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 | 6 min read | 06.09.26
Is Stock-a-palooza Over? Supreme Court allows SEC to Pursue Disgorgement
On June 4, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can continue to pursue disgorgement as an equitable remedy in securities fraud cases without showing pecuniary loss by investors. The Court’s ruling in Sripetch v. SEC resolves a split between the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which concluded that the SEC must demonstrate pecuniary loss, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First and Ninth Circuits, which declined to require such a showing.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.09.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 06.09.26
Client Alert | 11 min read | 06.08.26
