1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |DCAA Issues Guidance On Revised Travel Cost Rule

DCAA Issues Guidance On Revised Travel Cost Rule

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 04.12.10

In response to the recent revision to the travel cost rule at FAR 31.205-46(b) and (c), which now limits allowable airfare costs to the lowest airfare available to the contractor, DCAA issued guidance on March 22, 2010, that identifies the "lowest airfare available" as that available to the contractor through direct negotiation with airlines or travel agents. The guidance advises that contractors' policies and procedures should provide for (a) documented, advance planning of travel that considers nonrefundable airfares and lower airfares negotiated with airlines, travel service providers, and credit card companies and (b) obtaining quotations from competing airlines or travel service providers.

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].”...