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


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

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.