PCI’s March 10 Case of the Month Club will feature two cases that differ slightly from the cases we have examined to date.   The first case, Dev Technology Group, Inc. v. United States, 179 Fed. Cl. 361 (2025), a bid protest case at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, was decided on the pleadings—meaning it never got past first base.  It provides a reminder to all lawyers, regardless of experience, that drafting an adequate complaint is more than a ministerial task.  The Dev Tech decision holds that a protestor will not be able to establish standing unless it actually alleges standing for each of its protest grounds and provides the court with adequate information to assess its allegation.  Furthermore, the failure to prove that any of the alleged errors was prejudicial was another nail in the protester’s coffin.

The second case, Linda Arce v. Honeywell International Inc., 2025 WL 3564654 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2025), a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is the first False Claims Act case we have addressed on Case of the Month Club in a few years. It involves a terminated employee’s claim that her employer retaliated against her after she made allegations that the company had acted fraudulently as a subcontractor under a Government prime contract. In denying her claim, the court found that she had not engaged in conduct that was protected by the False Claims Act.   The court’s decision contains a helpful discussion of the three requirements that must be met in order to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under the FCA.

Join us on March 10 for what promises to be a fascinating discussion!