Fundamental Shift in GSA Schedule Contract Pricing?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.08.08
The Multiple Award Schedule ("MAS") Advisory Panel, established in March 2008 to review pricing and price reduction provisions of the MAS program, has voted to recommend that GSA eliminate, on a gradual basis, the Price Reduction Clause for purchases of both products and services under the Schedule and adopt different and better mechanisms to achieve pricing transparency and competition at both the Schedule contract level and task/delivery order level. The Panel will present its recommendations to the GSA Administrator later this year.
-----------------------
Crowell & Moring Government Contracts Group is pleased to announce a second bullet point service that will focus exclusively on GSA Schedule contracting. GSA Schedule contracts have unique requirements, risks, and rewards, and the products and services purchased by federal and state governments through this contracting vehicle are expanding in scope and volume.
The GSA Schedule Bullet Points will alert you to:
- changes in the law and policy affecting GSA Schedule contracts
- new case law affecting GSA Schedule contracts
- seminars and publications offered by Crowell & Moring of interest to GSA Schedule contract holders
Please respond to this email if you would like to be included in this new bullet point service. Feel free to forward this invitation to others who might be interested in receiving our GSA Schedule Bullet Points.
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
