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 >

GovConBlog: Learning from Bid Protests: The Importance of Understanding Incorporated FAR Clauses


February 27, 2015

Government contractors are always hunting for the next contract opportunity. Upon finding a promising solicitation, a contractor might first examine the performance requirements to answer the initial questions of "is this something we can do," and "is this something we can win?" Reviewing the solicitation to address these questions is an important endeavor. However, before the contractor moves on to the often chaotic and frenetic stage of preparing a solicitation response, it would be wise to first take a beat and carefully read the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses incorporated into the solicitation.

The FAR clauses incorporated into a solicitation often contain administrative requirements, such as compliance and certification, that must be met by the contractor. These FAR requirements may come to bear in either the contractor's response to the solicitation, the ultimate performance of the contract, or both. Either way, it is important that a contractor thoroughly review and fully understand the incorporated FAR clauses before beginning its response to the solicitation. Failure to do so can present all manner of problems down the road.

One such problem was exhibited in a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) decision, FitNet Purchasing Alliance, where a contractor's proposal was rejected from a procurement due to the contractor's apparent misunderstanding of the incorporated FAR clauses. In FitNet, the protester was one of two offerors on an Air Force solicitation to provide fitness equipment. The protester's proposal was rejected because the protester did not provide a certification that its proposed products complied with the Buy American Act.

The protester argued that the Buy American Act did not apply, because the solicitation did not include the relevant FAR clause—FAR § 52.225-1, Buy American--Supplies. GAO rejected this argument, noting that while the solicitation did not contain FAR § 52.225-1, it did incorporate by reference the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) equivalent provision—DFARS § 252.225-7001. This DFARS clause expressly incorporates the Buy American Act, and thus the Act and its applicable certifications were included in the solicitation by reference. As a result, GAO denied the protest.

There is no guarantee that had the protester submitted the required Buy American Act certification it would have won the contract. However, had the protester more carefully read the solicitation so that it fully understood the requirements imposed by the incorporated FAR and DFARS clauses, it could have submitted the required certification and at least would have had a chance of receiving the award. Or, understanding the FAR requirements could have made it clear from the outset that the protester could not provide certifiable products, which would have allowed it to avoid the time and expense of preparing and submitting a proposal. Either way, a thorough review and understanding of the FAR requirements would have put the contractor in a much preferable position.

Read more about government contracts on

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.