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

• February 11

PCI’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 11 –
• April 8 –
• May 13 –
• June 10 –
• September 9 –
• October 14 –
• November 11 –
• December 9 –