Minnesota State Contractors Must Use New MDHR Two-Part Annual Compliance Report Beginning July 1
In March 2025, the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) updated its annual compliance report (ACR) without substantive changes. Two months later, the MDHR has issued a new two-part ACR with significant updates. The new ACR now includes two parts: “Part 1: Year in Review Narrative,” and “Part 2: Data Analysis.” Minnesota contractors must begin using the new two-part ACR effective July 1, 2025. Additionally, the ACR reporting period options now differ based on the date the contractor’s MDHR workforce certificate of compliance was approved.
Quick Hits
Starting July 1, 2025, Minnesota contractors must use the updated two-part annual compliance report (ACR) which includes a year in review narrative and data analysis sections.
The new ACR requires contractors to provide detailed narratives on their compliance efforts and corrective actions, along with structured data reporting on employee movements and training.
Contractors with workforce certificates issued on or after July 1, 2025, can choose from four different reporting periods for their ACR, ending up to three months prior to the certificate approval date.
Part 1: Year in Review Narrative
Section 1: Company Information
This section basically solicits the same information as was requested in the previous ACR. The differences include:
Clarification that the company name must be the name as registered with the Minnesota secretary of state.
The mailing address (if different from physical address) is now also requested.
The job title and email address of the person who prepared the ACR is now requested.
The email address of the senior management official who reviewed the ACR is now requested.
Section 2: Narrative on Good Faith Efforts
In the previous ACR, contractors were required to complete an affirmative action plan (AAP) progress report narrative where they would explain their good faith efforts and action steps taken to address areas of minority and/or female underutilization or ensure continued utilization levels. The new narrative section is more structured and requires the contractor to answer two questions:
“In the past year, we meaningfully implemented our company’s Compliance Plan in the following ways:
In the past year, we meaningfully implemented our company’s Equal Opportunity Statement in the following ways:”
Section 3: Good Faith Efforts for All Companies
In this section, contractors are required to identify the areas in which they determined they were not in compliance with MDHR requirements and detail the corrective action taken in the prior year with respect to their hiring process, current employees, and workplace.
Section 4: Additional Good Faith Efforts for Construction Contractors Only
Construction contractors are required to answer additional questions concerning prime contracts awarded in the prior twelve months and whether timely preconstruction and/or monthly reports were submitted to MDHR. They must also identify areas where they were out of compliance concerning their hiring process, current employees, and workplace, and the corrective action taken to address identified deficiencies.
Part 2: Data Analysis
Contractors still report:
“Total Employees – Beginning of Reporting Period
Total Applicants
Total Hires
Applicants Interviewed
Applicants Tested
Employees Promoted – From
Employees Promoted – To
Employees Demoted – From
Employees Demoted – To
Employees Terminated
Total Current Employees”
The differences involve the definitions of employees transferred out and in, and employees trained. In the prior ACR, transfers were defined as movements out of and into job groups. In the new ACR, the definition of transfers is clarified to include movements out of or into the company’s facilities that are included in the ACR.
The old ACR requested data on all employees who received company-sponsored training. The new ACR clarifies that contractors are to report all employees who received company-sponsored equal employment opportunity (EEO) training during the reporting period.
Contractors are still required to complete an availability and underutilization analysis (AUA). The instructions for the new AUA require contractors to use 2018 census data and emphasize that contractors are not to adopt quotas. Likewise, the new AUA form no longer includes annual percentage goals.
Change to ACR Reporting Period
Contractors whose workforce certificates are issued before July 1, 2025, may use data up to two months prior to their certificate approval date to complete their ACRs. For example, if a contractor’s certificate was issued on June 1, 2024, the ACR reporting period may be one of the following three periods:
June 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025
May 1, 2024 – April 30, 2025
April 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025
Contractors whose certificate is issued July 1, 2025, or later, may use reporting periods that end up to three months prior to their certificate approval date. For example, a contractor whose certificate is issued July 15, 2025, may use the following four reporting periods to complete the ACR:
July 15, 2025 – July 14, 2026
June 15, 2025 – June 14, 2026
May 15, 2025 – May 14, 2026
April 15, 2025 – April 14, 2026
Conclusion
Beginning July 1, 2025, Minnesota contractors holding an active workforce certificate of compliance must begin using MDHR’s new two-part annual compliance report, which requires a more comprehensive narrative to identify and address compliance deficiencies. Likewise, the definitions and instructions included in the data analysis section of the new ACR help to clarify contractors’ reporting obligations with respect to employee transfers and employees trained, and now require use of 2018 census data for the preparation of the availability and underutilization analysis. Finally, when completing the ACR, contractors whose certificate is issued July 1, 2025, or later, may use a twelve-month reporting period that matches the certification period dates or ends exactly one, two, or three months before the certificate approval date.
CFPB and Pawn Store Operator to Settle MLA Suit
On May 30, the CFPB and a national pawn store operator filed a joint status report in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas announcing that they have reached an agreement to resolve a 2021 Bureau lawsuit alleging violations of the Military Lending Act (MLA) and a 2013 CFPB consent order. The suit alleged that the pawn store operator and its subsidiary issued thousands of high-interest loans to active-duty servicemembers and their families in violation of federal law.
In its complaint, the CFPB alleges that the company:
Charged servicemembers unlawful interest rates. The company allegedly made over 3,600 pawn loans to covered borrowers with MAPRs exceeding the MLA’s 36% cap, in some cases reaching over 200%.
Imposed prohibited arbitration clauses. Loan agreements allegedly included mandatory arbitration clauses, in violation of the MLA’s express restrictions.
Failed to provide required loan disclosures. The company allegedly failed to deliver required MLA disclosures, including MAPR statements, at the time of the transaction.
Violated a 2013 CFPB consent order. The company, as a successor to a previously sanctioned entity, allegedly continued making illegal loans in violation of the 2013 consent order. The order required more than $14 million in consumer refunds and a $5 million civil penalty, and mandated that the company cease alleged misconduct targeting military families and improve MLA compliance.
While the exact terms of the new settlement have not yet been disclosed, the CFPB had previously sought injunctive relief, rescission of void contracts, consumer redress, civil money penalties, and corrections to consumer credit reports.
Putting It Into Practice: Although the Bureau has scaled back certain enforcement actions in recent months, enforcement of MLA violations continues to be a priority for the current administration (previously discussed here and here). Lenders offering consumer credit to servicemembers should continue to review and strengthen their MLA compliance protocols to ensure compliance.
