Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


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 >

GovCon Blog: Learning from Bid Protests: With Late Proposals, Government Caused Delays only Matter at Agency Location


October 13, 2014

The general rule regarding late proposals is that offerors are responsible for ensuring that their proposals reach the designated location by the time stated in the solicitation. A late proposal will not be considered unless it falls under a recognized exception in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or common law. One exception in the FAR allows for acceptance of a late proposal where some emergency or unanticipated event interrupted normal Government processes preventing it from being delivered on-time. FAR § 52.212-1(f)(4).

This particular exception was addressed recently by the Court of Federal Claims, in which the Court examined the scope of the interruption of "normal Government processes" exception. In Global Military Mktg v. United States, No. 14-622C, (Williams, J.)(Sept. 29, 2014), the Plaintiff encountered a rather unique and unfortunate situation regarding the delivery its proposal. The Plaintiff attempted to use FedEx to make its delivery, however the region in which Plaintiff (and the FedEx facility) was located experienced a "historic rainfall event," which caused the FAA to restrict traffic at local airports.

The Plaintiff attempted to deliver its proposal through other means, but was not able to do so prior to the deadline. The Plaintiff argued to the Court that its late proposal should have been accepted because by restricting airport traffic, the FAA interrupted "normal Government processes." The Court did not sympathize with the Plaintiff's plight and dismissed the protest.

The Court stated that the particular FAR exception at issue does not concern unforeseen events preventing the offeror from submitting its proposal. Rather, the exception focuses on whether unforeseen events prevent the procuring agency from receiving proposals at the designated site. Thus the Court determined that in order for the interruption of "normal Government processes" exception to apply, the interruption must take place at the agency's location, not the offerors. Because there was no emergency or unanticipated event at the procuring agency's facility, the agency was open and able to receive offers at the designated location, leaving the FAR exception inapplicable to the Plaintiff's situation.

The Plaintiff also argued that the "common law" exception to late proposals was applicable to this case. The "common law" exception, recognized by GAO and the Court of Federal Claims, provides that an agency may consider a late proposal if government misdirection or mishandling was the paramount cause of the delay and considering the proposal will not compromise the competitive process. The Court rejected this argument, as well, stating there was no evidence that the agency misdirected or mishandled the Plaintiff's proposal.

Obviously the takeaway from this case is for contractors to do whatever they have to do to ensure their proposals make it where they need to go before the deadline. However, unforeseen events are going to happen from time to time which might make an on-time delivery next to impossible. This case makes it clear that when those unforeseen events do not occur at the agency's location, arguing for acceptance of a late bid will likely prove futile. Knowing the rules and exceptions regarding late proposals can assist companies in effectively determining whether it is a good idea to protest rejection of a late proposal.

For more Government Contracts information, visit

Related Professionals

Related Services


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.