CFC Rules That GAO Made Faulty OCI Analysis
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.21.10
In Turner Constr. Co. v. U.S., the Court of Federal Claims effectively reversed a decision by the GAO in which it had found an organizational conflict of interest resulting from intermittent acquisition negotiations between a subcontractor of the awardee and the parent of a company that assisted the Army Corps of Engineers in preparing the solicitation and evaluating proposals, negotiations that resulted in a post-award acquisition. The Army had followed the GAO recommendation and had disqualified the original awardee, Turner, but the Court concluded that the agency had erred by relying upon the GAO decision because that decision was irrational in light of the fact that GAO had applied the wrong standard of review and “[GAO] overturned the CO’s determination without highlighting any hard facts that indicate a sufficient alignment of interests" between the two companies.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
