New Pro-Competitive Restrictions On DoD Prototype Line Items and Options
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.18.10
On June 8, 2010, DoD issued an interim rule, intended to prevent competitively awarded contracts for new technology from becoming noncompetitive efforts long-term. The interim DFARS provisions require that contract line item purchases and contract options must be limited to the minimum number of initial or additional prototype items that will allow for timely competitive solicitation and award of a follow-on development or production contract for those items; that the term of the contract line item or contract option cannot be longer than 12 months; and that the dollar value of the work to be performed pursuant to the contract line item or contract option may not exceed three times the dollar value of the work previously performed under the contract or $20 million, whichever is less.
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].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
