1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Agency's "Mail Storm" Excuses Late Proposal

Agency's "Mail Storm" Excuses Late Proposal

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.31.11

Moving beyond faxes into the computer age, the Court of Federal Claims in Watterson Constr. Co. v. U.S. (Mar. 29, 2011) found that a contractor's late proposal should be excused when the delay was caused solely by a "mail storm" at the agency which overloaded and slowed down its servers. Judge Braden found that the late proposal, received by the contracting officer 4 minutes after the deadline, is excused because the proposal was on time as it had been received by the agency's servers timely; even if it had been late, the FAR's "government control" exception applied; and, in any event, the "mail storm" was an "emergency or unanticipated event" which entitled the contractor to a 1-day extension under the FAR.

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