1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Bad Estimates Support Constructive Change Without Proof of Government Negligence

Bad Estimates Support Constructive Change Without Proof of Government Negligence

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 07.10.13

In IAP World Servs., Inc. v. Dep't of Treasury (June 20, 2013), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals held the government liable when a maintenance contractor's service calls took longer to perform than calls in historical data furnished to prospective offerors and the government had said the historical data were a "reasonable basis" for firm-fixed-price proposals. Finding that the contractor had relied on the faulty data to price its proposal and that the contractor need not prove government negligence, the CBCA decided that the longer service calls were a constructive change to the contract and awarded the contractor its increased costs of performance.


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