Listen to this post
By Any Other Name: Rules Limiting Alternative Pleading in Professional Liability Actions
Most states allow former clients to assert claims against a licensed professional in either tort or contract. The stereotypical tort claim alleges that the professional failed to act in accordance with the standards expected by members of the profession, resulting in damages to the client. The stereotypical contract claim alleges that the professional was given a specific instruction and their failure to act in accordance with that instruction resulted in damages to the client. In a professional liability claim, it is not unusual to see multiple causes of action pleading professional failures, but in many circumstances case law has concluded that there is only one “real” appropriate claim.
In the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, the statute of limitations period for a contract claim is longer than the period for a tort claim. Former clients who fail to file a timely malpractice case, or those wishing to supplement a claim of delay in discovering an allegedly negligent act, will often allege a contract claim in the alternative. Often the allegation is a purported failure to conform to a professional standard of care, which constitutes a breach of the contract for professional services. In this way, a former client-plaintiff will try to avail themselves of a longer statute of limitations to assert a claim.
The ability of a plaintiff to allege a professional negligence claim as a contract (or vice-versa) may be limited by state-specific doctrines that seek to preserve the separation between tort and contract theories. These doctrines vary in both name and application but share a common goal of differentiating between tort and contract by examining the nature of the claim and the source of the duties giving rise to the claim. This distinction can be the difference between a malpractice claim going to trial or being dismissed as a matter of law. It is therefore important to be aware of whether and how your particular jurisdiction draws the line between claims of professional negligence, claims for breach of a contract, and various alternative legal bases to recover damages from a professional for services rendered.
Montana’s Gravamen Test
In Montana, the statute of limitations for a breach of a written contract is eight (8) years while a breach of an oral contract must be commenced within five (5) years. MCA §27-2-202(1); MCA §27-2-202(2). By contrast, the statute of limitations for a negligence claim in Montana is three (3) years. MCA §27-2-204(1). Montana recognizes a case may involve both breach of contract and negligence claims, but plaintiffs are prohibited from recasting a tort claim into a contract claim solely to take advantage of the longer statute of limitations. Instead, Montana has adopted the Gravamen Test to determine the nature of the claim.
In Montana, the label given to the claim by the plaintiff does not control which statute of limitations applies. Northern Montana Hosp. v. Knight, 248 Mont. 310, 315, 811 P.2d 1276, 1278-79 (1991); Billings Clinic v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., 244 Mont. 324, 341, 797 P.2d 899, 910 (1990). The statute of limitations for contract claims applies only if the alleged breach of a specific provision in a contract provides the basis of the plaintiff’s claims. Collection Professionals, Inc. v. Halpin, 2009 Mont. Dist. LEXIS 688, 3-5. If the plaintiff claims breach of a legal duty imposed by law that arises during the performance of the contract, the claim is governed by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to negligence actions. Northern Montana, 248 Mont. at 315, 811 P.2d at 1278-79. If doubt exists as to the gravamen of the action, the longer statute of limitations will apply. Billings Clinic., 244 Mont. at 341.
Pennsylvania’s Gist of the Action Doctrine
In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract action is four (4) years. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5525(a)(1). The statute of limitations for a claim sounding in professional negligence is two (2) years. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524(7). Under Pennsylvania’s “gist of the action” doctrine, a party is precluded from recasting breach of contract claims as actions sounding in tort. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 106A.3d 48, 60 (Pa.2014); Etoll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc., 811 A.2d 10, 14 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clarified this doctrine, holding that the label placed on the claim does not control – the operative question is whether the duty breached is one created by the parties in contract (as in a specific instruction from the client to the professional) or a broader social duty imposed on all practitioners (a standard of care). Bruno, 106 A.3d at 68; Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Pittsburgh & West Va. R.R., 101 F.Supp.3d. 497, 534 (W.D. Pa. 2015); see also Phico Ins. Co. v. Presbyterian Med. Servs. Corp., 444 Pa. Super. 221, 663 A.2d 753, 757 (1995) (citing Bash v. Bell Telephone Co., 411 Pa. Super. 347, 601 A.2d 830 (Pa. Super. 1992) (“the important difference between contract and tort actions is that the latter lies from the breach of duties imposed as a matter of social policy while the former lie for the breach of duties imposed by mutual consensus.”); accord Simons v. Royer Cooper Cohen Braunfeld, LLC, 587 F.Supp.3d 209 E.D.Pa. 2022) (gist of the action doctrine prohibits contract claim based upon alleged failure to comport to professional standard of care).
The Texas Anti-Fracturing Rule
In Texas the statute of limitations for a claim for professional negligence is two (2) years and the statute of limitations for claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud is four (4) years. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§16.003 [2 year]; §§16.004 [4 year].
In a recent suit against an accounting firm, the Texas Supreme Court agreed that the state’s courts of appeals’ application of the Anti-Fracturing Rule applied. The Anti-Fracturing Rule limits plaintiffs’ attempts “to artfully recast a professional negligence allegation as something more – such as fraud or breach of fiduciary duty – to avoid a litigation hurdle such as the statute of limitations.” Pitts v Rivas, 2025 Tex. LEXIS 131 1 (Tex. Feb. 21, 2025). The Court cautioned that it is the “gravamen of the facts alleged” that must be examined closely rather than the “labels chosen by the plaintiff.” Id. at 7. If the essence, “crux or gravamen of the plaintiff’s claim is a complaint about the quality of professional services provided by a defendant, then the claim will be treated as one for professional negligence even if the petition also attempts to repackage the allegations under the banner of additional claims.” Id. To survive application of the rule, a plaintiff needs to plead facts that extend beyond the scope of what has traditionally been considered a professional negligence claim. Id. at 7.
Conclusion
The question of whether a case involves an allegation of a failure to observe a general professional duty or a specific instruction can control whether or not a case is time-barred. Many courts apply the same analysis to determine the “gravamen” of a claim and the applicable statute of limitations, though they refer to this test by different names. It is important to look beyond the text of an opposing party’s pleadings and examine the nature of the claims asserted. Failing to do so may leave you litigating claims that are otherwise time-barred and that may be removable from suit under proper motions to dismiss.
Trump Administration Proposes Elimination of OFCCP, Launches New Opinion Letter Program for Labor Guidance
The Trump administration plans to completely eliminate the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and transfer the agency’s remaining authority to enforce protections in federal contractors for veterans and workers with disabilities to other agencies, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) recent budget document. Meanwhile, the DOL has announced the launch of its “opinion letter program” that could provide employers with additional guidance on the administration’s revamp of the department and new enforcement priorities.
