Current Status
Not Enrolled
Get Started
This course is currently closed

Slides | Recording

The February 7 edition of PCI’s Case of the Month Club will once again feature a bid-protest case and a Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) case.   The bid protest will be a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, CGS-ASP Security, JV, LLC v. United States, 2022 WL 17684772 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 14, 2022), dealing with an offeror’s attempt to resurrect a proposal which was rejected by the Dept. of State because the offeror was not registered in SAM when it submitted its proposal.   Although it would seem to be a fairly cut and dried situation, the plaintiff made every argument possible in its attempt to get back in the competition, and the decision serves as a tutorial on how the SAM process works and the importance of contractors complying with obligations that may seem ministerial or insignificant.  It also serves as a reminder of how difficult it is to supplement the Administrative Record in a case before the COFC.  The CDA case, Ace Electronics Defense Systems, ASBCA No. 63224, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38213, focuses on a prime firm-fixed-price contractor whose major supplier significantly increased its prices based on problems allegedly caused by Covid.  Relying in part on a memorandum issued by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the contractor unsuccessfully sought financial relief from the agency.  In a decision that should be interesting to any contractor that experienced price increases over the last couple of years, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals goes into great detail to explain what the term “firm-fixed-price contract” means.  Join our expert instructors, Brian Walsh and Tracye Howard, as they discuss these two decisions and explain their importance.