Redstone-Subcontract Disputes on Cost Type Government Contracts.png

Although many of us think of contract disputes as those involving a prime contractor and a U.S. Government agency, subcontracts can also trigger differences of subcontract interpretation between the prime and subcontractor. In Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-215, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia decided a diversity breach of contract case between government contractors (the contractor and subcontractor names are a matter of public record, thus disclosure). Fluor (the subcontractor) contended that they did not agree to a 2.3% cap to their G&A on a proposal effort with the United States Air Force. Their proposal, as a subcontract to their prime contractor, PAE, was ultimately selected for the award, at which time, a subcontract agreement was executed and the two parties began their respective performance on the contract. The specific language of that subcontract agreement is the heart of this case (differentiated from a dispute over the regulatory language contained in a subcontract flow-down).

This dispute arose for work in Option Period 1, for which Fluor submitted an invoice including 5.5% G&A (versus the proposal’s G&A rate of 2.3%). This dispute was temporarily resolved when Fluor accepted for Option Period 1 “the 2.3% G&A billing rate with the understanding that before the beginning of each contract period, the 2.3% G&A would be reviewed by both parties and revised as deemed appropriate.” Over the course of the contract, the issue with the capped G&A rate continued to fester, until ultimately claims were brought by Fluor.

The language that you agree to in your subcontract is crucial; the fact that the parties might agree to revise that language is almost meaningless. In this scenario, Fluor decided to accept PAE’s capped G&A rate for proposal purposes with the expectation that Fluor would ultimately receive a FFP subcontract to perform their scope of the work.   PAE provided no guarantees nor promises that this would be done. In execution of their subcontract, the drafted language did not speak to their arrangement being FFP; to the contrary, it cited that Fluor would meet the terms of its proposal to PAE. The Court found the subcontract between Fluor and PAE to be ambiguous as to the reference “proposal”.

When a contract has language ambiguities, the Court may consider parol evidence to establish the parties’ intent with respect to the G&A rate that was recoverable. “More specifically, the Court may consider parol evidence concerning (1) which specific proposal Fluor submitted to [PAE] to meet the requirements of Final Proposal Revision (FPR), (2) whether this proposal allowed Fluor to recover its actual G&A rate or limited Fluor to a 2.3% G&A rate, and (3) whether the parties intended to limit Fluor's recovery of G&A under the Subcontract to that in [Fluor's] proposal submitted for FPR (Final Price Revision)."

Under Virginia law, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were entitled to recover more than what they have been paid. Ultimately, based upon the decision, Fluor’s arguments did not carry the weight necessary to fulfill this burden. PAE did not breach the subcontract because the subcontract language intended to cap the G&A rate as proposed in the FPR.

The takeaway with this case is simple (or at least appears to be when taking a retrospective view): When working as a subcontractor, you need to be sure that the language within that agreement is well drafted to remove any ambiguities. In this case, it seems that the contracting parties agreed to different terms, at least with respect to the billable/recoverable subcontractor G&A rate. Unfortunately for Fluor, the language of the subcontract coupled with the proposal allowed as parol evidence was not enough to prove Fluor’s assertions. There is at least one other lesson for anyone explicitly accepting unfavorable terms and conditions based upon a promise to revisit those at some future point:   Specificity takes precedence over non-specific promises.

Whitepaper: What Are The Prime Contractor’s Risks  Related to Subcontracts Download Now

Written by Charles Hamm, Esq.

Charles Hamm, Esq. Background Charlie is a Managing Consultant with Redstone Government Consulting, Inc., located in our firm’s Huntsville, Alabama office. His areas of expertise include working with government contracting issues, risk assessments, unallowable costs, policies, procedures and current regulations. His legal background and his continuous involvement with our high level DCAA experts and legal experts provides him an ability to assist our customers in interpreting and understanding the regulations beyond what would normally be expected from a staff Senior Consultant. His background in finance coupled with his law degree is a benefit to our customers and our team. Professional Experience Mr. Hamm’s experience includes analyzing government contracts and providing support to government contractors. In addition, Charlie has experience assisting clients with Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR) best practices and compliance. His legal background allows him to have a diverse viewpoint of the aspects associated with government contracting. Prior to joining Redstone Government Consulting, Inc., he worked with law offices in various areas of the law. His role with the Mississippi Center for Justice in Jackson, MS included working with foreclosures as well as assisting his clients apply for government exemptions. His work with a family law firm (JSA Law in Memphis, TN) consisted of evaluating asset distribution through relevant case law. Education Charlie graduated with a BSBA in Finance with a Concentration in Investment Management from the University of Alabama in 2009. Charlie also received his Juris Doctorate from Mississippi College School of Law in 2013 and was admitted to the Alabama State Bar in 2014.

About Redstone GCI

Redstone Government Consultants are a team of the most senior industry veterans and the brightest new talent in the industry. Many have held senior government positions including leadership roles in the DCAA. Our new talents bring significant accounting and software experience along with fresh perspectives, inspiration and energy to our team. Through our leadership and combined experience, we provide a unique perspective, bringing both government and contractor proficiencies to bear and ensuring rock-solid government compliance for our clients.

Topics: Small Business Compliance, Contracts Administration, Cost-Type Contracts