1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |LOC Clause Applies To Each Delivery Order, Not Full Contract

LOC Clause Applies To Each Delivery Order, Not Full Contract

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.30.04

In Analysas Corp. (May 12, 2004), the ASBCA held that, under an indefinite quantity cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for services, the contract’s limitation of cost (“LOC”) clause (which required the contractor to give notice if its costs were expected to exceed 75% of the "estimated cost specified in the Schedule") allowed the government to deny payments to a contractor for costs it incurred in excess of the estimated cost for each delivery order, even though the contractor had not yet exceeded 75% of the maximum total labor hours specified "in the Schedule" for the full contract. The Board reasoned that the contract lacked the “critical provision” of a specific dollar figure "in the Schedule" for the total estimated contract cost, instead allowing for later addition of estimated costs for each delivery order that the government issued.

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