1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Intentional Low Bid Is Not A False Claim

Intentional Low Bid Is Not A False Claim

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.26.04

In U.S. ex rel. Bettis v. Odebrecht Contractors of Cal. (Jan. 28, 2004), the D.C. federal district court granted summary judgment in the contractor's favor, rejecting numerous False Claims Act allegations, including, most notably, the relator’s theory that the contractor had fraudulently induced the government to enter into a construction contract by intentionally underbidding for the project, while allegedly planning to submit false changes claims during performance. While expressly recognizing that false estimates could be the basis of an actionable false claim, the court ruled that the mere knowing submission of an unreasonably low bid (at least in the absence of any subsequent illegitimate request for adjustment) did not, by itself, cause the government to pay out funds to which the contractor was not entitled.

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