Contractor Recovers Increased Costs from a Collective Bargaining Agreement Executed After an Option Period is Exercised
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.04.20
In Alutiiq Commercial Enterprise, LLC (Jan. 9, 2020), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that a contractor is entitled to an equitable adjustment under the Service Contract Act Price Adjustment Clause, FAR 52.222-43, for increased labor costs associated with a new Collective Bargaining Agreement executed after an option period is exercised when the contracting officer failed to provide the 30-day notice required by FAR 22.1010(b), which requires the contracting officer to notify the contractor and the collective bargaining agent in writing of the forthcoming option exercise and the applicable acquisition dates. The Board reached this conclusion despite the fact that the parties exercised the option via a bilateral modification. The Board was unwilling to find that the bilateral modification waived FAR 22.1010(b)’s notice requirement when a clear and unequivocal intention to do so was not present. The dissent stated that the option referred to in “FAR 22.1010, FAR 52.222-43, and FAR 52.217-9 means an option exercised unilaterally” and thus the notice requirement in FAR 22.1010(b) did not apply to the parties’ bilateral modification.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 01.13.26
Colorado Judge Quashes DOJ Gender-Related Care Subpoena
On January 5, 2026, District of Colorado Magistrate Judge Cyrus Chung issued a recommendation that the district court grant a motion to quash a Department of Justice (DOJ) administrative subpoena that sought records about the provision of gender-related care by Children’s Hospital Colorado (Children’s) in In re: Department of Justice Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-030, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, No. 1:25-mc-00063. The court concluded that the DOJ had failed to carry its “light” burden, noting that no other courts that had considered the more than 20 similar subpoenas issued by DOJ had ruled in the DOJ’s favor.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 01.13.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 01.13.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 01.07.26


