Awardee's Reliance on Incumbent Employee Who Had Never Been Contacted Constitutes a Material Misrepresentation of Proposed Staff
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.07.20
In T3I Sols., LLC, GAO sustained a post-award protest challenging an Air Force award for courseware and training services finding that the awardee materially misrepresented its available workforce by proposing an incumbent employee without contacting that employee in advance of proposal submission or obtaining permission to include him as part of the awardee’s proposed team. The agency relied on the awardee’s representations regarding this employee and his qualifications in finding the awardee technically acceptable. GAO rejected the argument that there was no misrepresentation because the solicitation did not require commitment letters or employee representations. GAO further explained that the awardee’s “hope or belief” that it would be able to offer incumbent employees was not sufficient to represent commitment without more.
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
