered. Anyone whose entry strategy depends on that provision should price qualification as a self-funded investment and should consider saying so in a comment before 19 October.

The subpart 9.6 removal is narrower than it first reads. Deleting the FAR's coverage of contractor team arrangements does not make teaming unlawful and does not touch SBA's joint venture, mentor-protege and affiliation rules, which live in 13 CFR rather than in the FAR. What would go is the FAR's express recognition of teaming arrangements and the framework agencies have pointed to when identifying team members in a proposal. The preamble's position is that this changes nothing substantive. Whether that holds in practice, for teams that have relied on 9.6 language in their agreements and in their proposals, is exactly the sort of thing the comment period exists to test.

Removing preaward surveys at 9.106 is worth noting for the same reason. A preaward survey has often been the route by which a small or new contractor demonstrated responsibility. Its removal does not change the responsibility standard itself, but it removes one documented way of meeting it. None of this is in effect; it is a proposed rule.

Primary sources

Federal Acquisition Regulation: Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul Parts 9, 27, and 47, 91 FR 59584 (18 September 2026), FR document 2026-19159. Section 812(a)(6) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, Pub. L. 119-60. 10 U.S.C. 3243(d)(2) and 41 U.S.C. 3311(d)(2).