In our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California.
This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit.
The IFR changed more than certification
The IFR fundamentally reworked the DBE and ACDBE framework. Specifically, the rule eliminated race- and sex-based presumptions of social and economic disadvantage, required an individualized showing for all applicants, mandated a one-time nationwide reevaluation of existing certifications, and suspended contract goals and the counting of DBE and ACDBE participation toward those goals until reevaluations are complete.[1]
That combination is what makes the IFR so disruptive in practice. The IFR reaches both eligibility and project administration. It changes how firms prove DBE status, and it changes how DOT funding recipients and contractors handle projects that were awarded, advertised, or moving toward award during the transition.
The eligibility standard has been narrowed
Eligibility to be certified as a DBE based on sex or race has been the standard since the DBE program’s inception in 1983 under President Ronald Reagan. Before the IFR, applicants could rely on regulatory presumptions tied to race or sex. For example, applicants who were women or members of certain racial or ethnic groups could qualify based on a rebuttable presumption of social and economic disadvantage rather than an individualized showing.[2] That framework is gone.
Under the IFR, those presumptions have been eliminated, and each applicant must now establish social and economic disadvantage through a case-by-case showing supported by a Personal Narrative, a current Personal Net Worth Statement, and any other financial documentation the owner considers relevant.[3] The applicant must identify specific hardships, systemic barriers, or denied opportunities and explain how those circumstances caused economic harm, including the type and magnitude of the harm.[4]
The IFR does not reduce “denied opportunities” or “economic harm” to a rigid checklist. But DOT’s guidance indicates that certifiers are expected to evaluate the evidence holistically, including potentially relevant considerations relating to education, employment, and business history.[5]
For contractors, the point is simple: reevaluation is not a ministerial renewal exercise. It takes time, documentation, and individualized proof. That reality helps explain why the IFR immediately affected not just certification, but also the administration of active and pending federally funded projects.
The goal-setting freeze is what changes project administration
The IFR’s project-level impact flows from one core point: DOT has suspended contract goal setting and the counting of participation toward goals until reevaluation is complete. Thus, during the reevaluation period, DBE and ACDBE goals cannot be set or counted the way they were before.[6]
That means contractors are not just dealing with a new certification standard. They are dealing with a temporary change in how federally funded DOT and airport work is procured and administered. That is why the IFR has created so much confusion for contractors.
Current contracts generally stay in place, but DBE goals are paused
The IFR does not require modification of contracts executed before October 3, 2025. However, DBE participation on those contracts may not be counted toward the contract goal or the recipient’s overall goal until the relevant Unified Certification Program (UCP) completes reevaluation.[7]
That is an important distinction. Existing contracts may remain in place, even while the goal-credit mechanics are effectively frozen, though several important obligations and protections, including prompt-payment requirements, continue during this period. However, similar issues can arise for contracts executed after October 3, 2025 during the reevaluation period, because goal setting and counting remain suspended under the IFR. Prime contractors may not terminate a DBE or reduce its scope without prior written consent from the recipient and a showing of good cause. And the IFR does not itself disturb existing joint venture or subcontracting agreements.[8] Thus, the key question is not simply the date of contract execution, but whether the contract was awarded or is being performed while goal setting and counting remain suspended under the IFR.
So the better way to think about existing contracts is this: the IFR paused counting, not contract administration as a whole.
Advertised but not yet bid projects need to be updated
The IFR has a more immediate effect on projects still moving through the solicitation process.
If a contract has been advertised but bids had not yet opened, the DOT funding recipient (often a state or local transportation agency) must amend the advertisement to remove the DBE contract goal.[9]
The takeaway is straightforward: do not assume the DBE goal in an earlier version of the solicitation is still operative. Check the latest amendment package, addenda, and bid instructions. On a live pursuit, older goal language may no longer reflect the project’s actual compliance posture, which can affect pricing, staffing, team composition, and proposal strategy. A contractor working from stale solicitation assumptions may be solving for a compliance requirement that no longer exists in the same form.
Projects with bids opened but no award yet face a different problem
The next category is projects where bids have opened, but award has not yet been made.
In that scenario, DOT funding recipients must zero out the DBE goal before contract award—that is, they must treat the contract as having no DBE goal for purposes of award. DOT also indicated that recipients may amend those procurements without readvertising, although each recipient still must assess whether state law requires a different course.[10]
This is where the IFR becomes especially project-specific. Federal guidance may permit a path forward, but that does not eliminate state procurement rules, local bidding requirements, or protest risk. For contractors, that means two things. First, bids may have been prepared under assumptions that no longer hold. Second, the owner’s chosen fix may itself become a source of dispute if state law points in another direction.
Design-build and airport projects deserve special attention
The IFR is not limited to traditional infrastructure projects or traditional delivery methods.
For design-build projects, if DBE subcontracts were signed before October 3, 2025, those agreements may proceed, and the DBE firms may not be terminated except under the same consent-and-good-cause rule that applies more generally.[11]
That matters because design-build teams often lock in critical relationships earlier than in design-bid-build projects and may be more sensitive to changes in scope, trade allocation, and pursuit structure.
