ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK 
 
 Appellant, Heart & Core LLC, elected to pursue this appeal under the Board’s 
Rule 12.2, Small Claims (Expedited) procedure.  Accordingly, this decision shall have 
no precedential value, and in the absence of fraud shall be final and conclusive and 
may not be appealed or set aside.  See 41 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(4)-(5). 
 
 On December 5, 2017, the 10th Contracting Squadron at the United States 
Air Force Academy (“government”) awarded Heart & Core a requirements contract to 
supply comforters, blankets, sweatshirts, and sweatpants, each of which was for a  
firm-fixed price.  The base year commenced in 2017 with four additional option years 
containing escalating prices.  The comforter prices ranged from $55.00 per item in the 
base year to $58.00 in the last option year.  (R4, tab 2)  The government exercised all 
four options (R4, tabs 7, 8, 10, 14).  Separately, on August 10, 2020, the same 
component awarded to Heart & Core a firm-fixed price indefinite quantity contract for 
bathrobes over four ordering periods commencing in 2020 and running through 2023.  
The prices escalated from $53.25 per item in the first ordering period to $58.50 in the 
last.  (R4, tab 9) 
 
 On April 4, 2022, Heart & Core’s CEO/Co-owner emailed a Request for 
Equitable Adjustment (REA) to the contracting officer, seeking a 30% price increase 
for the comforters and a 20% increase for the bathrobes.  She based her request upon 
increased shipping, labor, and fabric costs.  (R4, tab 22)  In an amended request dated 
April 29, 2022, she contended that the new prices were justified given the COVID-19 
pandemic (R4, tab 24).  On June 23, 2022, the contracting officer denied the request 
(R4, tab 27).  Heart & Core has appealed.  Its notice of appeal seeks $69.60 per 
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Heart & Core LLC ) ASBCA No. 63403 
 )  
Under Contract No. FA7000-18-D-0004 )  
   
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Ms. Jen Swendseid 
    President 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 
    Air Force Chief Trial Attorney 
 Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq. 
Maj Alissa J. Schrider, USAF 
    Trial Attorney 

2 
 
comforter and $71.50 per bathrobe.  It says the total it seeks is $36,030.  The parties 
have elected to proceed with briefing only under Board Rule 11.  
 
 The government does not challenge our jurisdiction to consider this appeal 
stemming from the denial of Heart & Core’s REA.  We agree we possess jurisdiction.  
See Zafer Constr. Co. v. United States, 40 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022). 
 
 Heart & Core’s Rule 11 submittal consists of an email presenting links to internet 
search engine queries for bathrobes and comforters available for sale online by other 
vendors at retail prices higher than its contract prices.  It implies these listings prove that 
its prices are below the market for these items.  It has not offered evidence that the 
online merchandise is identical to the items it contracted to provide to the government.  
Moreover, that other vendors charge a higher price for their products does not 
demonstrate that Heart & Core encountered increased costs for its materials, labor, and 
transportation above what it expected, or the amount of any increases.  Heart & Core’s 
REA and amended REA also provide links to various media accounts it claims support 
its claim.  Among those we could review were articles from January of 2022 generally 
describing higher costs and delays encountered by businesses ordering materials and 
shipping goods.  There were also some previous invoices but nothing to clearly prove 
cost escalations.  (R4, tabs 22, 24)  Consequently, though we can accept that 
Heart & Core has experienced inflationary cost increases, it has not proven the specific 
amounts. 
 
 Even if Heart & Core proved that its costs substantially increased beyond 
expectations, we cannot grant its appeal.  We are constrained by the contracts which are 
for firm-fixed prices.  Heart & Core bore the risk of cost increases and the government is 
not obligated to adjust the prices to account for them.  Ace Elecs. Def. Sys., ASBCA 
No. 63224, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,213 at 185,568.  “Under a firm-fixed price arrangement, 
[Heart & Core] assumed ‘maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting 
profit or loss.’”  Parsons Gov’t Servs., Inc., ASBCA No. 61630, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,655 
at 182,815 (quoting FAR 16.202-1).  Accordingly, “[t]he price was ‘not subject to any 
adjustment on the basis of [Heart & Core’s] cost experience.’”  Id.; see also Zafer 
Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 833 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).  
Heart & Core’s reply contends its costs have become commercially senseless, implying 
that performance is commercially impracticable.  However, it has neither alleged nor 
proven cost increases of a magnitude that could come within that doctrine.  See Ace 
Elecs. Def. Sys., 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,213 at 185,568 n.2. 
 
 Heart & Core also cites as a basis for recovery the contracts’ recital of acts of 
God, epidemics, and quarantines as grounds to excuse a contractor’s default (R4, tab 2 
at 29, tab 9 at 16 (incorporating FAR 52.212-4, CONTRACT TERMS AND 
CONDITIONS-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 2017 & OCT 2018)).  It contends that 
when it signed the contracts it could not predict the increase in prices that the economy 

3 
 
has experienced.  Assuming the COVID-19 pandemic has caused Heart & Core to face 
higher costs, neither the contracts’ provisions excusing default, nor any of their other 
terms, shift the risk of performance cost increases generated by an unforeseen 
pandemic to the government.  See Ace Electronics Def. Sys., 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,213 
at 185,568 (citing Pernix Serka JV v. Dept. of State, CBCA No. 5683, 20-1 BCA  
¶ 37,589 at 182,522-23).  Presumably, Heart & Core recognized when bidding on the 
contracts that costs could increase over time because it escalated its prices for the 
various options and ordering periods.  The risk of a fixed price contract is that the 
market will change.  Heart & Core took the chance that the costs of its materials, labor, 
and shipping would not fluctuate far above what it planned, while the government 
protected itself from the consequences if they did.  See Seaboard Lumber Co. v. 
United States, 308 F.3d 1283, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  We must enforce the agreements 
made by the parties.
1 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 The appeal is denied. 
 
 Dated:  January 11, 2023 
 
 
 
MARK A. MELNICK 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 
 
 
1 Heart & Core has indicated that the increased costs have jeopardized this small 
business.  Its reply brief suggests it should receive relief under Public Law  
No. 85-804 as implemented by FAR Part 50.  We lack jurisdiction to grant such 
a remedy.  Am. Gen. Trading & Contracting, WLL, ASBCA No. 56758,  
12-1 BCA ¶ 34,905 at 171,638-39.  Nevertheless, the undersigned fails to see 
where it serves the government’s interest to push toward failure small 
government contractors recently experiencing unusual inflationary pressures.  
While we cannot compel the government to pay increased amounts to Heart  
& Core it is encouraged to explore an equitable accommodation. 


4 
 
 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63403, Appeal of Heart  
& Core LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  January 11, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals