1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Weeding Out Bad Contractors -- The Government's Push to Enhance its Suspension and Debarment Function

Weeding Out Bad Contractors -- The Government's Push to Enhance its Suspension and Debarment Function

Client Alert | 1 min read | 11.17.11

On November 15, 2011, the head of OMB, Jacob Lew, issued a memorandum requiring the heads of executive departments and agencies to increase management attention on suspension and debarment, consistent with the policies and procedures in the FAR. On the heels of the OMB memorandum, the U.S. Senate's Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs convened hearings on November 16 on "Weeding Out Bad Contractors," which featured testimony from, among others, Daniel Gordon, the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy; David Sims, the Chair of the ISDC; and Steven Shaw, the Air Force’s debarment and suspension official.

For further analysis and links to the OMB Memo and Congressional testimony, click here for a related blog post by Daniel Forman.

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].”...