Quick Hits
The Trump administration’s budget proposal seeks to eliminate the OFCCP and transfer enforcement responsibilities for veterans and disability protections to other agencies.
Amid the administration’s new labor policies, the DOL has launched an opinion letter program to provide clear guidance on federal labor laws to employers and workers.
On May 30, 2025, the DOL released its budget justification for the fiscal year (FY) 2026 federal budget, in which the department proposed to “eliminate” the OFCCP. The agency had been tasked with enforcing antidiscrimination compliance and affirmative action program obligations in federal contracting, but recent executive orders have limited its authority.
In the budget justification, the DOL indicated it would transfer OFCCP’s enforcement of the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) to the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS), and enforcement of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 would be transferred to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Accordingly, the DOL is not seeking any budget funding for OFCCP but is requesting a $7 million increase for the VETS. The budget document explains the DOL’s proposed budget request and outlines the agency’s policy priorities. The U.S. Congress must approve the final budget.
In its own budget justification, the EEOC said it “is the most appropriate entity to assume … responsibilities” for enforcement of Section 503 and said its FY 2026 request “includes funding for the EEOC to support this expansion of the agency’s disability anti-discrimination program.” Still, overall, the EEOC is requesting nearly $20 million less in funding as compared to the prior fiscal year.
The proposals come after President Donald Trump’s executive order (EO) 14173 revoked EO 11246, which had prohibited employment discrimination by federal contractors and mandated affirmative action programs for women and minorities. EO 14173 further seeks to eliminate employers’ “illegal” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), more broadly.
EO 14173 stripped the OFCCP of much of its enforcement authority, making the agency’s future uncertain. Currently, the OFCCP retains responsibility for enforcing federal contracting nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations for veterans and workers with disabilities under VEVRAA and Section 503. However, the acting secretary of labor had ordered OFCCP to hold all VEVRAA and Section 503 compliance evaluations in abeyance and shortly thereafter OFCCP issued updated notices to many covered contractors with active evaluations.
In April 2025, the Trump administration placed the majority of OFCCP staff on administrative leave after offering deferred resignation and voluntary early retirement options. However, that reduction in force was temporarily paused by a federal court ruling in California, which was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Trump administration has reportedly asked the Supreme Court of the United States to address the issue.
DOL Opinion Letters
On June 2, 2025, the DOL announced the launch of its opinion letter program to provide employers and workers with official interpretations of federal labor laws. The program’s goal is to “promote clarity, consistency, and transparency in the application of federal labor standards.”
The documents will be published by five enforcement agencies within the DOL: the Wage and Hour Division, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), VETS, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).
“Opinion letters are an important tool in ensuring workers and businesses alike have access to clear, practical guidance,” Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling said in a statement. “Launching this program is part of our broader effort to empower the public with the information they need to understand and comply with the laws the department enforces.”
Anyone can submit an opinion letter request to the DOL, although most are requested by employers seeking clarity on situations that are not addressed in statutes or regulations. DOL opinion letters are published allowing all to benefit from the guidance provided.
Next Steps
The Trump administration’s budget proposal suggests that the OFCCP’s days are numbered. However, federal contractors and other employers continue to have obligations under federal antidiscrimination laws, notably Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as local and state antidiscrimination laws. Federal contractors and federal money recipients also now are faced with the new obligations imposed by EO 14173 including certifications under False Claims Act liability that they do not promote unlawful DEI and comply with all federal anti-discrimination laws.
The administration’s shifting enforcement priorities and interpretation of federal equal employment opportunity and/or antidiscrimination laws make the new DOL opinion letter program more pertinent. We anticipate that DOL will publish more opinion letters in this administration.
Oregon SB 951, Regulating the Corporate Practice of Medicine, Awaits Governor’s Signature
SB 951, which bolsters existing Oregon law prohibiting the corporate practice of medicine (CPOM), passed the state House of Representatives on May 28 and now awaits the signature of Governor Tina Kotek.
As EBG noted in a recent blog, the majority of states have some form of CPOM restriction. Oregon’s doctrine stretches back to 1947, when the state supreme court in State ex. rel. Sisemore v. Standard Optical Co. of Or. banned corporations from owning medical practices, practicing medicine, or employing physicians.[1]
Since then, however, Oregon has sought to strengthen its CPOM rules legislatively, as entities have “sought to circumvent the ban through complex ownership structures, contracting practices, and other means,” as SB 951 states.
The bill is designed to disrupt historically accepted CPOM structures by banning certain arrangements that are inherent to Friendly PC models and placing limitations on Management Service Organizations (MSOs). The sponsors of SB 951 claim the bill is said to close loopholes where private equity firms, management companies, and/or corporations employ or contract with physicians who are listed as owners but do not necessarily control the practice—helping to ensure that physicians retain authority over clinical decision making. SB 951 thus aims to
Restrict the control of MSOs over the clinical and operating decisions of physician-owned practices;
Prevents dual employment arrangements where MSOs employ physicians to bypass a CPOM ban; and
SB 951 also limits noncompetition, nondisclosure, and nondisparagement agreements.
The Restrictions
Section 1. The bill prohibits MSOs—defined as those providing management services to a professional medical entity, under a written agreement and in return for monetary compensation—or MSO shareholders, directors, members, managers, officers, or employees from
Owning or controlling a majority of shares in a professional medical entity with which the MSO has a contract;
Serving as directors, officers, employees, independent contractors of (or otherwise receiving compensation from) the MSO, in order to manage or direct the management of a professional medical entity with which the MSO has a contract;
Exercising control or entering into an agreement to control or restrict the sale or transfer of a professional medical entity’s shares or cause a professional medical entity to issue shares of a professional medical entity; and
Exercising de facto control over administrative, business, or clinical operations of a professional medical entity in a manner that affects the entity’s clinical decision making or the nature or quality of care that the entity delivers. Includes hiring and terminating, setting work schedules or compensation for, specifying terms of employment of medical licensees; setting clinical staffing levels, making diagnostic coding decisions, and more.
Bullet number two is one of the most significant restrictions contained in SB 951 because it severely limits the overlapping ownership and control between the MSO and the professional medical entity, a key characteristic of Friendly PC models that ensure alignment between the MSO and the professional medical entity. Bullet number three is also a major restriction because, subject to some limited exceptions, it essentially prohibits stock transfer restriction agreements between a MSO and an owner of a professional medical entity, another common feature of the Friendly PC model.
An MSO is not prohibited from:
Providing services that do not constitute an exercise of de facto control over administrative, business, or clinical operations of a professional medical entity in a manner that affects the entity’s clinical decision making or the nature or quality of care that the entity delivers;
Purchasing, leasing, or taking an assignment of a right to possess the assets of a professional medical entity in an arms-length transaction with a willing seller, lessor, or assignor;
Providing support, advice and consultation on all matters related to a professional medical entity’s business operations.
Exceptions. SB 951 has been criticized for creating “numerous carveouts” that discourage competition and investment by mandating who may participate in the health care market and who may not.
“Exempt providers include: Hospitals, behavioral health facilities, PACE organizations, crisis lines, tribal health programs, care facilities, and independent practice organizations. These are all exempt…continuing business as usual while independent providers face burdensome regulations,” Rep. Ed Diehl of the Oregon House of Representatives wrote in testimony. ”If this is such a good idea, why exempt these organizations?”
These prohibitions do not apply, for example, to an individual who provides medical services or health care services for or on behalf of a professional medical entity if the individual
Does not own or control more than 10 percent of the total shares of or interest in the professional medical entity;
Is not a shareholder in or a director, member, manager, officer, or employee of an MSO; and
Is compensated at the market rate for the medical services or health care services and the individual’s employment and services regarding the MSO are entirely consistent with the individual’s professional obligations, ethics and duties to the professional medical entity and the individual’s patients.
As noted above by critics, the exemptions include
An individual owning shares or an interest in a professional medical entity and an MSO with which the professional medical entity has a contract for services, under certain conditions;
A professional medical entity and the shareholders, directors, members, managers, officers, or employees of the professional medical entity; under certain conditions;
A physician who is a shareholder, director, or other officer of a professional medical entity and who also serves as a director or officer of a MSO with which the professional medical entity has a contract for management services, under certain conditions, including if the professional medical entity contracting with the MSO is solely and exclusively, for example; a hospital or hospital-affiliated clinic; long-term care facility; residential care facility; PACE organization; behavioral health care provider; mental health or substance abuse disorder crisis line provider; and more.
Telemedicine or coordinated care organizations, under certain conditions.
Sections 2 and 3. With exceptions, these sections amend ORS 58.375 and 58.376 to restrict how a professional corporation (PC)—i.e., a corporation organized for the purpose of practicing medicine/rendering professional health care services—may remove directors or officers, or how it may relinquish or transfer control over the PC’s administrative, business, or clinical operations. PCs may remove a director or officer by means other than a majority vote of shareholders if the director violated a duty of care, was the subject of a disciplinary proceeding, engaged in fraud, etc.
Section 5. SB 951 provides that all officers of a PC, except the secretary and treasurer, must be naturopathic physicians who must hold a majority of each class of shares of the professional corporation that is entitled to vote and be a majority of directors of the professional corporation. An employee or person who holds an interest in the professional corporation may not direct or control the professional judgment of a naturopathic physician who is practicing within the professional corporation.
Section 7. This voids 1) noncompetition agreements that restrict the practice of medicine or nursing, under certain conditions; and 2) nondisclosure or nondisparagement agreements between medical licensees and MSOs, hospitals, and/or hospital-affiliated clinics, under certain conditions.
Takeaways
Contracts or other agreements between MSOs and professional medical entities or medical licensees that violates the provisions of SB 951 may be void and unenforceable; too, MSOs may face an action by a medical licensee or professional medical entity suffering a loss of money or property.
If SB 951 is signed into law by Governor Kotek it will take effect immediately, with the following caveats:
Section 1 first applies on January 1, 2026, to 1) MSOs and professional medical entities incorporated or organized in the state on or after the effective date of the legislation; and 2) sales and or transfers of ownership or membership interests in such MSOs or professional medical entities occurring on or after the effective date of the legislation.
Section 1 first applies on January 1, 2029, to 1) MSOs and professional medical entities existing before the effective date of the act and to 2) sales or transfers of ownership or membership interests in such MSOs or professional medical entities that occur on or after January 1, 2029.
Sections 5, 7, and 8 and amendments to ORS 58.375 and 58.376 apply to contracts entered into or renewed on or after the effective date of the legislation.
We do expect litigation regarding this bill and will keep you updated on further developments.
Epstein Becker Green Staff Attorney Ann W. Parks contributed to the preparation of this post.
ENDNOTES
[1] 182 Or. 452 (1947).
DOJ Civil Rights Fraud Initiative Ups FCA Risks for Federal Fund Recipients Employing Unlawful DEI Programs
Takeaways
DOJ attorneys will use the False Claims Act to investigate and pursue claims against any federal funds recipient that knowingly violates federal civil rights laws.
The DOJ team will include an attorney from each of the 93 U.S. Attorney’s Offices.
All employers and organizations that receive federal funding should review their internal and external DEI-related programs and policies to assess potential risk.
U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum introducing the “Civil Rights Fraud Initiative” on May 19, 2025. The memorandum directs all Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys to use the False Claims Act (FCA) to “investigate and, as appropriate, pursue claims against any recipient of federal funds that knowingly violates federal civil rights laws.”
The Initiative adds enforcement teeth to President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” issued on his first day in office.
Government Contractors Certification
EO 14173 requires federal government contractors to certify that they do not operate or maintain any diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that violate applicable federal anti-discrimination laws. In addition, the EO directs federal agencies to include terms in every federal contract or grant award that requires government contractors to agree that compliance with applicable federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions. This provision in EO 14173 on the materiality of compliance was widely viewed as a precursor to the DOJ utilizing the FCA as a tool to pursue employers that maintain DEI programs and policies.
Entities Accepting Federal Funding
The DOJ initiative, “co-led by the Civil Division’s Fraud Section, which enforces the False Claims Act, and the Civil Rights Division, which enforces civil rights laws,” will target the “many corporations and schools” accepting federal funding that “continue to adhere to racist policies and preferences—albeit camouflaged with cosmetic changes that disguise their discriminatory nature.”
The memorandum identifies two examples where recipients of federal funds could run afoul of the FCA:
A university accepting federal funds that “encourages antisemitism, refuses to protect Jewish students, allows men to intrude into women’s bathrooms, or requires women to compete against men in athletic competitions”; and
Government contractors or other federal-funding recipients that “certify compliance with civil rights laws” while employing DEI programs “that assign benefits or burdens on race, ethnicity, or national origin.”
The Civil Rights Fraud Initiative team will include an assistant U.S. attorney from each of the 93 U.S. Attorney’s Offices, according to memorandum. The team will also “engage with the Criminal Division, as well as with other federal agencies that enforce civil rights requirements for federal funding recipients, … states attorneys general[,] and local law enforcement.”
Finally, the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative encourages private parties, like employees and outside third parties, to “aggressively” pursue FCA qui tam whistleblower suits. Qui tam actions allow whistleblowers to share in any monetary recovery by the government — up to 30 percent of the total amount recovered.
Implications for Recipients of Federal Funds
The Civil Rights Fraud Initiative makes clear that all recipients of federal funds, such as those in the healthcare and life sciences, defense, and education industries, should:
Align their policies with federal anti-discrimination laws;
Conduct thorough due diligence before certifying compliance with the government;
Update their compliance programs; and
Calculate legal risks stemming from ongoing DEI efforts.
The federal government now considers the absence of any “illegal DEI” programs or policies a material condition of payment of any federal funds.
Employers and organizations of all kinds — privately held, publicly traded, and especially federal contractors — should conduct a comprehensive attorney-client privileged review of their internal and external DEI-related programs and policies to assess potential risk.
Fueling America’s Nuclear Renaissance: How Trump’s Executive Orders Create Strategic Opportunities for the Nuclear Fuel Industry
Key Points
Federal Land Access and Permitting Advantages: The Executive Orders’ directives to facilitate the construction of advanced reactors and privately funded nuclear fuel facilities at Department of Energy and Department of Defense sites create a novel legal pathway that may expedite or bypass many traditional siting and permitting challenges. This represents a strategic competitive advantage for companies that can quickly navigate federal property use agreements as these sites offer pre-existing security infrastructure and potentially expedited environmental reviews under federal jurisdiction rather than more complex state processes.
Defense Production Act Contracting Framework: The Orders’ explicit authorization of Defense Production Act voluntary agreements creates a specialized legal framework for nuclear fuel procurement and fuel supply chain development. The Orders also permit the DOE to play an active role in assuring a demand for nuclear fuel supply chain services and products through appropriate contracts and guarantees with private sector consortia. Companies should develop compliance strategies for this unique contracting environment.
Regulatory Transformation and New Market Entry Opportunities: The Executive Orders signal a significant policy shift by directing the revival of commercial spent fuel reprocessing in the U.S., abandoned since the 1970s. If this initiative moves forward, nuclear fuel companies should prepare for substantial regulatory actions affecting licensing, waste management, and security requirements, while positioning themselves to enter this potentially lucrative market.
Introduction
On May 23, 2025, President Donald Trump issued four Executive Orders – Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base, Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security, Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy, and Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission – that, collectively, are intended to “usher in a nuclear energy renaissance.”
The Executive Orders articulate the Administration’s support for the nuclear power industry and seek to leverage the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) to accelerate the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors and the development of the nuclear supply chain. Given the ambitious and in some respects novel plans outlined in the Executive Orders, it remains to be seen whether the stated goals, including the expansion of U.S. nuclear energy capacity from 100 GW in 2024 to 400 GW in 2050, can be achieved and within the timeframes specified.
These directives mark a significant shift in U.S. policy, particularly for the nuclear fuel sector. Consistent with recent bipartisan support for nuclear expansion, these orders break new ground by having the federal government play an active role in enabling the development of the nuclear fuel supply chain and creating a demand for its products.
Furthermore, the orders explicitly encourage commercial nuclear fuel recycling—a major departure from decades of U.S. policy. The directives call for identifying uranium and plutonium inventories that could be recycled into reactor fuel and prioritize establishing a secure domestic High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) supply chain critical for advanced reactors. Combined with provisions for power uprates at existing plants, the construction of numerous new commercial reactors, and expedited reactor deployment at the DOE and military installations, these policies create substantial new market opportunities for American nuclear fuel companies. However, the industry’s ability to capitalize on this renaissance may hinge on whether the Administration resolves contradictions between its ambitious nuclear goals and proposed budget and staffing cuts at key implementing agencies.
Nevertheless, the Executive Orders may have immediate benefits for the nuclear fuel sector. By prioritizing federal inventories to support nuclear fuel supplies, supporting the development of nuclear fuel infrastructure, and directing the construction of advanced reactors on federal property, the Executive Orders have the potential to accelerate the expansion of the domestic nuclear industrial base and the deployment of the advanced reactors it will support.
…the Executive Orders recognize the importance of assured market demand for nuclear fuel products and services, and authorize the Secretary to “provide procurement support, forward contracts, or guarantees to such consortia as a means to ensure offtake for newly established domestic fuel supply, including conversion, enrichment, reprocessing, or fabrication capacity.”
Nuclear Fuel Supplies
All currently operating commercial nuclear reactors in the United States are fueled with low enriched uranium (LEU); that is, fuel that has been processed to increase the percentage of the fissile isotope Uranium-235 from its natural state of 0.7% to a range of 3%-5%. As discussed below, the United States does not currently have the capability of meeting its own needs from domestic uranium production or processing.
The anticipated fuel requirements of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and microreactors currently under development further exacerbate fuel supply challenges. Many SMRs and microreactors are designed to operate on HALEU; that is, uranium in which the percentage of U-235 has been increased to between 5% and 20%. HALEU is produced by downblending high enriched uranium (HEU) – uranium with greater than 20% U-235) with LEU or by enriching LEU to increase its percentage of U-235 above 5%.
The Executive Orders call for several actions to help assure the fuel supply for the nation’s current reactors and anticipated advanced reactors.
In the short-term, “to fully leverage federally owned uranium and plutonium resources,” the Secretary of Energy is directed to update the DOE’s Excess Uranium Management Policy and Surplus Plutonium Disposition Program to determine how the DOE’s inventories of LEU, HEU, and plutonium not needed for national security purposes can be used to advance the Executive Orders’ policies and goals. Additionally, pursuant to the Defense Production Act (DPA), the Secretary is directed to seek voluntary agreements with domestic nuclear energy companies for the cooperative procurement of LEU and HALEU, including through the establishment of nuclear fuel supply chain consortia. Notably, the Executive Orders recognize the importance of assured market demand for nuclear fuel products and services, and authorize the Secretary to “provide procurement support, forward contracts, or guarantees to such consortia as a means to ensure offtake for newly established domestic fuel supply, including conversion, enrichment, reprocessing, or fabrication capacity.”
