Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
“Close Enough” Isn’t Good Enough: Protester’s “Homebrew” Certification Sinks Proposal • Lost in Translation: GAO Upholds Rejection of Lease Written in Japanese • Bid Protests in Alaska • Federal Circuit Holds Challengers to CICA Stay Overrides Need Not Satisfy Four-Factor Injunctive Relief Test • The Clock Is Still Ticking — Claims Timeliness Across the Boards and at the COFC

Government Tried to Recoup Compensation Costs. Why Did CBCA Deny the Government’s Claim?

The government claimed the contractor’s staff augmentation costs were unreasonable. But the CBCA found that if one looked below the surface, the contractor’s staffing costs weren’t so out of bounds.

Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC, v. Department of Energy, CBCA 7056
  • Subcontractor Rates Exceeded FTE Rates – The government claimed the contractor had paid for subcontractor staffing at rates that exceeded what the contractor would’ve paid if it had simply hired the staff as full-time FTEs. The board found several problems with this argument. The government had not accounted for the hours these individuals worked or their experience. What’s more, the government’s argument was premised on 2018 rates spread across all years of the contract.
  • Rates Paid Exceeded Subcontractor Rates – The government alleged the rates paid for some subcontractor staffing exceeded the rates set forth in the subcontract. The board found that for the most part, the government paid the rates in the subcontracts. Three individuals were paid more than the subcontract rates, but those rates had been incurred to obtain experts in areas needed to perform the contract. The board found those expert costs would have been paid by a prudent person.
  • Qualifications – The government contended it paid for staff that wasn’t qualified. The CBCA found that all but one of individuals the contractor used were qualified. The board allowed the government to recover for the sole unqualified individual.
  • Overnight Rate Increases – The government complained that some rates seemed to increase overnight. But the board said the rate increases were reasonable. The rate increases were due to either an increase in responsibility or from subcontractor competition.

The contractor is represented by Scott Arnold, Luke W. Meier, Robyn N. Burrows, and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere, and Michael J. Montalbano of Blank Rome, LLP. The government is represented by Andrew J. Unsicker and Paul R. Davis of the Department of Energy.

--Case summary by Craig Lachance, Senior Editor

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.