Size Matters: Past Performance Rating Not Supported by Small Task Orders
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.13.15
In sustaining the contractor's protest filed by C&M against the Air Force's $110 million award for F-15 support services, GAO held that the agency erred by (1) giving the awardee the highest past performance rating for prior delivery orders worth "only approximately 0.14 percent of the estimated value of the effort required by the RFP" and (2) failing to document how the awardee's other "$5.36 billion portfolio" bore any relevance to the services being solicited. In rejecting the agency's reliance upon tiny delivery orders and post hoc litigation arguments, GAO relied heavily upon its 2009 precedent in Health Net Fed. Services, LLC (also a C&M case), in which the agency attempted to defend its past performance evaluation based upon the awardee's general industry experience without any discussion of how that performance related to the services specified under the RFP.
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
