Crossing The Threshold
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.22.08
In a memorandum dated January 7, 2008, GSA's Senior Procurement Executive, David Drabkin, acknowledged that "currently there is no government-wide standard that addresses" whether the Trade Agreements Act (TAA) threshold (soon to rise to $194,000) applies at the order level or the contract value level for GSA multiple award contracts and is seeking to have all GSA Contracting Activities weigh in on the issue. Largely at the instigation of the IT industry which, back in the 1980s, wanted to be freed of counting component costs under the Buy American Act regulatory test for domestic end products, GSA has traditionally applied the TAA threshold to the total expected contract value for GSA Schedule contracts, but now given the Buy American Act exemption for commercial IT products contained in FAR 25.103(e), certain companies might well find it advantageous if the threshold were to be applied at the order level.
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