The Executive Orders also require the Secretary to “release into a readily available fuel bank not less than 20 metric tons of [HALEU]” for private sector projects authorized and regulated by DOE and located on DOE property “for the purpose of powering AI and other infrastructure,” and to ensure long-term fuel supplies for such projects through domestic fuel fabrication and supply chains. No timeframe is specified for this requirement. It is likely the six HALEU supply chain contracts awarded by the Biden Administration in October 2024 as part of DOE’s HALEU Availability Program will play a key role in the production of the fuel bank’s supply.
In the longer-term, the Secretary is directed to recommend a national policy on the management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, including reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel to recover uranium, plutonium, and other products useful to the nuclear fuel cycle or otherwise. While the United Kingdom, France, and certain other countries have long reprocessed spent nuclear fuel, the U.S. has not had a commercial spent fuel reprocessing capability since the 1970s. Therefore, the Executive Orders’ directives related to reprocessing will likely require relevant policy and regulatory changes as well as significant financial support and infrastructure development over a period of years.
…Executive Orders direct the Secretaries of Energy and Defense to utilize their authorities to facilitate the construction of privately funded nuclear fuel fabrication and other fuel cycle facilities at identified DOE and DOD sites.
Nuclear Fuel Infrastructure
In addition to providing potential new supplies for nuclear fuel, the Executive Orders call for several actions focused on expanding domestic uranium conversion and enrichment capabilities.
The nuclear fuel cycle starts with uranium mining. There is very little uranium mining in the United States. As a result, for more than 30 years, U.S. nuclear reactor operators have relied on LEU imported from countries such as Canada, Kazakhstan, and Russia. The Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act of 2024 created further fuel supply challenges for U.S. reactors by banning, subject to certain quotas and potential waivers, imports of Russian sourced LEU.
Two prior Trump Administration Executive Orders, Unleashing American Energy and Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, addressed uranium as one of the minerals critical to U.S. national and economic security, and included various directives to prioritize and promote its production. After mining and milling, uranium ore concentrate must be converted to uranium hexafluoride (UF6) before it can be fed into the enrichment process to increase the percentage of U-235 for reactor fuel purposes. Currently, there is only one commercial uranium conversion plant in the U.S., and only one commercial enrichment plant with two other plants under development. The current Executive Orders build on the earlier Executive Orders and require the Secretary of Energy to develop within 120 days a plan to expand domestic uranium conversion and enrichment capabilities to meet the nation’s LEU, HALEU, and HEU requirements.
The Executive Orders specifically contemplate use of DPA voluntary agreements “to establish consortia and plans of action to ensure that the nuclear fuel supply chain capacity, including milling, conversion, enrichment, deconversion, fabrication, recycling, or reprocessing, is available to enable the continued reliable operation of the Nation’s existing, and future, nuclear reactors.”
Finally, the Executive Orders direct the Secretaries of Energy and Defense to utilize their authorities to facilitate the construction of privately funded nuclear fuel fabrication and other fuel cycle facilities at identified DOE and DOD sites.
…the Executive Orders declare the policy of the United States is to “facilitate the expansion of American nuclear capacity from approximately 100 GW in 2024 to 400 GW by 2050.”
Nuclear Fuel Demand
Having put in motion steps to improve the supply of nuclear fuel and develop nuclear fuel supply chain infrastructure, the Executive Orders leverage the DOE and DOD to spur demand for nuclear fuels, starting with qualified test reactors. Recognizing that further effort is required to establish the fundamental technological viability of advanced reactor designs, the Executive Orders task the DOE with revising its guidance and regulations to expedite the review, approval, and deployment of qualified test reactors to be operated at DOE facilities with the goal of having three such reactors reach criticality by July 4, 2026. This will create an immediate need for fuel for these reactors.
Additional fuel will be required for a nuclear reactor – likely a stationary or mobile SMR or microreactor – that the Secretary of Defense is directed to operate at a domestic military base or installation by September 30, 2028. Similarly, the Secretary of Energy is required, within 90 days of the date of the Executive Orders, to designate one or more DOE sites for the deployment of advanced reactor technologies and to facilitate, within 30 months from the date of the Executive Orders, the operation of a privately funded advanced reactor at an identified DOE site “for the purpose of powering AI infrastructure, other critical or national security needs, supply chain items, or on-site infrastructure.”
As noted above, the Executive Orders declare the policy of the United States is to “facilitate the expansion of American nuclear capacity from approximately 100 GW in 2024 to 400 GW by 2050.” Given the current state of the domestic nuclear supply chain and the recent experience with construction of the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors, this will be a very challenging policy goal to accomplish. As part of this expansion, the Executive Orders require the DOE to prioritize efforts to facilitate 5 GW of power uprates at existing commercial nuclear reactors and have ten new “large reactors” under construction by 2030. One means of achieving a power uprate is to refuel the reactor with a higher percentage of new fuel or with slightly higher enriched fuel as is presently being tested at the Vogtle 2 plant in Georgia. In both instances, more fuel will be required. Furthermore, with a typical 1,000 MWe reactor requiring about 27 metric tons of fuel per year, a substantial amount of new fuel will be required to supply the proposed 10 new large reactors, to support the continued operation of the nation’s existing commercial reactors, and to fuel the additional reactors needed to meet the 400 GW policy goal.
By requiring or setting goals for the construction of new reactors in the near future, the Executive Orders may have beneficial implications up and down the nuclear fuel supply chain. Uranium mines and in situ recovery operations, uranium milling and conversion facilities, and fuel fabrication companies will all have more certainty that there is need for their products and services, and advanced reactor developers will be able to place orders for reliable fuel supplies. As such, the Executive Orders help demonstrate that demand will exist for nuclear fuel to justify construction of new nuclear fuel supply chain infrastructure and the necessary private investments and financing.
Conclusion
The four Executive Orders include ambitious requirements and goals and set aggressive timelines to achieve them. Accomplishing these outcomes will require the DOE and DOD to move quickly to develop new nuclear-related programs in areas where little precedent exists. Nevertheless, even if only a portion of the Executive Orders’ outcomes are realized, it could build significant momentum for rebuilding the nation’s nuclear industry, including the nuclear fuel supply chain, and create opportunities for nuclear industry participants.
Industry participants and other stakeholders should carefully monitor plans and actions by the DOE, DOD, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to implement the Executive Orders’ requirements. Nuclear fuel supply chain participants should be familiar with the Defense Production Act and be prepared to take advantage of government contracting opportunities as well as any loan guarantees or direct loans that may be authorized under the Act. Where appropriate, industry participants may even proactively consider forming relevant consortia contemplated by the Executive Orders to take advantage of the DOE’s nuclear fuel supply efforts.
