Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review




green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



6 min read

D.C. Court of Appeals Upholds Decision on Fort Myer Construction's REA

person balancing coins on office desk toy

This court opinion from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals focused on a petition for review that was filed by the District of Columbia against the District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board (CAB) and Fort Myer Construction Corporation, who intervened in the case. The CAB had issued a decision on November 18, 2021, following arguments that were presented on December 9, 2020.

The case was heard by Chief Judge Blackburne-Rigsby, along with Associate Judges Glickman and Thompson. The District of Columbia sought a review of the CAB's ruling, which awarded Fort Myer an equitable adjustment of $251,237, along with interest. This adjustment was granted for increased labor costs that were incurred by Fort Myer's subcontractor, Metro Paving.

The core issue revolved around the District's modification of the original wage payment requirements that were specified in the contract during the option year terms. After a careful examination, the court upheld the CAB's decision. The court found that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and concluded that the District had not shown that it was unreasonable or contrary to law.

Fort Myer Construction's Contract with the DCDOT

In April 2006, Fort Myer and the DCDOT agreed upon a one-year, fixed-price contract. A key provision of the contract was the requirement to pay all workers at least minimum wages as prescribed by the Davis-Bacon Act. Furthermore, the contract solicitation explicitly stated that the Paving and Incidental Grading wage and fringe benefit rates outlined in Wage Decision No. 1 were applicable to the contract.

It was mutually acknowledged that each modification to the Prime Contract extended the timeframe for performance. Accordingly, Fort Myer subcontracted Metro Paving to handle the concrete-related work for the project. Metro Paving utilized the pay rates specified in Wage Decision No. 1 to determine the labor component of their pricing.

Fort Myer's pricing for the base year and subsequent option years was based on estimated quantities and unit prices. The District of Columbia Standard Contract Provisions were also incorporated into Fort Myer's prime contract. Notably, Article 3 of these provisions granted the Contracting Officer the authority to make changes to the contract's requirements.

The prime contract came to a conclusion on May 10, 2011.

Fort Myer Construction's Claim for Equitable Adjustment

Fort Myer Construction, on behalf of Metro Paving, submitted a thorough letter and certified claim to the DCDOT Contracting Officer, requesting an equitable adjustment in response to the increased labor costs incurred due to the issuance of change orders by the District. These change orders incorporated new Department of Labor (DOL) Wage Decisions into the contract, resulting in the requirement to pay higher wages and benefits. As per Article 3.C of the Standard Contract Provisions [PDF], an equitable adjustment should be granted in situations where changes lead to added costs for the contractor.

The Contracting Officer neglected to provide a final written decision concerning Fort Myer's claim, prompting Fort Myer to appeal the deemed denial to the Contract Appeals Board (CAB). The CAB proceeded to conduct a three-day hearing to thoroughly examine the merits of the case.

CAB's Analysis of Fort Myer's Arguments and Evidence

After considering the District's arguments, the Contract Appeals Board awarded Fort Myer a reduced amount of $276,361.37, following a stipulation reached between the parties to recover increased labor costs. During the hearing, Metro Paving's Vice President and President provided compelling evidence and explanations to support their claim for the increased labor costs.

The CAB dismissed the District's contention that Metro Paving should have anticipated the wage increases and bore the risk of the increased labor costs. The board referred to the changes clause in the contract, which entitled Fort Myer to a price adjustment in case any changes to the contract's requirements occurred. The CAB also stressed the testimony of the Contracting Officer, who admitted that Metro Paving faced higher labor costs due to the District's wage determination decisions.

Furthermore, the CAB concluded that Fort Myer sufficiently demonstrated that Metro Paving incurred unforeseen labor cost increases beyond what they originally anticipated for each option year. The District's argument that the evidence lacked adequate documentation was rejected by the CAB as the Contracting Officer failed to articulate what additional information was necessary. Additionally, the CAB highlighted the Contracting Officer's testimony, stating that a detailed analysis of the increased labor costs would have supported Fort Myer's entitlement.

To support its decision, the CAB relied on the comprehensive testimony provided by Metro Paving's Vice President, which was validated by certified payroll records. The board rejected the District's reliance on the Federal Acquisition Regulation, asserting that it does not apply to the District of Columbia government.

Ultimately, the CAB awarded Fort Myer a total of $251,237.62 but declined their request for an additional 10% in overhead. The District disputes the CAB's decision, arguing that Metro Paving should have anticipated the wage increase and that the wage decisions should not fall under the contract's changes clause.

