1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |"Piggy-Backer" Falls at GAO

"Piggy-Backer" Falls at GAO

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.01.05

In VSE Corp; Johnson Controls World Svs. Inc. (May 23, 2005 http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2904523.pdf), GAO held that Johnson Controls could not circumvent GAO's strict timeliness rules by "piggy-backing" an untimely protest of a sole source award by the Department of Homeland Security onto a timely protest previously filed by VSE. Nonetheless, GAO found the sole source bridge construction contract was improper because DHS failed to prepare a required written justification and approval, and it expressly held that Johnson Controls, as well as VSE, must be given an opportunity to demonstrate an ability to satisfy DHS' requirement.

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].”...