Employment Law This Week: Abortion Protections Struck Down, LGBTQ Harassment Guidance Vacated, EEO-1 Reporting Opens [Video, Podcast]
This week, we cover the striking down of abortion protections for workers and LGBTQ harassment guidance, as well as the beginning of a brief EEO-1 reporting season (concluding on June 24).
Abortion Protections for Workers Struck Down
A Louisiana federal judge vacated portions of a rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that defined abortion as a medical condition and required accommodations.
Federal Court Vacates LGBTQ Harassment Guidance
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has moved to strike portions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) guidance on workplace harassment against LGBTQ employees. The court ruled that the Biden-era EEOC guidance expanded “the scope of sex beyond the biological binary.”
EEO-1 Reporting Opens with a Tight Deadline
The EEO-1 reporting period is now open. All private employers in the United States with 100 or more employees are required to file, as are federal contractors with 50 or more employees that meet certain criteria. The deadline to file is just weeks away—June 24—so employers are moving quickly.
Government Contracts White-Collar Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Wire Fraud Statute
The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered a significant ruling in Stamatios Kousisis, et al. v. United States, affirming that a defendant can be convicted of federal fraud for inducing a transaction through materially false pretenses, even absent an intent to cause economic harm. This unanimous decision clarifies the scope of the federal wire fraud statute and carries substantial implications for white-collar criminal prosecutions against government contractors.
Background of the Case
Stamatios Kousisis and his company, Alpha Painting and Construction Co., secured contracts from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) for bridge painting projects. These contracts mandated that a portion of the work be subcontracted to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs), as per federal regulations tied to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Kousisis and Alpha claimed compliance by funneling payments through Markias Inc., a certified DBE, which merely acted as a pass-through entity. In reality, non-DBE suppliers performed the work, and Markias added a markup to the invoices.
The government charged Kousisis and Alpha with wire fraud and conspiracy, arguing that they fraudulently induced PennDOT to award the contracts under false pretenses. The defendants contended that since the work was completed and PennDOT suffered no financial loss, there was no fraud.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, holding that under federal fraud statutes, it is sufficient to prove that a defendant used materially false pretenses to induce a transaction, regardless of whether the victim suffered economic harm. The Court emphasized that the focus is on the defendant’s intent and the materiality of the misrepresentation, not solely on economic loss to the victim. This aligns with the Court’s reasoning in Ciminelli v. United States (2023), which clarified that fraud statutes protect property interests and that deprivation of such interests can occur through deceptive means, even without direct financial harm.
Concurring Opinions
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, expressing skepticism about whether the misrepresentations were material, given that DBE requirements may not pertain directly to the core contractual obligations. Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in the judgment, highlighting that PennDOT explicitly stated noncompliance with DBE provisions constituted a material breach, potentially jeopardizing federal funding. Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in part, cautioning against broad interpretations of fraud that could criminalize conduct traditionally addressed through civil remedies.
Implications for Government Contractors and White-Collar Prosecutions
This ruling reinforces the government’s ability to prosecute fraudulent inducement cases under federal fraud statutes, even when no economic harm is evident. It underscores the importance of materiality in assessing fraudulent conduct and may influence how courts evaluate similar cases involving misrepresentations that affect contractual decisions. The decision also signals the Court’s willingness to uphold certain applications of fraud statutes, distinguishing between deceptive practices that undermine contractual integrity and those that result in tangible financial loss.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kousisis v. United States affirms that materially false representations used to induce contractual agreements can constitute federal fraud, even absent economic harm to the victim. This clarification of the wire fraud statute’s scope is pivotal for legal practitioners, government contractors, and entities engaged in federally funded projects, emphasizing the legal risks associated with deceptive practices in contractual dealings.
Listen to this post
Risk Bearing Entity Requirements: Massachusetts
This blog discusses the regulatory requirements that apply to risk-bearing entities in Massachusetts, including recent updates introduced by Chapter 343 of the Massachusetts Acts of 2024 (the Act). This blog is part of Foley & Lardner’s RBE series (see our Introduction posted November 18, 2024, and our post on New York and New Jersey’s Requirements posted February 24, 2025).
In Massachusetts, “Provider Organizations” are entities “in the business of health care delivery or management that represent one or more health care providers in contracting with carriers for the payments of heath care services.”[1] Certain Provider Organizations are required to register with the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission (the HPC) and submit data to the Massachusetts Center for Health Information and Analysis (CHIA) annually.[2]
Certain Provider Organizations with reimbursement models that incorporate financial risk must register with the Massachusetts Division of Insurance (the Division). Entities that take on financial risk in contracts with third-party payors where payment models are not solely based on fee-for-service reimbursements are classified as “Risk-Bearing Provider Organizations” (RBPO). Additionally, any Provider Organization that has a contracting affiliation with one or more providers or Provider Organizations is also classified as an RBPO.
Under the Division’s regulations, risk means the financial risk taken on by an RBPO under contracts where it manages some or all the care for a patient population for a fixed budgeted fee. Downside risk occurs when the cost of care exceeds the fixed payment amount, leaving the entity responsible for the overage. An RBPO that assumes the full or partial downside risk must seek a Risk Certificate annually from the Division.[3]
RBPO Registration
A Provider Organization that meets the definition of an RBPO, irrespective of its size or profit, must register with the Division annually unless it only takes on risk through the Medicare Program. To register, the RBPO must submit information including, but not limited to:
Filing Materials. All documents submitted to the HPC in connection with its Provider Organization registration, including information about its ownership, contracting arrangements, and total revenue by each third-party payor.
Downside Risk Contracts. A description of all downside risk contracts, including the level and nature of risk assumed.
Financial Information. Audited financial statements showing the RBPO’s sources of financial support and a financial plan.
Utilization Plan. A utilization plan that describes how the RBPO will monitor patient utilization under risk contracts.
Actuarial Certificate. An actuarial certificate that certifies that the downside risk contracts are not expected to threaten the RBPO’s financial solvency.[4]
An RBPO that can demonstrate its risk contracts do not contain significant downside risk may apply for a Risk Certificate Waiver, which requires significantly less information than a full Risk Certificate.
