Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Learn about Richard Arnholt's diverse government contracts practice and why he chose to pursue a career in the legal field. Read more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2017, Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. (NASDAQ: PNFP) closed a $1.9 billion merger with BNC Bancorp (NASDAQ: BNCN) pursuant to which BNC merged with and into Pinnacle. With the completion of the transaction, Pinnacle becomes a Top 50 U.S. Bank. The merger will create a four state footprint concentrated in 12 of the largest urban markets in the Southeast. 

Bass, Berry & Sims has served Pinnacle as primary corporate and securities counsel for more than 15 years and served as counsel on the transaction. Our attorneys were involved in all aspects related to the agreement, including tax, employee benefits and litigation. 

Read more details about the transaction here.

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

Regulation A+

It seems that lately there has been a noticeable uptick in Regulation A+ activity, including several recent Reg A+ securities offerings where the stock now successfully trades on national exchanges. In light of this activity, we have published a set of FAQs about Regulation A+ securities offerings to help companies better understand this "mini-IPO" offering process, as well as pros and cons compared to a traditional underwritten IPO.

Read now

GovCon Blog: Offerer Needs Own FSS Contract to be Eligible for FSS BPA

Publications

October 1, 2014

The Court of Federal Claims recently held that a company could not rely on its affiliate's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contractor status in order to comply with the solicitation. The procurement at issue involved the purchase of glucose test strips from an FSS contract. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the solicitation prohibited entering into the FSS blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with a non-schedule contractor. However, the Defense Health Agency (DHA) awarded the BPA to Abbott Diabetes Care Sales Corp. (Abbott), who did not have the required FSS contract but its affiliate Abbott Laboratories Inc. (ALI) did. Arkray (the protester) argued that Abbott improperly relied on the FSS of its corporate affiliate to provide the strips.

The court had previously remanded the case to the DHA to determine whether Abbott could "properly hold itself out as" having an FSS as required by the solicitation. On remand, the DHA decided to proceed with the BPA award because it concluded Abbott was either acting as ALI's agent under its FSS contract or the companies were sufficiently closely related enough to allow Abbott to rely on ALI's FSS contract to satisfy the terms of the solicitation.

Judge Firestone rejected the government's argument that Abbott was acting on behalf of ALI stating that "the mere fact that [Abbott] listed ALI's FSS contract number in its bid is insufficient to show that [Abbott's representative] entered into a BPA as an agent on behalf of ALI or that [Abbott] held an FSS contract." Judge Firestone further rejected the government's alternative rationale, because Abbott's reliance on ALI's FSS contract was "clearly prohibited" by both the FAR and the plain language of the solicitation. Judge Firestone acknowledged the line of cases allowing procurement official's general discretion to allow offerors to rely on their affiliates' performance history or expertise to meet solicitation requirements but distinguished those cases due to the fact that the "Contracting Officer in this case did not have discretion to ignore the clear regulatory requirements in the FAR or terms of the solicitation." Thus, "the fact that [Abbott] is authorized to offer supplies from the ALI FSS contract and that ALI will agree to the price [Abbott] offered does not eliminate the legal defect in the BPA award."

The court concluded DHA's award of the BPA to Abbott prejudiced Arkray, therefore entitling the company to injunctive relief. Given that Arkray's tests strips were the second highest rated and the second most cost-effective test strips after Abbott, the court reasoned the company was prejudiced because Arkray's strips would have had a reasonable chance of receiving the BPA. The government predicted a cost savings of $64.8 million a year using Abbott's strips but the court found any cost savings were due to the government's own mistakes in the procurement process. Furthermore, the court determined because test strips were still available to DHA patients from other suppliers, though at a higher price, the overriding public interest in preserving the integrity of the procurement process favored Arkray.

See ARKRAY USA, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-233C (Sept. 9, 2014)(Firestone, J.)

For more Government Contracts information, visit www.BassBerryGovCon.com.


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.