Rule2026-17901
Increase of Monetary Thresholds and Other Matters Related to Cost Accounting Standards Program Requirements
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 1, 2026
Effective
October 1, 2026
Issuing agencies
Management and Budget OfficeFederal Procurement Policy Office
Abstract
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Cost Accounting Standards Board (Board), is publishing a final rule to increase the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) thresholds and agency waiver authority, and issue clarifications on application of the CAS thresholds and exemptions to indefinite delivery contracts (IDCs).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 168 (Tuesday, September 1, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 168 (Tuesday, September 1, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56056-56060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-17901]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Office of Federal Procurement Policy
48 CFR Part 9903
RIN 0348-AB85
Increase of Monetary Thresholds and Other Matters Related to Cost
Accounting Standards Program Requirements
AGENCY: Cost Accounting Standards Board, Office of Federal Procurement
Policy. Office of Management and Budget.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Cost Accounting
Standards Board (Board), is publishing a final rule to increase the
Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) thresholds and agency waiver authority,
and issue clarifications on application of the CAS thresholds and
exemptions to indefinite delivery contracts (IDCs).
DATES: Effective October 1, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John L. McClung, Manager, Cost
Accounting Standards Board (telephone: 202-881-9758; email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#551a181716140617153a38377b303a257b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fdb2b0bfbebcaebfbd92909fd398928dd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>.).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 20, 2026, the Board published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (91 FR 13559) to solicit views on the Board's
provisional conclusions regarding increases to the CAS thresholds and
agency waiver authority, and proposed clarifications on applying the
CAS thresholds and exemptions to indefinite delivery contracts (IDCs).
The Board received nine sets of public comments to the NPRM: five
from industry associations, two from individual contractors, one from a
consulting firm, and one from an individual. Comments strongly
supported the Board's proposed actions and the deregulatory nature of
the NPRM. Although comments did not provide information to quantify the
impact of this final rule, all comments strongly supported the
qualitative aspects noted in the NPRM: reduced compliance costs,
simplified CAS administration for existing contractors,
[[Page 56057]]
and reduced barriers to entry for nontraditional contractors, new
entrants, and mid-size entities who no longer qualify for a full
exemption from CAS as small businesses. Specific comments and
discussion, as applicable, are detailed in the sections below. This
final rule reflects input from the public, as well as research
conducted by the Board. This final rule is issued by the Board in
accordance with the requirements of 41 U.S.C. 1502.
II. Regulatory Thresholds
a. Overview and Conclusion
This final rule raises the thresholds for full CAS coverage and
Disclosure Statement requirements from the current $50 million to $100
million. This final rule also eliminates the exemption at CAS 9903.202-
1(c)(ii) which currently exempts a Disclosure Statement from a segment
if during the most recently completed cost accounting period the
segment's CAS-covered awards are less than 30 percent of total segment
sales for the period and less than $10 million. As a result of the
higher thresholds this exemption is no longer necessary.
Based on public comments this final rule further revises 9903.202-
1(b)(2) to more clearly state that a Disclosure Statement is required
only for segments or business units that independently meet the
applicable thresholds for full CAS coverage. As a result, the Board is
also removing CAS 9903.202-1(c) in its entirety as it is no longer
necessary with the additional clarity provided in 9903.202-1(b)(2) as
suggested by public comments.
Based on public comments this final rule further amends 9903.201-2
(b) to provide a mechanism for determining eligibility for modified
coverage for new solicitations and awards for contractors or
subcontractors currently subject to full coverage that would not
otherwise be subject to full coverage at the new $100 million
threshold. This requires that the contractor or subcontractor has no
unresolved CAS noncompliances.
