CAS Price Adjustments Limited To "Affected" Contracts
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.16.10
In Donley v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (June 10, 2010) (litigated by Crowell & Moring), the Federal Circuit affirmed the ASBCA's decision that a CAS-covered contract that was completely repriced with full disclosure after a change in accounting was not "affected" by the change and was not subject to price adjustment to reflect the impact of the change -- an argument that could also preclude price adjustments on task orders that are negotiated without reliance on cost accounting information under CAS-covered IDIQ contracts. The Court rejected the Justice Department's arguments that the repriced contract was "affected" by the change either because it had been modified rather than completely terminated and re-awarded or because the PCO's agreement to a new price constituted an impermissible "waiver" of the ACO's exclusive right to determine the impact of an accounting change.
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
