Section 809 Panel Weighs in on Ways to Modernize the Board of Contract Appeals
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.01.19
In the Section 809 Panel’s third and final volume of its report, the panel urged Congress to require contractors and contracting officers to use electronic case management system (ECMS) for the Boards of Contract Appeals and to permit the boards to collect user fees to pay for the upkeep of the system. The panel used the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) as a case study citing to voluminous records and an uptick in cases since 2009 as a reason to require the use of an ECMS.
The panel also urged Congress to increase the thresholds for accelerated and expedited appeals before the Board of Contract Appeals. The panel noted that the thresholds established in the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 were amended once in 1994 and have not been amended since. The panel recommends the following increased thresholds: (1) $250,000 threshold for accelerated procedures for all businesses (previously $100,000); and (2) $150,000 threshold for expedited procedures (previously $50,000) or $250,000 for small business concerns (previously $150,000). The time period for the boards to issue decisions under the accelerated and expedited procedures would remain unchanged. The panel recommended requiring threshold review every five years to mirror the requirement for other acquisition-related 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