As detailed in the NPRM, the Board's analysis estimated these
changes will result in a substantial reduction of burden and lower the
barrier to entry with a minimal loss in the total dollars currently
subject to full coverage and Disclosure Statement requirements.
b. Summary of Public Comments on Regulatory Thresholds
Comments strongly supported the Board's provisional conclusions in
the NPRM to raise the regulatory thresholds and eliminate the exemption
at CAS 9903.202-1(c)(ii). Comments raising additional issues are as
follows:
Comment: A number of comments requested additional improvements to
the proposed language covering Disclosure Statement requirements. While
these comments offered varying alternatives, they identified similar
opportunities for the Board to further streamline and provide greater
clarity on applying the Disclosure Statement requirements for entities
with multiple CAS reporting segments. For example, as one comment
explained,
The current requirements to aggregate total company CAS covered
awards in 9903.202-1(b)(2) and then to separately assess
applicability at the business unit (or segment) level in 9903.202-
1(c) creates an unnecessary step and causes confusion in determining
whether a Disclosure Statement is required for each business unit.
In the spirit of streamlining and simplifying regulatory
requirements and reducing administrative burden, we recommend
eliminating the total company threshold and implementing the
threshold at the business unit level to align the threshold to the
filing requirement.
The comment recommended revising the current language at 9903.202-
1(b)(2) to more clearly state that a Disclosure Statement is required
only for segments or business units that independently meet the
applicable thresholds for full CAS coverage. With this clarification
they further recommended deleting CAS 9903-202-1(c) in its entirety as
it is no longer necessary with the recommended changes in section
9903.202-1(b)(2).
Response: The Board concurs this creates an unnecessary step and
may cause confusion in determining whether a Disclosure Statement is
required for each business unit. The Board has incorporated this
recommendation in the final rule as noted above.
Comment: Multiple commenters recommended the Board consider issuing
transition guidance related to the application of the new thresholds
considering the potential implications for full versus modified CAS
coverage. For example, as one commenter theorized; if a contractor is
performing a $50 million contract subject to full CAS coverage under
the current thresholds with no other CAS-covered awards and receives a
$40 million CAS-covered award under the new thresholds it would be
subject to full coverage. In this scenario, the new award itself is not
over $100 million and taken together with the existing contract the
awards are not over $100 million; however, because the contractor had
an award subject to full CAS coverage under the prior thresholds, any
new award between $35 million and $100 million (not otherwise exempt
from CAS) would be subject to full CAS coverage due to the requirements
at 9903.201-2(b)(2).
Comments also contend that to fully realize the deregulatory
intent, the Board should ensure a level playing field for ``mid-tier''
firms. This would allow existing contractors otherwise eligible for
modified coverage to receive the same benefit as a new entrant or other
entity currently not subject to CAS if they are competing for an award
that would qualify for modified CAS coverage. Without a transition
mechanism, a number of existing contractors will face a significant
competitive disadvantage against new entrants who benefit from the
higher $100 million threshold immediately.
Response: The Board appreciates the concerns raised and generally
agrees such a mechanism is desirable and in the spirit of the Board's
deregulatory actions. However, the Board believes this needs to be
contingent on a contractor currently being in a compliant status. As
such, the Board has provided added coverage in 9903.202-1(b) to provide
this with the requirement that the contractor or subcontractor has no
outstanding CAS noncompliances. In addition, the Board expects
contractors will continue to follow their existing practices as they
comply with CAS. As such, any current or future cost accounting
practice changes related to the transition from full CAS coverage to
modified CAS coverage would be considered unilateral and subject to the
contract price adjustment requirements.
Comment: Comments generally supported the use of the Unique Entity
Identifier (UEI) as a proxy for a covered segment for the purpose of
analyzing the potential impact of the regulatory changes contemplated
in the NPRM. However, comments raised concerns that there may not
always be a one-to-one relationship between a CAS segment and a UEI.
These comments urged the Board to clarify it was not changing the CAS
definition of a segment.
Response: The NPRM did not propose to change, nor is the final rule
changing the definition of a CAS segment contained in CAS regulations.
The Board appreciates the concerns raised by the public and will
continue to evaluate how changes in other statutory requirements,
technology, and the business environment impact CAS program
requirements. If the Board determines further changes are necessary to
the definitions and application of CAS program requirements they will
be made through subsequent rulemaking.
