1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Contractor Recovers Increased Costs from a Collective Bargaining Agreement Executed After an Option Period is Exercised

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. 

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....