1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Federal Circuit Holds New Task Order Contract Awards Can Be Protested Without Full Procurement

Federal Circuit Holds New Task Order Contract Awards Can Be Protested Without Full Procurement

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.14.16

In Coast Professional, Inc. v. U.S. (July 12, 2016), the Federal Circuit revived bid protests (including that of the lead appellant, represented by Crowell & Moring) challenging task order contract awards that had previously been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the CFC. The court held that, because the appellants were challenging the “proposed award or the award” of new task orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts, which challenges fall squarely within the CFC’s statutory bid protest jurisdiction, it was irrelevant whether the new task orders, which were in the form of award-term extensions, shared some functional similarities to options or originated out of existing contracts rather than being the subject of entirely separate procurements.

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