CAS Coverage And Indirect Costs
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.31.06
A previous Bullet Point addressed a recent decision, AM General LLC, in which the ASBCA decided that a contract awarded pursuant to a partial waiver of the Truth in Negotiations Act was nevertheless covered by the Cost Accounting Standards and adopted a “benefit” test for determining the homogeneity of indirect cost pools under CAS 418. In their article entitled “Practitioner's Comment: “Benefit” Test for CAS 418 Homogeneity,” published in the March 8, 2006, Thomson West The Government Contractor (http://www.crowell.com/pdf/newsroom/GovtContractor_March06.pdf), Terry Albertson and Linda Bruggeman discuss both the legal and practical problems with the Board's CAS 418 analysis as well as the legal issues presented by the CAS Board's lengthy delay in implementing the CAS exemptions in FASA and FARA.
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