RBPOs that fail to comply with the Division’s registration requirements will be given an opportunity to cure their non-compliance. However, the Commissioner of the Division may suspend or cancel an RBPO’s Risk Certificate and has broad authority to “take such other action as appropriate under law to enforce the requirements.”[5]
Provider Organization Registration with the HPC and CHIA
The HPC currently requires Provider Organizations subject to registration to disclose the highest entity in its corporate structure that is engaged in health care delivery or management. The registrant must also disclose its corporate parent.
Approximately 50 organizations were required to register in 2024, the majority of which were hospital systems, physician groups, and behavioral health providers that received US$25 million or more in net patient service revenue from third-party payors.
The Act will expand the type of ownership information that Provider Organizations are required to submit to the HPC. Regulations are still in process, but the HPC will require additional information relating to significant equity investors, health care real estate investment trusts, and management services organizations that have an ownership interest in a Provider Organization.
Further, the Act increased penalties for Provider Organizations that fail to report parallel information to CHIA from US$1,000 per week for each week of non-compliance, capped at US$50,000, to US$25,000 per week for each week of non-compliance with no cap.
Conclusion
Awareness of the registration requirements required in Massachusetts is paramount for RBPOs seeking to maintain their financial and operational stability. Accordingly, such requirements — both those required of Provider Organizations and RBPOs — should be carefully reviewed prior to entering into any risk contracts to ensure regulatory compliance.
[1] 211 CMR 155.02; 958 CMR 6.02.
[2] 958 CMR 6.04.
[3] 211 CMR 155.04; 155.05.
[4] Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 176T, § 3.
[5] 211 CMR 155.08.
Understanding the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Bid Protest Procedures
When participating in a government procurement process, understanding the rules governing bid protests is crucial. For contractors engaging with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), strict procedural guidelines must be followed to challenge a solicitation, evaluation, or contract award. Here’s what you need to know about filing a bid protest with MWAA.
Filing a Protest: Strict Methods of Delivery
All bid protests must be formally addressed to the vice president of the Office of Supply Chain Management (OSCM). Importantly, MWAA generally does not accept electronic submissions. Protests must be delivered using one of the following methods:
Registered or certified mail with return receipt requested
Nationally recognized delivery service (with tracking showing date sent and received)
Hand delivery to the MWAA Procurement and Contracts Department
Any protest sent via email or other electronic means may be rejected.
Timing Is Everything: Deadlines for Submission
MWAA distinguishes between two types of protests, each with its own deadline:
1. Protests Based on Solicitation Terms
If the protest is based on the contents or omissions in a solicitation or an amendment:
The protest must be received within 14 days of either the solicitation issuance date or the date of the relevant amendment, whichever is earlier.
Alternatively, if the offer submission deadline falls earlier, the protest must be filed before that deadline.
2. Protests Based on Evaluation or Award
If the protest challenges how offers were evaluated or awarded:
Only offerors who actually submitted a proposal may file.
The protest must be received within seven days after the offeror knew — or should have known — the basis for the protest.
Offerors are deemed to have knowledge of a potential basis for protest on the earliest of the following:
Public bid opening
Receipt of a notice of unsuccessful offer
Recommendation of the contract for board approval
Public posting of the contract award
Protest Requirements: Content Matters
To be considered, a protest must include:
Protester’s name, address, phone number, and email
The solicitation number
A demonstration of the protester’s legitimate interest in the procurement
A detailed basis for the protest, with specific allegations and references to errors or legal violations
Evidence that the protest is timely
The signature of a person authorized to file on behalf of the protester
Importantly, preemptive protests — those filed speculatively before a basis is confirmed — may be denied outright.
Protest Bonds
In certain solicitations, MWAA may require a protest bond to deter frivolous protests. If a bond is required, this will be clearly stated in the solicitation, along with bond amount and format. Failing to submit the required bond will generally result in automatic rejection of the protest, regardless of its merits.
Decision Timeline and Review Process
MWAA strives to handle protests efficiently:
The vice president, OSCM will attempt to respond within seven business days of receipt.
If additional time is needed, the protester will be notified within the same seven-day window.
Only substantiated allegations will be reviewed. Vague or unsupported protests will be denied.
Appealing a Protest Decision
If unsatisfied with the vice president’s decision, the protester may appeal:
To the CEO – within seven days of the OSCM decision letter
To the board – if the contract required board approval, an additional appeal may be made within seven days of the CEO’s decision
For contracts not requiring board approval, the CEO’s decision is final.
Contract Awards During a Protest
If a protest is filed before contract award, MWAA will not proceed with award or issue a notice to proceed while the protest is pending — unless the CEO determines that moving forward is in the MWAA’s best interest.
Conclusion
Navigating the MWAA’s bid protest process demands strict compliance with procedural and timing requirements. Contractors must act quickly, follow detailed filing instructions, and ensure their protest is fully supported. Understanding these rules can make the difference between a timely, considered protest and one that is dismissed without review.
Listen to this post
US Employers Must Submit 2024 EEO-1 Data to the EEOC by June 24, 2025
Data collection for 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 filing opened on May 20, 2025. Employers have until Tuesday, June 24, 2025 to submit their data to the agency.
Each year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) collects workforce data from private employers with 100 or more employees and federal contractors with 50 or more employees that are covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through mandatory Form EEO-1 filings. This form reports what is referred to as “Component 1” data, consisting of information about the sex and race or ethnicity of the employer’s workforce by job category.
What is different this year?
This year, the EEOC implemented several changes to the reporting process, namely:
Shortening the collection period during which filers may submit their 2024 reports in an effort to cut costs to the American public, meaning eligible filers should begin the filing process immediately. While the data collection period has been extended in prior years, the EEOC’s recent announcement emphasizes that the 2024 collection period “will not extend beyond the Tuesday June 24, 2025” deadline.
Unlike prior years, employers will not receive any notifications concerning EEO-1 reporting via postal mail, and, beginning this data collection period, all communications will be electronic.
The 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection only provides binary options (i.e., male or female) for reporting employee counts by sex.
How can employers comply?
Employers must file their EEO-1 reports through the web-based filing system, referred to as the EEO-1 Component 1 website, which is accessible at www.eeocdata.org/eeo1. Resource materials are also available on the EEO-1 Component 1 website, including the 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 Instruction Booklet and 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 Data File Upload Specifications.
Filing must be completed by 11:00 pm Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, and eligible filers who fail to do so by that deadline will be out of compliance with their mandatory 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 filing obligations. Filers who have questions about or require assistance complying with their 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 filing obligations should contact their SPB attorney as soon as possible.