1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |B&P Costs Plus Injunctive Relief Permitted

B&P Costs Plus Injunctive Relief Permitted

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 02.24.09

The CFC in Alabama Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. U.S. (Feb. 3, 2009) rejected the government's argument that, once the court has granted injunctive relief, any request for bid preparation costs must be denied. The court ruled that the statute has no "choose one only" provision, and, when the contractor can show that B&P efforts were wasted due to agency error, it should receive reimbursement for them even though it also is awarded injunctive relief.

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