Acquiring a Contract with the Navy Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Acquiring a Contract with the Navy - Assignment Example This has raised the importance of negotiation in order to win the bidding on a contract with Navy (Dilger, 2013). In United States, most of the jobs are created in small business as a result of which initiative for growth and development of the concerned sector has been taken into account through the implementation of federal contracts. The Small Business Act (1953), states the importance of federal contract for the development of concerned sector. The Act further states that equal opportunity is provided to small sectors to ensure participation in the federal contracts. In the context of small business, HUBZone set-asides for small business that restrict some contracts associated with the same. Lester has developed the business across the regions and has been creating a huge amount of impact on the overall area and developing the effectiveness of the system. Therefore, it can be considered that with respect to the policies of the Act LesterMyers is qualified for gaining the bid cont act of Navy. In addition Lester has the proposed financial capacity that helps in developing as well as supporting it to meet with the needs of specifications of HUBZone (Dilger, 2013). The multi-year contract signifies continuous purchase of products and services from the same supplier for the period between one to five years at maximum. In case of multi-year contract, it becomes essential to maintain the performance according to terms of contact because it may lead to cancellation of payment to the concerned contractor. A multi-year contact is likely to be beneficial for Navy because it reduces the problem associated with seeking to identify the potential supplier of services. The changing rate of inflation as well as other market factors is likely to affect the price associated with the service (Jensen, 2006). In such case, multi-year contact is beneficial for navy as it ensures that change in prices does not affects the overall value of contact. A multi-year

Assignment 4 Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Assignment 4 - Research Paper Example The African American employees filed a class action suit in which they argued that these practices were a violation of Title VII. This is because neither possessing a high school education nor passing the tests was a necessity for successful performance on the jobs in question. In the suit, they argued that the practices were illegal since a higher proportion of the African Americans did not have high school educations. On its part, the company put forward the argument that the requirements were based on its judgment and that they would generally improve the general quality of the workforce, and that the company had no discriminatory intent in instituting these requirements. Further, the company argued that its lack of discriminatory intent was demonstrated by its efforts to assist uneducated employees by financing two thirds of the tuition cost for high school education, (Rue & Byars, 2008). The Court Ruling However, the Supreme Court made a ruling in favor of the African American e mployees, (Rue & Byars, 2008). Meaning of the Ruling The ruling meant that the Duke Power Company could not use the two tests as the criteria for transferring incumbent employees from an outside job to an inside job. Based on the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, businesses, including the Duke Power Company, should adhere to the several key provisions stipulated by Section 703. These provisions outline unlawful employment practices for businesses and companies. It is an unlawful practice for any employer to refuse or fail to hire or discharge any person, or otherwise to discriminate against any person with respect to his terms, privileges, compensation, or terms of employment, based on the person’s color, sex, race, religion, or national origin. It is also unlawful to segregate, limit, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any manner that would tend to deprive or deprive any person of employment opportunities, or affect his position as an employee adv ersely, due to the person’s color, sex, religion, race, or national origin, (Rue & Byars, 2008). According to Rue & Byars (2008), it is also unlawful for an employment agency to refuse or fail to refer for employment, or otherwise discriminate against any person based on his or her color or race, or to refer or classify for employment any person based on his color, race, sex, or religion. Also, a labor organization can not expel or exclude from its membership, or otherwise discriminate against any person on the basis of his color, race, sex, or religion. The organization can also not cause an employer to discriminate against any person. The labor organization can also not classify its membership or applicants in a way that is deemed discriminatory. Therefore, the provisions stipulate that an employer, a labor, organization, and a joint labor-management committee that controls apprenticeship or training, to discriminate against another person. This ruling, as well as the provi sions listed above, has major implications on the Duke Power Company and other businesses in general. First, a violation of any of the provisions results in an unlawful employment practice. Such unlawful employment practices are quick to attract lawsuits. According to Hersh (1991), lawsuits are costly and time consuming, and many companies try to avoid them. Lawsuits also might be a stain to the company’s image and reputation. Therefore, the ruling would go a long way in ensuring that companies and businesses strictly adhere to the