Additionally, the District claims that Fort Myer did not meet the burden of proving that Metro Paving suffered harm as a result of the Department of Labor's Wage Decisions. The District highlights that the overall increase in Metro Paving's prices over the option years was substantially higher than the labor cost increases claimed by Fort Myer.

Labor Costs in Metro Paving's Pricing

The Court of Appeals begins its analysis by addressing the District's contention that Metro Paving was required to include labor costs in its pricing for each option year. However, the contract did not explicitly specify this requirement, and the District's argument is contradicted by the fact that Metro Paving's unit prices already included a labor cost component for the base year.

The issue at hand is whether Metro Paving was obligated to account for inflated labor costs for the option years. The District argues that incorporating the current Department of Labor (DOL) minimum wage decisions did not change Metro Paving's obligations under the contract. However, Article 3.A of the Standard Contract provisions defines a "change in work" that justifies an equitable adjustment, and a change in the minimum wage rate can be considered a change in the manner of performance that warrants such an adjustment.

The CAB relied on the Supreme Court's caution against contractors submitting inflated bids due to potential wage determinations as a basis for its interpretation. Additionally, the CAB referred to Davis-Bacon Act cases to support its interpretation of the contract's Changes clause, concluding that an increase in the cost of performance qualifies for a price adjustment.

The District relied on a court case recognizing similarities between District contracting practice and federal government contract law. However, their reliance on FAR § 22.404-12 disregards a portion of 48 CFR Part 22. Additionally, a recent decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals emphasized FAR 22.407(e), which specifies the "no adjustment" method. The District failed to include the required contract clause in the prime contract. Furthermore, the District failed to insert the required contract clause into the prime contract, undermining their argument based on the FAR. 

In conclusion, the Court of Appeals did not err in rejecting the District's argument and upholding the interpretation made by the Contract Appeals Board (CAB) regarding Metro Paving's labor costs and the applicability of the FAR in this case.

The District's Counterargument: Insufficient Proof of Damages

The District contends that the Contract Appeals Board (CAB) committed an error by granting Fort Myer an equitable adjustment. They argue that Fort Myer has not adequately proved that Metro Paving suffered damages due to the Department of Labor (DOL) Wage Decisions. The District posits that if the payments made by the District exceeded the extra labor costs incurred by Metro Paving, then Metro Paving could not have been harmed. However, the District's argument contradicts the guidance provided by the Federal Circuit, which outlines the criteria necessary to warrant an equitable adjustment. The District did not successfully demonstrate that the CAB made an error when dismissing their argument.

Relevant Insights from Dalco Elecs. Corp. v. Dalton

The Federal Circuit's decision in Dalco Elecs. Corp. v. Dalton is instructive, as it had a significant impact on the outcome of a case involving Cherokee Electronics Corporation, now known as Dalco, and a federal contract. This contract involved unit prices that were determined based on the wage rates specified in the contractor's bid.

What followed was a scenario in which the contractor negotiated lower wages with its employees, while the federal agency continued to pay based on the higher wage rates stipulated in the original proposal. Recognizing the potential implications of the Service Contract Act and minimum wage requirements, the contract included a clause that acknowledged this possibility.

Things took a turn when the Department of Labor determined that the contract was indeed subject to the Act. As a result, the contractor sought an equitable adjustment to account for the difference in wages and benefits. However, the contracting officer refused to pay the portion that represented the disparity between the contractual rates and the actual amounts the contractor paid its employees. The officer justified this decision by arguing against the contractor receiving duplicate payment and maintaining a larger profit margin.

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals sided with the contracting officer in this matter. However, the Federal Circuit adopted a different stance, rejecting the position of the Appeals Board. According to the Federal Circuit, Dalco was entitled to receive full compensation for the increased direct costs that arose from incorporating the provisions of the Service Contract Act. It was deemed unnecessary for the contractor to demonstrate a specific type of injury in order to be eligible for an equitable adjustment.

Appeals Court Verdict Upholds the CAB's Decision

In summary, the Contract Appeals Board (CAB) in this case made a decision that aligned with previous rulings in similar situations such as the Dalco case mentioned above. Despite the District's appealing argument, it could not be concluded that the CAB's decision was "arbitrary, capricious, or so grossly erroneous as to necessarily imply bad faith." As a result, the CAB's decision was upheld by the appeals court.