1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |GAO Teaches Course in Cost Realism 101

GAO Teaches Course in Cost Realism 101

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 06.06.07

In Magellan Health Services (Jan. 5, 2007, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/298912.pdf), GAO sustained a protest of HHS's award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for employee assistance program services when the agency's cost realism evaluation was unreasonable for several reasons, including a failure to account for insufficient levels of effort and labor rates in the awardee's cost proposal. After chiding the agency for not adjusting the awardee's cost proposal in accordance with the recommendations of the agency's own cost analyst, GAO found the adjusted costs were still lower than the protestor's but the smaller delta required the agency to take another look at its unsupported conclusion that the offerors were "technically equal."

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].”...