Proof Of Actual Bias Not Required To Show Conflict Of Interest
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.07.06
Using the rarely-invoked exception to its timeliness rules for protests raising issues of widespread interest to the procurement community, the GAO in Celadon Laboratories, Inc., (http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/ 298533.pdf, Nov. 1, 2006) upheld a protest challenging an HHS decision not to fund the protester’s Small Business Innovation Research proposal, finding a conflict of interest where the members of the Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) that evaluated (and rejected) the proposal were employed by, or funded by, firms that support a competing technology. Because of the specific conflict information protester brought to the agency’s attention during the evaluation, GAO not only rejected HHS’s reliance on its SEP’s self-certification but also, rejected the argument that actual bias must be shown and instead concluded that in cases in which the evaluator has a conflict, prejudice is presumed.
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
