No Match, No Deal In FSS Buy
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.05.05
Reiterating once again that the exemption from full and open competition for orders placed under GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule contracts applies only to items and services in fact listed and priced in the FSS contracts, in American Sys. Consulting, Inc. (Dec. 13, 2004), GAO sustained a protest because the awardee’s Schedule contract description of education/experience and functional requirements for a particular job title did not match those for the RFQ position proposed to be filled. Neither the fact that the background of the individual proposed met the RFQ requirements nor the fact that the RFQ called for quotations citing the FSS job title that “mostly nearly equated” to the RFQ position cured the legal flaw, because the exemption from the competition requirements applies only to the items/services offered by the explicit terms of the Schedule contract.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.01.26
On March 25, 2026, in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a $1 billion verdict against Cox. The judgment was the result of a jury trial in which Sony claimed that Cox was liable for contributory copyright infringement because it knew that its customers were using its service to infringe yet did not respond with sufficient diligence to prevent that infringement.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.01.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 04.01.26
Client Alert | 5 min read | 03.31.26
Washington State Bans and Voids Most Noncompetes, Narrows Nonsolicits