Airport projects also sit squarely within the IFR’s reach. The rule applies to both DBE and ACDBE programs, which means federally funded airport work faces the same transition issues: reevaluation, suspended goals, and uncertainty about when ordinary counting and program administration will resume.[12]
The IFR did not erase every existing obligation
Because the IFR has been so disruptive, it is worth being clear about what it did not do. To summarize:
The IFR did not automatically require modification of every contract executed before October 3, 2025.
The IFR did not automatically unwind existing subcontracts or joint ventures.
The IFR did not eliminate prompt-payment obligations.
The IFR did not eliminate termination protections for DBE subcontractors.
And the IFR did not eliminate the need to evaluate state-law procurement requirements before deciding whether amendment without readvertising is enough.[13]
That is an important practical check. The IFR disrupted the old DBE framework, but it did not create a blank slate.
At the same time, contractors should not assume the current suspension of DBE goals will remain static. The present regime is transitional and still subject to reevaluation, recertification, and project-specific implementation decisions. General contractors should continue monitoring these developments closely, because the volatility and uncertainty of the current goal-suspension framework can still affect bidding, contract administration, and project closeout.[14]
What contractors and owners should be doing now
The best response to the IFR is not broad theorizing. It is project sorting.
For current contracts, confirm that project teams understand the difference between keeping the contract in place and counting participation toward goals.
For active procurements, verify whether DBE goals have been removed or zeroed out through amendments, addenda, or award documents.
For design-build teams and airport projects, review subcontract structures and existing commitments carefully before making changes based on assumptions about the IFR.
For owners and recipients, do not stop at the federal guidance. Check the applicable state-law procurement overlay before deciding how to revise or award a project.
And for all participants, avoid assuming that prior certification status or directory listings still answer the operational questions that matter most during reevaluation. The transition is already creating uncertainty, delay, and administrative burden while jurisdictions work through the reevaluation process.[15]
The bigger takeaway
The IFR is not a one-time certification development. It is an ongoing project-delivery issue.
That is why California was a useful place to start in our first post. California’s April 16 reevaluation deadline gives the transition a concrete timetable. But the broader lesson is national: contractors should expect the IFR to affect live projects and pending procurements differently depending on where a contract sits in the pipeline.
Conclusion
The IFR did not just change who qualifies as a DBE or ACDBE. It changed how federally funded DOT and airport projects must be handled while reevaluation is underway.
For current contracts, that means existing agreements may continue even while counting is paused and key protections remain in place. For projects still in the bid pipeline, it means recipients and contractors need to pay close attention to whether goals have been removed, zeroed out, or otherwise revised to reflect the new framework. And for everyone involved, it means old assumptions about DBE administration are no longer enough.
The IFR has not erased DBE issues from federally funded transportation work. It has made them more procedural, more project-specific, and, for many contract
[1] Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in Airport Concessions Program Implementation Modifications, 90 Fed. Reg. 47,969, 47,971–73 (Oct. 3, 2025) (codified at 49 C.F.R. §§ 26.51(h), 26.55(i), 26.67(a), 26.111); see also Alexandra G. Farone & Janet K. Meub, Prove It: Department of Transportation’s DBE Program Ceases Presumption of Disadvantaged Status for Women- and Minority-Owned Businesses, Nat’l L. Rev. (Oct. 14, 2025).
[2] See, e.g., 13 C.F.R. § 124.103(b)(1) (2025).
[3] Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in Airport Concessions Program Implementation Modifications, Note 1, supra, at 47,982 (codified at 49 C.F.R. § 26.67(a)(1)–(3)).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Official Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in Airport Concessions Program Implementation Modifications, October 3, 2025, Interim Final Rule 8–9 (updated Dec. 1, 2025).
[6] Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in Airport Concessions Program Implementation Modifications, Note 1, supra, at 47,972–74, 47,982 (codified at 49 C.F.R. §§ 23.25(h), 23.53(g), 23.55(m), 26.47(e), 26.51(h), 26.55(i), 26.111); see also Official Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Note 5, supra, at 2, 10-11.
[7] Official Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Note 5, supra, at 2-3; see also Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in Airport Concessions Program Implementation Modifications, Note 1, supra, at 47,973, 47,982 (codified at 49 C.F.R. §§ 26.55(i), 26.111).
[8] Official Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Note 5, supra, at 3-5.
[9] Id. at 5; see also Office of the Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of Transp., DBE IFR Guidance 3–4 (Oct. 3, 2025).
[10] Official Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Note 5, supra, at 2–3 (updated Dec. 1, 2025); see also Office of the Secretary, U.S. Dep’t of Transp., DBE IFR Guidance 4 (Oct. 3, 2025).
[11] Official Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Note 5, supra, at 3-4.
[12] Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in Airport Concessions Program Implementation Modifications, Note 1, supra, at 47,973–74, 47,977–79 (codified at 49 C.F.R. pt. 23);; see also Official Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Note 5, supra.
[13] Official Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Note 5, supra., at 2-5.
[14] Id. at 2, 6–10; see also Virginia Trunkes, Navigating the DOT’s Interim Final Rule on DBE Certification Standards – and Preparing for the (Bumpy) Road Ahead, Nat’l L. Rev. (Oct. 7, 2025).
[15] Official Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), Note 5, supra, at 6-9.