1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CFC Has "Pre-Procurement" Protest Jurisdiction

CFC Has "Pre-Procurement" Protest Jurisdiction

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.29.08

In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit this week held in Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. U.S. (Aug. 28, 2008) that the Court of Federal Claims' bid protest jurisdiction over an alleged statutory or regulatory violation "in connection with a …proposed procurement" covered a challenge to an agency's decision to acquire software through an existing task order contract rather than by conducting a separate procurement for the software. GAO and the CFC had both dismissed the protest, but the Federal Circuit held that (a) a proposed procurement begins with the agency's process for determining its needs, and (b) that process had occurred here through an agency RFI market research effort, with the consequence that the subsequent agency decision to satisfy its needs through the existing task order contract was subject to the CFC protest jurisdiction over "proposed procurements."

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