[[Page 56058]]
III. Statutory Thresholds
a. Overview and Conclusion
As detailed in the NPRM, OMB developed a legislative proposal to
decouple the basic CAS monetary threshold from the Truthful Cost or
Pricing Data statute, and raise it to a stated dollar amount of $35
million. The proposal also eliminated the $7.5 million trigger contract
threshold as it would no longer be necessary with a higher
applicability threshold. The proposal was transmitted to Congress in
June of 2025 for consideration in the 2026 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA). As discussed in the NPRM the Board's analysis
estimated these changes would reduce the number of CAS-covered business
segments by approximately 60 percent, while still maintaining over 90
percent of the current dollars subject to CAS coverage. Section 1806 of
the 2026 NDAA fully codified the OMB legislative proposal, and this
final rule revises 9903.201-1 CAS applicability to implement these
changes.
Based on public comments this final rule also modifies the three
statutory CAS exemptions at 9903.201-1(b) to align them with the
amendments made by Section 1806(d) of the 2026 NDAA. Section 1806(d)
added language to the three statutory CAS exemptions in 41 U.S.C. 1502
to make them applicable to portions of contracts and subcontracts.
These changes address contract arrangements that include multiple
contract types (i.e., hybrid contracts).
b. Summary of Public Comments
Comments strongly supported OMB's legislative proposal and the
Board's provisional conclusions in the NPRM to raise the statutory
thresholds as a result of the 2026 NDAA codification of the OMB
proposal. A number of comments related to additional provisions of the
2026 NDAA were made as follows:
Comment: Commenters pointed out that the proposed rule did not
address other CAS related provisions included in the 2026 NDAA.
Specifically changes to the contract price adjustments requirements in
41 U.S.C. 1503, and the Section 1806(d) amendments to the statutory
exemptions to accommodate hybrid contract arrangements.
Response: The Board recognizes the importance of the remaining 2026
NDAA provisions. The Board has updated the statutory exemptions
included 9903.201-1(b) to align them with the 2026 NDAA revisions to
apply those exemptions to portions of contracts and subcontracts (i.e.,
hybrids). However, attempting to incorporate the complex issues related
to the contract price adjustments requirements in 41 U.S.C. 1503 would
require additional notice and comment. As noted in its July 2, 2025
notice of agenda topics, (90 FR 29048) the Board has already begun
review of contract price adjustments requirements and has established a
separate case which will incorporate the direction provided in the 2026
NDAA.
IV. Agency Head Waiver Authority
a. Overview and Conclusion
CAS 9903.201-5 currently provides the head of an executive agency
the authority to waive CAS on their own for contracts valued up to $15
million without seeking approval from the Board, but they must notify
the Board of the waiver. This final rule raises this threshold to $100
million. This increase implements changes made to 41 U.S.C. 1502(b)(3)
by Section 820 of the 2017 NDAA.
b. Summary of Public Comments
Comments strongly supported the Board updating its regulations to
accurately reflect the increased waiver authority for the head of an
executive agency as a result of the 2017 NDAA change.
V. Application of CAS to Indefinite Delivery Contracts
a. Overview and Conclusion
Indefinite delivery contracts (IDCs) are contracts where work is
awarded through the placement of individual task and delivery orders as
requirements arise, with a minimum guaranteed order value and a ceiling
amount reflecting the maximum total value of orders that can be placed
under the contract. They include the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)
program and government-wide acquisition contracts (GWACs). Obligations
under the FSSs and GWACs are tracked separately from other task and
delivery order contracts in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS).
As detailed in the NPRM, analysis of FPDS data indicates the use of
IDCs has continued to increase in both size and as a percentage of
overall contract obligations. Although there is a statutory preference
to award IDCs to multiple contractors, they may also be awarded to a
single contractor. The prevalence of obligations on task and delivery
orders against IDCs awarded to a single contractor has also increased,
reaching $262 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. This represented over
one-third of all contract obligations in FY2024. Preliminary data for
FY 2025 indicated a similar dispersion of contract obligations.
The Board has concluded that, unlike multiple-award IDCs, the
information required to determine CAS exemptions and consistently apply
CAS to single-award IDCs is available at the time of award of the
single-award IDC. For these reasons, this final rule amends 9903.202-1
to make clear that application of CAS to multiple-award IDCs including
all exemptions is determined at the task or delivery order level. For
multiple-award IDCs CAS would apply only to those individual task or
delivery orders whose values meet the monetary threshold for CAS
coverage and do not qualify for another CAS exemption.
