1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |A New Frontier: ASBCA Issues First Ever CPAR Decision on the Merits

A New Frontier: ASBCA Issues First Ever CPAR Decision on the Merits

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.24.19

On June 3, 2019, the ASBCA published its first ever decision addressing the merits of a CPAR evaluation – i.e., whether CPAR ratings were “fair and accurate” pursuant to FAR 42.15. In PROTEC GmbH (ASBCA Nos. 61161, 61162), the Board analyzed a CPAR’s factual assertions, compared them to the parties’ evidence of contract performance, and ultimately held that the CPAR was indeed “fair and accurate” due to the contractor’s noncompliance and poor performance. The Board also considered the contractor’s allegation of a procedural violation – i.e., that the Government failed to perform a CPAR review “at a level above the CO” as required by FAR 42.1503(d). The Board held that the contractor “lacked standing” to challenge the violation because it could not establish “prejudice,” i.e., that the CPAR rating would have been different without the violation.  

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].”...

View All Insights