1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Partial Termination Doesn't Allow Repricing In Commercial Services Contract

Partial Termination Doesn't Allow Repricing In Commercial Services Contract

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 10.26.04

In Individual Dev. Assocs., Inc. (Sept. 9, 2004), the ASBCA rejected a contractor’s claim that the partial termination for convenience of a contract for commercial educational services was improper, holding that various provisions showing the services had been offered only as an “inseparable whole” did not explicitly abrogate the government’s right to partially terminate the contract and, therefore, applied only to offer and acceptance or pricing, not termination. The Board further held that the applicable commercial termination provision (in contrast to the FAR’s standard termination for convenience clause) does not give contractors any right to an equitable adjustment when a partial termination increases the cost of unchanged work.

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