GAO Finds Eight Days Insufficient for FPR Response
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.03.19
In a recently published decision, MCR Federal, LLC, GAO sustained a protest challenging the required response date for final proposal revisions in a task order procurement. Specifically, as part of its voluntary corrective action in response to an earlier post award protest by MCR, the agency issued MCR two “interchange notices” stating concerns related to experience levels and the contingent-hire nature of the majority of MCR’s proposed staffing, and permitting MCR two days to “either revise or confirm” its proposal. MCR again protested that the allotted two days were insufficient. In response, the agency extended the deadline to a total of eight days and then moved to dismiss. GAO declined to dismiss. Instead, it sustained MCR’s protest, finding eight days insufficient to provide MCR a fair opportunity to improve its proposal. Subsequently, GAO dismissed the agency’s reconsideration request and declined to recommend a specific time period for final proposal revisions.
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
