GAO Rejects Agency’s Attempt to Award an FSS BPA Under Multiple Schedule Contracts
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.06.20
In NCS Technologies, Inc., GAO sustained a post-award protest challenging the Social Security Administration’s award of a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) under General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) No. 70 for IT equipment and installation services. The solicitation contemplated an award pursuant to FAR section 8.405-3 (which details FSS ordering procedures) against a vendor’s applicable FSS contract. The awardee’s quotation listed its existing FSS contract, which would end about 18 months earlier than the BPA to be awarded, and asserted it was in the process of obtaining a new FSS contract before award. Although the awardee received its new FSS contract before final quotation revisions for the BPA and the agency independently discovered it in GSA’s electronic elibrary system, the awardee never revised its quotation to identify the second FSS contract.
GAO concluded that award on the basis of the existing FSS contract violated FAR 8.405-3(d)(3)’s requirement that the FSS contract supporting a BPA must be in effect or carry the option of being extended through the entire life of the BPA. To obviate this problem, the agency argued that it had awarded the BPA against both of the awardee’s FSS contracts; GAO rejected this position as a factual matter, but also explained the agency’s argument was legally prohibited because the language of FAR 8.405-3 and GSA’s “Continuous Contracts” policy require that a BPA be awarded against only one FSS contract.
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
