Hi Pamela, 1. Although arguably no in certain situations, the best practice would be to post the job again with the state employment service. This would ensure compliance in this area in case of an audit versus having to debate the circumstances of reopening the posting. 2. The scenario described above is not a recommended practice and would likely lead to concerns by the agency in an audit. However, for remote or variable (telework) locations, according to the OFCCP's FAQs, the contractor may "satisfy the job listing requirement for a remote job by listing the opening with an ESDS in any area where qualified candidates might be found. Where the vacancy announcement indicates that the job may be performed either from a specified duty station or remotely, the contractor must list the job with the ESDS where the duty station is located, but may also list the opening with any other ESDS it determines is appropriate." 3. Yes. Any record made or kept must be available in an audit. The agency often asks for proof of some, or all, postings. 4. This is correct. If the company is placing applicants on requisitions or applications, then the agency often analyzes a larger pool, which is much more likely to lead to statistically significant adverse impact (SSAI). If a company is providing some applicants and forwarding them to another posting, then the agency, in order to conduct an analysis of those that competed for a job, will look at availability versus actual applicants as the pool is tainted by the company - it created an applicant pool instead of those that actually competed for the jobs. If those applicants that are forwarded are like in race, ethnicity, disability status, etc., it could appear as if the company is actively engaging in discrimination.