Case of the Month: April

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 2025
9 Sessions, Second Tuesday of the Month, 11:30-12:30pm ET, Starts in February

• February 11PCI’s February 11 Case of the Month Club will feature two new cases as well as an update on an important case we discussed last May.  Our claims case is Melwood Horticultural Training Center, Inc. v. General Services Administration, CBCA No. 7989, 2024 WL 5003433 (Dec. 3, 2024), where the board dealt with a fairly standard price increase for the final option year of a service contract under FAR 52.222-43, “Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act—Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts).”  Fairly standard, that is, until the Government announced a new interpretation of that clause before executing its fourth and final option under the contract, leaving the contractor looking for another $50,000.  How does the board resolve this dispute?  Our expert Tracye Howard will be happy to tell you as she discusses this very interesting contract-interpretation case.

  The protest decision is UNICA-BPA JV, B-4225803, Jan. 8, 2025, in which the GAO answers what appears to be a procedural question with substantive impact:  What happens when an offeror is not registered in SAM at the time it submits its original proposal but is registered at the time it submits its final proposal revision?  Brian Walsh will explain the GAO’s reasoning in sustaining the protest of an offeror who was eliminated from the competition even though its SAM registration was current as of the date it submitted its final proposal.

  Finally, our good friend Scott Felder will update us on how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handled the Bitmanagement case we discussed last May—an important Court of Federal Claims decision involving software licensing.  Bitmanagement Software GmBH v. United States, 124 F.4th 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2025).  Our first program of 2025 is going to be an action-packed session, so you will not want to miss it!

• March 11PCI’s Case of the Month Club edition on March 11 will feature one CDA claims case and a bid protest.  The CDA case, Cobeal Consulting Group, ASBCA NO. 63815, 2025 WL 607465 (JAN. 28, 2025), tells the tale of a construction contractor that got caught up in the confusing challenge of understanding the difference between a request for equitable adjustment and a claim.  It also paints a picture of what can happen if knowledgeable counsel is not involved in both the claims process and the ensuing litigation.  Are the results fatal?  Let our experts tell you what they think.  The bid protest, The Mission Essential Group, LLC, B-422698.2, 2025 CPD 23, gives us a fascinating look at a pre-proposal protest over the Air Force’s intended use of LPTA evaluation procedures under a large task order.  While pre-proposal protests can be uphill climbs, this decision indicates that the GAO is willing to give them a close look if they involve the controversial LPTA evaluation approach in a DOD procurement.  The case also provides some valuable strategic information for competitors facing an incumbent contractor.   Our expert instructors are looking forward to telling the stories behind both decisions and sharing their thoughts on why these decisions are important.  Join us on March 11!
• April 8PCI’s April 8 Case of the Month Club is going to be riveting.  As usual, our experts Brian Walsh and Tracye Howard will discuss a bid protest and a claims case.  The bid protest case, Raytheon Company v. United States, No. 24-1824C, 2025 WL 583350 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 24, 2025), is a recent Court of Federal Claims decision dealing with the very important question of whether the court has jurisdiction to hear a bid protest relating to an Other Transaction Authority (“OTA”) award.  Recognizing that the COFC has reached different decisions based on the particular facts of each case, the court attempts to provide guidance on this jurisdictional question for future cases.  Will that guidance be followed by other judges on the court or approved by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit?  That remains to be seen, but our experts will share their views on this timely question.  To get the most out of this presentation, we strongly recommend that you read this decision before the program.   The claims case, Wise Developments, LLC v. General Services Administration, CBCA 6659, 7422, 2025 WL 740176 (Feb. 19, 2025), is the first time we will focus on a case involving a Government lease.  In this case, the landlord appellant challenged the validity of the GSA’s default termination and the GSA filed a claim for excess costs of reprocurement. Our experts will discuss the lessons to learn from this case as well as its possible implications for the many leases currently being terminated by the new administration.  Join us on April 8 for a fascinating discussion of these two recent decisions.
• May 13 –
• June 10 –
• September 9 –
• October 14 –
• November 11 –
• December 9 –