ASBCA’s FY 2023 Report – A Look at the Numbers
Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.08.23
On November 1, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) published its FY 2023 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, Central Intelligence Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency, other Defense agencies, Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentalities, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
According to this year’s report, contractors prevailed on 67% of the appeals decided on the merits, continuing a recent uptick in contractor success relative to the success rate of 53% in 2020 and 2021. The report also indicates that the Board’s alternative dispute resolution program remains highly successful, resolving 94% of appeals for which the parties completed ADR in FY 2023. Additionally, the Federal Circuit continued to see steady action from the ASBCA, docketing 14 new appeals beyond the 16 ASBCA matters already on appeal.
It is encouraging to see that the Board continues to have a high percentage of successful contractor appeals, but these statistics also show that the Board’s ADR program remains an important tool to successfully resolve disputes at the ASBCA.
We would like to thank Crowell's Senior Law Clerk Tyler Piper for his contribution to this alert.
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
