Clear as Day: ASBCA Finds No Ambiguity in Contract
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.15.17
In Appeal of Family Entertainment Services, the Board denied a contractor’s claim that the government improperly reduced the amount that it paid under a military base maintenance contract. The contractor claimed, in part, that the parties’ contract was ambiguous as to the definition of the word “days” during the period of performance (PoP), and argued that the Board should read the term “days” to mean “work days” rather than “calendar days.” The Board rejected the contractor’s argument, noting that the contract incorporated FAR 52.212-4, which incorporates the FAR 2.101 definition defining “day” as “unless otherwise specified, a calendar day.” The Board cited long-standing Federal Circuit precedent that a differing opinion of contract terms alone does not give rise to an ambiguity, a reminder to contractors to carefully scrutinize the performance requirements in their contracts, including the PoP and any terms defined by the FAR.
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
