Show Me the Value: DFARS Proposes Rule on Market Research and Value-Based Price Reasonableness Determination
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.04.19
On September 26, 2019, the DoD issued a proposed rule to implement Sections 871 and 872 of the NDAA for FY 2017, both of which address price reasonableness when acquiring commercial items.
To implement Section 871, the proposed rule revises DFARS 212.209(a) to reflect Section 871’s focus that agencies must conduct market research to support the determination of price reasonableness for commercial items (the current version simply indicates that market research must be used, where appropriate, to inform price reasonableness determinations). The proposed rule also would add a provision directing contracting officers to use the information submitted under DFARS 234.7002(d) when acquiring major weapon systems as commercial items; or, in the case of other items, other relevant information as described in DFARS 212.209.
To implement Section 872, the proposed rule would revise DFARS subpart 234.70, which addresses the acquisition of major weapon systems as commercial items, by adding a new paragraph permitting offerors to submit information or analysis relating to the value of a commercial item, to aid in the determination of the reasonableness of the item’s price. Relatedly, the proposed rule adds the definition of “value analysis” to clarify that such reasonableness determination is focused on ensuring optimum value based on objective evaluation of the function of the product and its related costs.
Comments are due on or before November 25, 2019.
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].”
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
