Government Contracts Legal Blog

Contract Disputes and the DoD

Posted by Joseph Whitcomb on Aug 8, 2017 11:35:25 AM
Joseph Whitcomb

 

Appeals of Sonoran Technology and Professional Services, LLC, ASBCA No. 61040

 Contract Disputes related to the Fair Labor Standards

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) decided this case. The ASBCA deals with contract disputes that arise between government contractors and the Department of Defense, among other federal agencies. 

In this particular case, both parties agreed to ASBCA Rule 11, which allows for a decision without a hearing. As the case involved a small business concern with less than $150,000 in question, the appellant requested an expedited hearing under ASBCA Rule 12. 

Get Government Contract  Legal Help NOW!

 

Contracts Desputes Background 

On April 24, 2014, Sonoran Technology and Professional Services, LLC (Sonoran) won a contract from the United States Air Force (Air Force). The contract requested “training and related services to F-16 air crews” in two different Air Force Bases (AFBs), Luke AFB in Arizona and Holloman AFB in New Mexico. 

The contract specified requirements for wage determination and a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). In order to submit a bid for the contract, Sonoran had to confirm that their labor costs were aligned with the “minimum wage and benefit rates . . . required for covered contractor personnel.” 

The contract included certain Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provisions. Among those provisions were: 

  • FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards;
  • FAR 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act – Price Adjustment (Multiple Year And Option Contracts);
  • FAR 52.229-3, Federal, State, And Local Taxes; and
  • FAR 52.243-1, Changes – Fixed-Price. 

Sonoran began contract performance, in accordance with the wage determination and CBA controls. Sonoran’s revenue increased and, initially, tax liability to New Mexico increased comparably. But after New Mexico rolled out two increases to its tax rate, Sonoran’s tax liability increased dramatically. Sonoran alleged that the increase in tax liability “could not be calculated at the time of contract offer or award.” 

On June 3, 2015, Sonoran submitted a request for equitable adjustment (REA), accounting for the increased cost of performing the contract under the CBA and wage determination. 

On September 25, 2015, the government modified the contract, increasing the price to account for Sonoran’s increased costs. But the government did not provide compensation for the increase in New Mexico tax liability. The contracting officer did not believe that the contract permitted Sonoran such compensation. 

On October 28, 2016, Sonoran tendered a new REA, requesting price adjustment to account for the increase in New Mexico tax liability. The government rejected Sonoran’s revised REA, leading Sonoran to appeal to the ASBCA. 

Analysis 

Sonoran argued that either FAR 52.222-43 (Price Adjustment clause) or FAR 52.243-1 (Changes clause) requires the government to reimburse the increase in New Mexico tax liability. 

The ASBCA first considered Sonoran’s argument under the Price Adjustment clause. The text of the clause provides that any adjustment “will be limited to increases or decreases in wages and fringe benefits . . . social security and unemployment taxes and workers’ compensation insurance.” But the clause also specifically excludes increases for “general and administrative costs, overhead, or profit.” 

Referencing its decision in a similar case – All Star/SAB Pacific, J. V., ASBCA No. 50856 – the ASBCA stated that the Price Adjustment clause does not allow for increases based on state tax liability. 

The ASBCA then highlighted the differences between the Price Adjustment and Changes clauses. Unlike the Price Adjustment clause, the Changes clause does not provide a formula for calculating price adjustments. Otherwise, both clauses would overlap in unnecessary ways and provide a confusing path for remedial action. As a result, any price adjustment would be governed according to the Price Adjustment clause. 

Consequently, the ASBCA denied Sonoran’s appeals. 

Do You Need Legal Advice from an Experienced Government Contracts Desputes Attorney? 

Navigating the ins and outs of government contracts can be a challenge. There are various legal regulations and considerations at play, which can make it difficult to understand the proper course of action. But a knowledgeable government contracts attorney can make all of the difference, helping you avoid pitfalls and resolve any issues that might arise. 

If you are in need of assistance with government contracts or other related matters, please do not hesitate to contact Whitcomb, Selinsky, McAuliffe, PC immediately. Located in Denver, Colorado, you can reach the attorneys at Whitcomb, Selinsky, McAuliffe, PC by phone at (303) 534-1958 or online by completing a simple form.

Topics: government contracting

Government Contracting is not for the uninformed

Tune in here for the latest in legal news surrounding government contracting

Whitcomb Law, PC is dedicated to helping the government contractor exact all the benefits he or she can deprive from doing business with federal, state, and local governments.  We strive to provide content on this blog that is up-to-date, relevant, and easy to read.  We enjoy reading your feedback especially when it helps us improve the way in which we serve you.

Our sources of information include

  • Recent rulings at the Court of Federal Claims
  • FAR Council
  • SBA rule makers
  • Center for Verification and Eligibility
  • News media
  • Our clients

Subscribe to Our Legal Blog