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 | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.29.26
Clover Insurance v. HHS: S.D. of Georgia Holds 20 Star Ratings Measures Unlawful
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.29.26
