Nothing to Discuss: COFC Denies Protest to Exchanges with Offerors in Massive FirstNet Procurement
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.06.17
In a decision released publicly on March 31, 2017, the Court of Federal Claims denied a protest challenging a competitive range determination that left AT&T, represented by C&M, as the last remaining contender to win a 25-year contract to build and operate a nationwide public safety broadband network. The network will consolidate public safety use of the radio spectrum and prioritize first responders in times of crisis, while granting AT&T claim over large amounts of unused spectrum, as well as $6.5 billion for construction costs. The Court held, among other things, that the relatively extensive exchanges between the offerors and the agency before the competitive range determination was made were “communications,” not “discussions,” under the FAR because the agency neither intended to accept, nor permitted, proposal revisions. The Court also held that the government reasonably rejected the protester’s proposal where it coupled unacceptable financial risk with a questionable business model.
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
