1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Defense Contractors Begin To Feel Effect Of DoD Requirement To Provide Unique Item Identifiers And Unit Cost Information

Defense Contractors Begin To Feel Effect Of DoD Requirement To Provide Unique Item Identifiers And Unit Cost Information

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.09.04

Many DoD contractors are recognizing the potential burden of a recent DoD clause compelling contractors to mark deliverable hardware valued in excess of $5,000 with a machine-readable, unique identification sufficient to last throughout the life of the hardware. The new DoD clause, included in solicitations issued starting January 1, 2004, can also require the same type of marking for subassemblies, components, and parts embedded within the hardware and further requires contractors to furnish the Government's unit acquisition cost, which in the case of fixed-price items is simply the unit price and in cost-type contracts is an estimate of the fully burdened unit cost at the time of delivery.

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].”...