CBCA 5642
Board: CBCA
Agency: Department of Labor
Appellant: Adams and Associates, Inc.
Date: 2018-11-05
Outcome: denied
DENIED: November 5, 2018
CBCA 5642
ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondent.
Tiffinay Barker Pagni, General Counsel of Adams and Associates, Inc., Reno, NV,
counsel for Appellant.
Dennis A. Adelson and Peter J. Dickson, Office of the Solicitor, Department of Labor,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges HYATT, VERGILIO, and RUSSELL.
VERGILIO, Board Judge.
Adams and Associates, Inc. (contractor) had a cost reimbursement contract with the
respondent, the Department of Labor (agency). A contracting officer determined that
reimbursable rental costs are limited to the costs of ownership because of the connection
between the contractor and lessor of the building, previously owned by the contractor. The
contractor seeks more than the agency has allowed, contending a sale and leaseback did not
occur and that there was no common control to impose limitations. Further, the contractor
seeks an adjustment for facilities capital cost of money within the amount in dispute. The
agency recognizes that such facilities costs could be allowable, but contends that the amount
CBCA 5642 2
is not allowable here because the contractor failed to specifically identify the amount in its
cost proposal.
The Board concludes that a sale and leaseback occurred, and that the entities involved
in the lease are under common control. Each of these factors separately limits the allowable
reimbursement under applicable regulations. The contractor has not proven its facilities
capital cost of money or that an adjustment is appropriate. The Board denies the appeal.
Findings of Fact
Under a cost plus incentive fee contract, the contractor operated a Jobs Corps Center.
The base period was December 1, 2013, through May 31, 2014, with two three-month option
periods. The contract dictated that the agency would reimburse the contractor in accordance
with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Allowable Cost and Payment (Dec 2002)
clause, 48 CFR 52.216-7 (2012) (FAR 52.216-7) (although the parties stipulate to the 2013
version of the clause; here without a material difference). The clause specifies that payments
will be made in accordance with FAR part 31.2 in effect on the date of the contract and the
terms of the contract. Rental costs under operating leases are allowable, subject to various
conditions, with express limitations for rental costs either under a sale and leaseback
arrangement or when charges are made between organizations under common control. FAR
31.205-36.
The parties have stipulated to the following facts for this case:
1. Appellant, Adams and Associates, Inc. (AAI), is a Nevada Corporation, duly
organized in the State of Nevada on September 25, 1990, with its principal place of business
the Headquarters Building in Reno, Nevada.
2. AAI is a 100% employee-owned company with the sole purpose of operating
Job Corps Centers through contract with the United States Department of Labor (DOL). AAI
currently employs approximately 2500 employees at 19 locations across the United States.
3. AAI became a 100% employee-owned company through implementation of an
Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) in 2012. Prior to becoming a 100% employee-
owned company, AAI was owned by shareholders Roy Adams, Leslie Adams, and the Daniel
B. Norem Revocable Trust.
4. The ESOP was adopted by AAIâs Board of Directors on October 24, 2012, with
an effective date of January 1, 2012. The Board of Directors and officers for AAI at this time
CBCA 5642 3
included: Roy Adams, CEO/President; Leslie Adams, Secretary; and Daniel B. Norem,
Vice-President/Treasurer.
5. AAI owned the Headquarters Building prior to implementation of the ESOP in
2012, under which AAI employees acquired ownership of the company from former
shareholders Roy Adams, Leslie Adams, and the Daniel B. Norem Revocable Trust.
Depreciation and other building expenses were included in AAIâs allowable general and
administrative costs.
6. During the ESOP negotiations in 2012, certain conditions were imposed,
requirements that had to be met in order for the ESOP to go forward.