This final rule also amends 9903.202-1 to make clear that
application of CAS applicability to single-award IDCs is determined at
the time of award of the IDC using the ceiling value to assess if the
monetary threshold has been met. Based on input from public comments,
this final rule adds additional language to clarify that a single-award
IDC can be exempt if the entire IDC meets one of the other exemptions
in 9903.202-1(b) (i.e., the IDC is awarded to a small business, the IDC
only provides for orders of commercial products or commercial services,
or the IDC only allows for orders that are firm-fixed-price and the IDC
was awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without the
submission of certified cost or pricing data).
This final rule is consistent with the criteria the Board
identified for evaluating alternatives: it helps each contract party
manage risk; it is expected to reduce regulatory burden, and promote
competition by minimizing complexity and providing guidance that is
clear and straightforward. Having a clear and predictable rule promotes
consistency in the application of CAS and avoids friction and disputes.
Public comments did not provide any additional alternatives or criteria
for the Board to consider.
b. Summary of Public Comments
Comments strongly supported the Board's provisional conclusions in
the NPRM to apply CAS exemptions at the task or delivery order level
for multiple-award IDCs. However, comments did not support the Board's
provisional conclusions in the NPRM to apply CAS exemptions at the IDC
level for single-award IDCs. Comments preferred that CAS applicability
for all IDCs should be determined at the task or delivery order level
as proposed by the Board for multiple-award IDCs. Although the Board
was not persuaded by these
[[Page 56059]]
comments, it appreciates the breadth and depth of responses.
Illustrative examples of concerns raised are discussed in further
detail below.
Comment: Some comments argue that the Board's proposed approach of
treating single-award IDCs differently than multiple-award IDCs creates
inconsistencies. Some further posit the approach is contradictory to
the purpose of the CAS exemptions themselves, which are meant to reduce
the administrative burden on low-risk acquisitions. Others declared
this approach creates inequity in the treatment of single-award and
multiple-award IDCs.
Response: The Board does not consider the approach as inconsistent
or creating inequities. Single-award and multiple-award IDCs are
inherently different. Task or delivery orders awarded under each type
of IDC are awarded under different circumstances and present
differentiated levels of risk. Single-award IDCs establish a long-term
relationship without maintaining competition for task or delivery
orders. Single-award IDCs increase the potential for vendor lock-in,
further reducing competition and creating risk to the Government. This
type of transaction creates higher risk, not lower risk as some
comments suggested.
Comment: Some comments theorized the Board's proposed approach of
determining CAS applicability differently for single-award IDCs could
result in applying CAS to transactions that would otherwise be exempt
such as commercial products and commercial services. One comment
postulated that the application of CAS at the IDC level could result in
the application of CAS to tasks or delivery orders that would be exempt
if these same task or delivery orders were issued under a multiple-
award IDC or nearly all other contract scenarios. Another comment
declared the Board's proposed approach of determining CAS applicability
differently for single-award IDCs would result in application of CAS to
fixed-price contracts.
Response: The Board appreciates the concerns raised associated with
unique hybrid contract arrangements. As noted above, the Board is
addressing the application of CAS to hybrid contracts through this
rulemaking. In addition, the Board has added additional language to
clarify that an entire single-award IDC could be exempt under certain
circumstances.
Comment: A number of comments suggested the Board delay issuance of
a final rule, and conduct additional data analysis related to single-
award IDCs. This point was part of their overall objection to the
Board's proposed approach for single-award IDCs, and concerns that in
some cases the cumulative value of task or delivery orders on single-
award IDCs may not reach or could fall well below the ceiling value.
For example, it would be possible for a $35 million single-award IDC to
receive less than $35 million in tasks or delivery orders. Similarly, a
$100 million single-award IDC could receive less than $100 million in
tasks or delivery orders.
