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 | 3 min read | 07.23.26
It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26
Second Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Nielsen in Constructive Tying Case
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.22.26
Ghost Advertising: Compliance Takeaways From the Gymshark Influencer Class Action
