Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo


Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Successful Defense for SDVO Small Business

Client Type: Private Company

The Government Contracts team successfully defended a service-disabled, veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) in a size appeal filed at the SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). BES Design/Build, a VA certified SDVOSB, was the successful awardee of a contract issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs to upgrade fire sprinkler systems at the VA Medical Center in Memphis, Tennessee. A disappointed bidder protested the award, arguing that BES was not a small business under the $14 million size standard for the procurement at issue.

In its protest, the disappointed bidder argued that BES was affiliated with several other companies, and the combined revenue of all BES affiliates exceeded the procurement's $14 million size standard. The protester alleged that BES shared common management with another company by virtue of a mentor-protégé agreement, and with additional companies owned by BES's minority member. In response, BES presented evidence to the SBA showing that the majority owner of BES was a service-disabled veteran in complete control of the company. Further, BES certified that its majority owner did not have any management authority in any of the alleged affiliates.

The SBA area office determined that because no other individual or company could control BES, and BES did not have control over any other company, there was no affiliation to be found. Thus, the SBA determined that BES was a small business and denied the protest. Unsatisfied, the disappointed bidder filed an appeal with OHA challenging the SBA size determination. In its appeal, the disappointed bidder made additional allegations of affiliation not raised in the original protest. 

We argued against the inclusion of the new allegations, on the basis that protesters are not permitted to introduce new grounds of protest in an appeal. In addition, we argued that even if the new affiliation allegations were properly raised, the evidence clearly showed that BES was not affiliated with any of the companies alleged as affiliates by the protester. OHA agreed, and denied the appeal. As a result, BES maintained its SDVOSB status and the VA was able to move forward with the award to BES.

You Also May Be Interested In:

Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.