Response: The Board recognizes the potential exists for cases as
those described by comments and has carefully considered the likelihood
of these scenarios in both the NPRM and this final rule. These
scenarios under single-award IDCs are similar to the risk under
definitive contracts that may, in some cases, not have all options
exercised. The Board believes the risk, similar to most regulations
applying thresholds, is amplified at or near the threshold. However,
the Board believes this risk decreases at higher values and is
mitigated as a result of the increased thresholds finalized in this
rule. The Board's analysis also indicated that most of the entities
receiving single-award IDCs would otherwise be subject to CAS based on
definitive awards, which further mitigates this risk. The Board
appreciates the willingness of the industry associations to engage with
their members to collect, aggregate, and provide the Board with actual
data. This would be particularly beneficial for subcontracts where
currently the government-wide data is limited. Lastly, the Board notes
that this final rule does not preclude the Board from conducting
further analysis or additional rulemaking in the future as the impact
of the threshold increases take effect and additional information
becomes available or is provided to the Board.
VI. Expected Impact of the Rule
This final rule is deregulatory, reduces compliance costs,
simplifies CAS administration for existing contractors, and reduces
barriers to entry for nontraditional contractors, including new mid-
size entities who no longer qualify for a full exemption from CAS as
small businesses. This final rule increases the basic CAS applicability
threshold from the current $2.5 million to $35 million, and eliminates
the $7.5 million trigger contract concept. This simplifies the
determination of CAS applicability while dramatically lowering barriers
to entry on larger value contracts. Larger contract values will attract
additional private investment into the federal contracting marketplace
and increase competition as a result of the higher point of entry
without the need to establish more sophisticated compliance regimes
required to comply with CAS requirements.
This final rule further reduces the CAS regulatory footprint by
doubling the thresholds for full CAS coverage and Disclosure Statement
requirements from $50 million to $100 million. This significantly
reduce compliance burden and lowers barriers to entry into the federal
marketplace. The Board analyzed FPDS data for the five-year period
covering FYs 2020 through 2024 and estimates there have been 773
entities subject to full coverage and Disclosure Statement requirements
with aggregate total contract values during the period of $1.22
trillion. Applying the finalized threshold of $100 million to the data
set estimates a reduction in the number of entities to 564 while
maintaining $1.21 trillion of the dollars. This represents a nearly 30
percent reduction in entities that would be subject to full CAS
coverage and Disclosure Statement reporting with a less than one
percent loss of the dollars currently subject to these requirements.
The higher threshold for full coverage reduces the barriers to entry
for nontraditional contractors including contractors that have outgrown
their small business size status and no longer qualify for a full
exemption from CAS as small businesses as they may be more willing to
compete for larger contracts only subject to modified coverage.
This final rule codifies needed clarity on applying the CAS
thresholds and exemptions to IDCs. Having a clear rule avoids
unnecessary ambiguity, friction and contract disputes. Determining CAS
applicability for multiple-award IDCs at the task or delivery order
ensure CAS is not overapplied to lower-risk transactions. Similarly,
determining CAS applicability for single-award IDCs at the IDC level
ensures CAS is not underapplied to higher-risk transactions. This
lowers barriers to entry into the federal marketplace as potential
offerors now have clarity on whether or not they will be subject to CAS
and, if covered, whether full or modified.
The changes addressed in this final rule, both individually and in
conjunction with the Board's ongoing broader CAS to GAAP conformance
efforts simplifies CAS administration and reduces barriers to entry for
nontraditional contractors including new mid-size entities who no
longer qualify as small businesses. These actions are expected to
increase competition in federal contracting.
[[Page 56060]]
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
CAS Board rules do not impact small entities within the meaning of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Contracts and
subcontracts with small business concerns are exempted from all CAS
requirements.
VIII. Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14192
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action
under E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30,
1993. This rule is a deregulatory action under E.O. 14192 based on the
discussion in the ``Expected Impact of the Rule'' section.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act, Public Law 96-511, does not apply to
this final rule, because this rule imposes no paperwork burden on
offerors, affected contractors and subcontractors, or members of the
public which requires the approval of OMB under 44 U.S. U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR 9903
Government procurement, Cost accounting standards.
