Slides | Recording
Please join our Case of the Month Club, a program in which our expert instructors will take a deep dive into recent decisions involving issues that affect all of us on a regular basis. This class, meant for contracting professionals, will focus on different cases, going beyond the mere holding into the history, tactics, and significance of the case as a whole. Whether the cases are bid protests or contract claims, our instructors, all of whom are experienced professionals, will discuss the facts of the cases at hand, the reasons why the cases are important, the strategies that were used, and the lessons that can be learned from them. To maximize your experience, we will send you copies of the cases in advance so that you are primed for the discussion when our program begins. Sound interesting? We hope so, and we look forward to having you with us for the start of the series.
Because the Case of the Month Club will look at recent cases based on their importance to Government Contracting, we will set the class’s Topic several weeks prior to the program. This will help keep the program fresh.
Case of the Month 2024
Second Tuesday of the Month, 12:00-1:00pm ET
- January 9 Ben Holtz Consulting, Inc. dba California Avocados Direct v. Dept. of Agriculture, CBCA No. 7637 (Nov. 17, 2023); and, 4DD Holdings, LLC and T4 Data Group, LLC v. The United States, — Fed.Cl. —-, 2023 WL 8290926 (August 22, 2023)
PCI’s Case of the Month Club will kick off the New Year with the discussion of two important recent Contract Disputes Act decisions. In the first case, Ben Holtz Consulting, Inc. dba California Avocados Direct v. Dept. of Agriculture, CBCA No. 7637 (Nov. 17, 2023), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals sheds further light on the confusing question of how termination costs are to be calculated under a contract for commercial products. In the second decision, 4DD Holdings, LLC and T4 Data Group, LLC v. The United States, — Fed.Cl. —-, 2023 WL 8290926 (August 22, 2023), the Court of Federal Claims deals with the calculation of damages flowing from the Government’s infringement of a contractor’s software copyright, a calculation heavily influenced by its finding that the Government tried to hide its infringement by destroying evidence and misrepresenting its actions. In a world where the Government’s acquisition of commercial products continues to increase each year, and where it has exhibited a voracious appetite for commercial software, these decisions provide important guidance to Government agencies and contractors alike. Join us on January 9 for PCI’s Case of the Month Club! - February 13Our February 13 Case of the Month Club session will focus on two timely, recent decisions, the first a bid protest, the second a CDA case. In L3Harris Technologies, Inc., B-422006 et al., Dec. 20, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 290, the protester left no stone unturned as it challenged a NASA decision to award a nearly $1 billion contract. Its protest grounds included an improper evaluation, a faulty cost-realism analysis, and the existence of an unmitigable conflict of interest. In a detailed decision, the GAO denied all of the protest grounds, showing great deference to the agency and its thorough and impressive agency report. This decision is an excellent example of how an agency should conduct a procurement, even if that procurement has some unexpected twists and turns. In Strategic Technologies Institute, Inc. v. Secretary of Defense, — F.4th —, 2024 WL 253316 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed a question that should be of great interest to anyone dealing with a cost-reimbursement contract: When does a claim accrue? In this case, the contractor had failed to submit its required indirect rate cost proposals after the first two completed years (2008 and 2009) of its Navy contract. In 2014, when the Government realized it had never seen the proposals for 2008 and 2009, it requested the contractor to submit the proposals, which the contractor did. In 2018, the Government demanded reimbursement of more than $1 million, including interest and penalties. The contractor argued that the Government’s request was barred by the six-year statute of limitations, contending that the statute began to run at the time the contractor had missed its filing dates. The court’s response to that argument is short and instructive, and serves as a reminder that contractors dealing with the U.S. Government must turn square corners. Please join us on Feb. 13 to hear our experts discuss these two interesting cases!
- March 12
- April 9
- May 14
- June 11
- September 10
- October 8
- November 12
- December 10
Slides | Recording