CBCA 7402
Board: CBCA
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Appellant: Rice Solutions, LLC
Date: 2023-02-23
Outcome: denied
DENIED: February 23, 2023
CBCA 7402
RICE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Daniel Rice, Chief Operating Officer of Rice Solutions, LLC, Plymouth, NH,
appearing for Appellant.
Anastasia M. Hautanen and Tami Hagberg, Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges VERGILIO, SHERIDAN, and OâROURKE.
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
Appellant, Rice Solutions LLC (Rice), seeks $21,406.25 from the Department of
Health and Human Services (agency or HHS) for failure to pay for work performed under
a contract to provide certified registered nursing anesthetist (CRNA) services. Because we
find that the contested âon-callâ hours were already accounted for in the contractâs described
and previously-used rates, we deny the claim.
The parties elected to have a decision on this matter issued on the record pursuant to
Board Rule 19 (48 CFR 6101.19 (2021)).
CBCA 7402 2
Findings of Fact
On February 6, 2019, HHS awarded Rice a contract to provide CRNA services at the
Pine Ridge Indian Hospital in South Dakota. The contract was an indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a period of performance consisting of a one-year
base and four option years. The base year ended on February 11, 2020. HHS exercised two
of the option years, and the contract expired in February 2022. The contractâs task orders
were awarded for consecutive periods of performance of similar lengths (approximately two
weeks) and requirements (regular, weekend, and holiday hours (including on-call hours)).
Each contract year was funded using the following structure: $1,168,500 in regular
hours (eight hours per day, five days per week), $641,696.64 in weekend hours (six hours
per day, two weekend days), and $61,701.60 in holiday hours (six hours per day, ten holidays
per year). Almost all of Riceâs invoices to the agency were for $55,968.81, which covered
the usual two-week increments at the specified rates.1 This amount was based on a consistent
two-week schedule of 230.77 regular hours at a rate of $193.93 per hour, 48 weekend hours
at a rate of $208.60 per hour, and 4.61 holiday hours at a rate of $254.52 per hour.
Riceâs claim involves task order 75H70622F03027 (task order 3027) for work
performed from January 28 through February 11, 2022, the final two weeks of the contract.
On February 11, 2022, Rice submitted an invoice in the amount of $77,375.15â$20,000
more than its previous invoices. The agency approved a portion of this invoice, paying Rice
the usual amount of $55,968.81. The agency denied the remaining amount because Rice
failed to substantiate the additional hours claimed in the invoice.2 Rice filed a claim with the
agency, which the contracting officer denied in its entirety. Rice timely appealed the
decision to the Board.
In its appeal, Rice seeks $21,406.34, the unpaid amount of the invoice. Rice
maintains that it provided the services for the additional hours claimed. Rice also contends
that the agencyâs failure to pay it for the additional hours violates the implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing and is inconsistent with the partiesâ prior course of dealing because the
agency requested invoicing on a pro rata basis, where the firm-fixed-price amount of the task
order was divided by the number of hours worked, rather than an hourly rate multiplied by
1
Some payments were for lower amounts for separate, staffing-related reasons.
Riceâs contract required it to provide two CRNAs to the hospital, but for several invoice
periods, Rice only provided one CRNA. This resulted in the agency issuing at least two cure
notices to Rice and authorizing a lower payment than invoiced for the relevant periods.
2
For task order 3027, Rice invoiced for 309.27 regular hours, 72 weekend hours,
and 9.36 holiday hours.
CBCA 7402 3
the hours worked. Rice claimed that there âwas more money in the IDIQ contractâ and that
it âshould have been allowed to bill for the entire final price amount,â including all of the
hours that its employees worked.
When questioned about the additional amount billed for task order 3027, Rice
provided an employee time sheet showing distinct on-call hours in addition to the typical
regular, weekend, and holiday hours.