CBCA 6926

DENIED: March 3, 2023 CBCA 6926, 7338 ANGLIN CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent. Yashieka S. Anglin of Anglin Consulting Group, Inc., Washington, DC, appearing for Appellant. Gabriel D. Soll and Korey J. Barry, Office of Acquisition and Procurement Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BEARDSLEY (Chair), GOODMAN, and DRUMMOND. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Appellant, Anglin Consulting Group, Inc. (Anglin or ACG), has filed these consolidated appeals from decisions of a contracting officer of respondent, the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (USCG). The parties have submitted the case to be decided on the written record pursuant to Board Rule 19 (48 CFR 6101.19 (2021)). We deny the appeals. CBCA 6926, 7338 2 Background1 USCG awarded contract no. HSCG23-16-C-PAC019 (the contract) to Anglin on August 15, 2016, as a direct award under the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) 8(a) Small Disadvantaged Business Program. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 1.1.2 The contract included clause 52.219-71, Section 8(a) Direct Awards (Deviation) (Nov 2005), requiring USCG to administer the contract on behalf of the Government. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 22-23. The contract was for “accounting and general clerk support services” for USCG Recruiting Command, with an initial period of performance from August 16, 2016, through August 15, 2017, funded at $303,360. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 1-2. The funding divided the fixed price for the two categories of services, clerical support services and clerical accounting support services, each on a separate contract line item number (CLIN) by a quantity of twelve, permitting monthly billing. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 2. Appellant asserts that, while this was a fixed-price contract, it provided for an economic price adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. The contract included labor rates governed by a wage determination under the Service Contract Act. Therefore, adjustments were made to the contract price to allow for increased labor rates. Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1. The awarded contract included four, year-long option CLINs for each type of service, creating the potential for four additional years of performance. The total potential value, if all options were exercised, was $1,562,991.72. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 2-3. The contract included clause FAR 52.217-9, regarding the options to extend the term of a contract. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 22. The contract was awarded as a commercial services contract and included the FAR clauses providing the terms and conditions for Commercial Items, including FAR 52.212-4 and 52.212-5. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 6-22. The parties bilaterally executed modification P00001 (mod. 01) to the contract on May 4, 2017. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. Mod. 01 increased the funding available under the clerical support services CLINs and deleted the CLINs relating to the clerical accounting services. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 39. The revised statement of work (SOW) reflected the 1 Appellant states in its reply brief that “ACG adopts herein the Government’s Proposed Findings of Fact . . . in its Initial Brief . . . . While ACG generally agrees with the statements in the Government’s proposed Statement of Facts, ACG disagrees with the Government’s Statement of the Facts as follows.” Accordingly, we include here the Government’s proposed statement of facts and appellant’s disagreements with the Government, citing appellant’s reply brief. 2 Citations to the appeal file refer to the revised appeal file submitted on April 25, 2022. CBCA 6926, 7338 3 increased general clerk duties and the removal of the clerical accounting portion of the contract. Appeal File, Exhibit 2.a at 47-49. Among other revisions, this revised SOW changed the accounting support to “administrative” support. Appellant avers that, “although Modification P00001 was executed bilaterally, it was done so on behalf of appellant under duress.” Appellant’s Reply Brief at 1. On May 2, 2017, before sending modification P00002 (mod. 02) for Anglin’s signature, the contracting officer sent an e-mail which explained the changes in scope and the methodology employed to price the changed work.