OMB Seeks to Jettison Defense CAS Board and De-Couple CAS and TINA
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.07.19
In late April, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent a letter to Congress containing a number of legislative proposals to streamline and improve the federal acquisition process for inclusion in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Two of those proposals relate to the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). The first calls for the disestablishment of the Defense CAS Board—which was a product of the FY 2017 NDAA—to avoid creating a more complicated CAS regulatory framework. The second would de-link the monetary threshold for CAS from the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data threshold (formerly known as TINA), and increase the basic threshold for CAS applicability from $2 million to $15 million. These are two recommendations that the Section 809 Panel made in Volume II of its Report (the CAS Board is also considering repeal of the provisions establishing the Defense CAS Board and increasing the CAS applicability thresholds).
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
