GSA Clarifies the Future of Transactional Data Reporting in the Federal Supply Schedule Program
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.29.21
On April 27, 2021, the General Services Administration (GSA) announced its intention to not only continue but expand the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Transactional Data Reporting (TDR) pilot program, based on a third consecutive year of positive results.
Since 2016, GSA’s pilot has studied the potential for TDR to replace the various onerous requirements FSS contractors must currently fulfill to ensure the pricing offered to GSA customers is fair and reasonable, including the obligation to make Commercial Sales Practice disclosures and to track commercial pricing and discounts to the negotiated Basis of Award customer under the Price Reductions Clause. Although the TDR pilot program has been well-received by industry participants, the GSA Federal Acquisition Service’s silence on the program after extending it through FY2020 raised concern over the future of TDR, particularly in the face of published criticism of the TDR pilot program by the GSA Office of Inspector General. This announcement is therefore welcome news to many existing and future FSS contractors, for whom the future of TDR had been in some doubt over recent months. Contractors interested in TDR should reach out to their FSS contracting officer for additional guidance regarding the program’s planned expansion.
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