Kevin R. Rhodes,
Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and Chair, Cost
Accounting Standards Board.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Management
and Budget is amending Chapter 99 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:
PART 9903--CONTRACT COVERAGE
0
1. The authority citation for part 9903 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 111-350, 124 Stat. 3677, 41 U.S.C. 1502.
0
2. Amend section 9903.201-1 by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
9903.201-1 CAS applicability.
* * * * *
(b) The following categories of contracts and subcontracts are
exempt from all CAS requirements:
(1) Sealed bid contracts.
(2) Negotiated contracts and subcontracts not in excess of $35
million. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(2), an order issued by one
segment to another segment shall be treated as a subcontract.
(3) Contracts and subcontracts with small businesses.
(4) Contracts and subcontracts with foreign governments or their
agents or instrumentalities or, insofar as the requirements of CAS
other than 9904.401 and 9904.402 are concerned, any contract or
subcontract awarded to a foreign concern.
(5) Contracts and subcontracts (or the portion of a contract or
subcontract) in which the price is set by law or regulation.
(6) Contracts and subcontracts (or the portion of a contract or
subcontract) for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial
services.
(7) Subcontractors under the NATO PHM Ship program to be performed
outside the United States by a foreign concern.
(8) Firm-fixed-price contracts or subcontracts (or the portion of a
contract or subcontract) awarded on the basis of adequate price
competition without submission of certified cost or pricing data.
(c) Application of paragraph (b) exemptions to indefinite delivery
contracts shall be determined as follows:
(1) Multiple-award indefinite delivery contracts. The exemptions
listed in paragraph (b) shall be determined at the time of award of any
individual task or delivery order, and shall use the ceiling value of
the individual task or deliver order to determine if the monetary
threshold in (b)(2) has been met.
(2) Single-award indefinite delivery contracts. The exemptions
listed in paragraph (b) shall be determined at the time of award of the
indefinite delivery contract, and shall use the ceiling value of the
indefinite delivery contract to determine if the monetary threshold in
(b)(2) has been met. An entire single-award indefinite delivery
contract is exempt if it only provides for the ordering of commercial
products or commercial services, or only provides for ordering on a
firm-fixed-price basis and the indefinite delivery contract was awarded
on the basis of adequate price competition without the submission of
certified cost or pricing data.
0
3. Amend section 9903.201-2 by:
0
a. Removing ``$50 million'', wherever it appears, and adding, in its
place, the text ``$100 million''; and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (5).
The additions read as follows
9903.201-2 Types of CAS coverage.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Contractors or subcontractors subject to full CAS coverage
based on the $50 million threshold in effect prior to October 1, 2026
may transition the affected contracts or subcontracts to modified
coverage at the start of the business unit's next full cost accounting
period beginning on or after October 1, 2026, provided the business
unit:
(i) Has no unresolved CAS noncompliances; and
(ii) Does not meet the criteria for full CAS coverage using the
$100 million threshold in effect as of October 1, 2026.
(5) Contractors or subcontractors eligible for modified coverage
based on the criteria in paragraph (b)(4) of this section may use this
status for determining and certifying eligibility for modified coverage
for new solicitations and awards on or after October 1, 2026.
9903.201-3 [Amended]
0
4. Section 9903.201-3 is amended by removing ``$50 million'', wherever
it appears, and adding, in its place, the text ``$100 million''.
9903.201-4 [Amended]
0
5. Section 9903.201-4 is amended by removing ``$50 million'', wherever
it appears, and adding, in its place, the text ``$100 million''.
9903.201-5 [Amended]
0
6. Section 9903.201-5 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``$15
million'', and adding, in its place, the text ``$100 million''.
9903.202-1 [Amended]
0
7. Section 9903.202-1 is amended by:
0
a. Removing ``$50 million'', wherever it appears, and adding, in its
place, the text ``$100 million'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2) removing the text ``Any company which, together
with its segments,'', and adding, in its place, the text ``Any business
unit or segment,''.
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (c).
[FR Doc. 2026-17901 Filed 8-31-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 1, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.