Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Mike DeAgro's experience co-founding a nonprofit advocacy organization lead to a career in the legal field? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more


Envision Healthcare

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

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

GovCon Blog: Items Only Need to be Included on GSA Contract at Order Issuance Date

Publications

November 9, 2015

A recent decision by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) made it clear that ordered items only need to be included on an awardee's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract at the time the order is issued, and not at an earlier date. On October 2, 2015 GAO denied a protest by AmeriGuard Security Services, Inc. over the issuance of a task order by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to Paragon Systems, Inc. for guard services at multiple HHS facilities. AmeriGuard's protest asserted that Paragon's quotation was unacceptable because not all of the services quoted were on Paragon's FSS contract at the time of bid submission.

HHS initially decided to award the order to Paragon based on a "best-value" evaluation, which took into account factors such as technical capability, technical approach, management approach, past performance, and price. The closing date for initial quotations was March 19, 2015, and then HHS requested revised quotations to be submitted by April 15. The agency issued the task order to Paragon on April 30, and AmeriGuard filed a timely protest alleging that not all of the services quoted were on Paragon’s FSS schedule contract by the time required.  The agency advised GAO that it was taking corrective action, noting that it would verify Paragon's eligibility for award using documentation obtained directly from GSA to confirm that Paragon had prices for all job classifications and locations by the required time. The agency proceeded to reaffirm the award to Paragon. AmeriGuard protested the reaffirmed award.

In its second protest, AmeriGuard asserted that a vendor must have prices for all job classifications and locations on its FSS contract by the closing date of the RFQ (here, by March 19). Therefore, according to AmeriGuard, Paragon's requests to modify its FSS schedule contract on March 19 and April 21 (after both bids were submitted) should be ignored since both came after the March 19 closing date for initial quotations. HHS, on the other hand, maintained that the order was proper because Paragon’s schedule contract had been modified to include the additional items by April 30, the date of the order. GAO agreed with HHS, denying the protest and making it clear that all items ordered need only be on the vendor’s FSS contract at the time the order is issued, and not before.

Read more about government contracts on 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.