MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF GRANTED IN PART: November 28, 2011 
CBCA 2498 
CTI GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 
Respondent. 
Lawrence P. Block of Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Washington, DC, counsel for 
Appellant. 
Robert D. English, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), SOMERS , and POLLACK . 
DANIELS , Board Judge. 
CTI Global Solutions, Inc. (CTI) appeals a decision of a Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) contracting officer. The contracting officer denied a claim by CTI under 
purchase orders for the provision of services to her agency under a General Services 
Administration (GSA) schedule contract. 
The basis of the claim, according to the complaint, is that “CTI is entitled to an 
equitable adjustment for the GSA rates it should have received under the Contracts if the 
GSA had properly, and timely, approved CTI’s increased rates.” The contractor maintains 
that “[f]rom October 2007 to July 2010, GSA failed to properly process CTI’s request to 

 
                 
               
          
         
                 
                
            
         
           
               
         
             
           
            
           
             
               
                
             
           
               
            
          
           
              
              
            
              
            
       
2 CBCA 2498 
update pricing.” CTI asserts that it is entitled to be paid for its services at the rates it would 
have charged if GSA had promptly approved its request for increased rates. CTI says that 
it is also entitled to be paid the equivalent of the increase in the health and welfare benefits 
mandated by Department of Labor (DOL) wage determinations. 
The FBI asks the Board to dismiss the appeal in part for failure to state a claim, and 
to deny the remaining part of the case on motion for summary relief. According to the 
agency, the contractor offered and the agency accepted certain rates on three separate 
occasions, so those are the rates at which CTI should have been – and was – paid.  Further, 
the agency maintains, each purchase order included the wage determination which was 
current at the time, and the contractor did not until the penultimate day of the contractual 
relationship assert that the determinations should have any pricing implications. 
We grant summary relief for the agency as to most of the issues raised. 
Background 
GSA maintains a Schedules Program (also known as a Multiple Award Schedule 
Program). This program “provides Federal agencies with a simplified process for obtaining 
commercial supplies and services at prices associated with volume buying. Indefinite 
delivery contracts are awarded to provide supplies and services at stated prices for given 
periods of time.” 48 CFR 8.402(a) (2007). 
1 Agencies may place orders against the contracts 
– at the listed prices or (as discussed more fully below) at discounted prices. Id. 8.404(b), 
(d). 
In 2008, the FBI requested quotations from holders of GSA schedule contracts for the 
provision of clerical and records management services in Alexandria, Virginia, which is 
located in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. On August 11, in an amendment to the 
request for quotations (RFQ), the FBI directed interested contract holders to “provide a 
pricing table for proposed labor categories for performance of such services.” 
CTI, the holder of a GSA schedule contract for temporary administrative and 
professional services, responded to the RFQ. On September 15, 2008, the FBI issued a 
purchase order to CTI for the services in question. The purchase order stated, “Reference 
company’s response to [the RFQ] and revised pricing dated 9/12/2008.” The pricing 
1 We cite to the version of the Code of Federal Regulations which was in effect 
when the contractual arrangements between the parties began. The cited provisions remained 
unchanged throughout the period discussed in this decision. 

 
            
              
              
              
            
             
         
             
           
            
               
              
             
            
         
          
            
             
             
             
              
           
            
        
               
          
           
                
             
              
          
3 CBCA 2498 
proposal showed a billable rate for each of three occupational categories – $45 per hour for 
Program Manager (Systems Analyst III), $29 per hour for General Clerk III (Top Secret), and 
$24 per hour for General Clerk II (Secret). CTI’s president acknowledged acceptance of the 
terms and conditions of the order. At the time, CTI’s schedule contract included the 
following billable rates for the occupational categories in question in the Washington, D.C. 
metropolitan area: $48.07 per hour for Systems Analyst III, $30.41 per hour for General 
Clerk III, and $25.58 per hour for General Clerk II. 
The Service Contract Act of 1965, 41 U.S.C. §§ 351-357 (2006) (now 41 U.S.C.A. 
§§ 6701-6707 (West. Supp. 2011)), mandates that under certain contracts with federal 
government agencies, contractors must pay at least the wages and fringe benefits determined 
by the DOL to be appropriate. CTI’s schedule contract expressly stated that it was subject 
to that Act. The FBI’s 2008 purchase order said that DOL’s wage determination 05-2103, 
revision 6, dated May 29, 2008, was applicable. This wage determination showed minimum 
wage rates for numerous occupations in the District of Columbia and nearby jurisdictions, 
including Alexandria, Virginia. It stated, “ALL OCCUPATIONS LISTED ABOVE 
RECEIVE THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS: HEALTH & WELFARE: $3.24 per hour.” 
On September 24, 2009, the FBI issued modification 1 to the purchase order, 
continuing CTI’s work for another year, through September 26, 2010. Pricing was “based 
on pricing from [the 2008] RFQ.” CTI’s president acknowledged receipt of the modification 
on the next day. Attached to the modification was DOL wage determination 05-2103, 
revision 8, dated May 26, 2009. This document, like revision 6, specified minimum wage 
rates for numerous occupations in locations including Alexandria, Virginia, and said that 
individuals with those occupations would receive health and welfare benefits. Revision 8 
specified that those benefits would be $3.35 per hour. 
On June 22, 2010, GSA and CTI agreed to modification 7 to CTI’s schedule contract. 
Modification 7 stated, among other provisions, “All previous Wage Determination[s] are 
hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with Wage Determination Number 2005-2103, 
Revision 8 dated, 05/26/2009. . . . This contract is modified based on the following price 
proposal: CTI Global Solutions Inc’s Pricing Spreadsheets, dated June 17, 2010.” The 
pricing included rates of $66.66 per hour for Systems Analyst III, $38.40 per hour for 
General Clerk III, and $32.25 per hour for General Clerk II. 

 
            
            
             
              
               
          
            
             
               
            
               
             
               
       
             
              
              
            
            
            
          
              
               
                
               
     
             
               
              
     
           
            
             
    
4 CBCA 2498 
On September 24, 2010, the FBI issued modification 2 to the purchase order, 
extending the period of performance until December 1, 2010. 2 Modification 2 stated, 
“Pricing shall remain the same. The applicable and updated Service Contract rates are 
applicable and incorporated. Pricing for this extension shall be based on pricing from [the 
2008] RFQ.” Attached to the modification was a cost proposal from CTI showing the same 
billable rates that had appeared on the September 2008 purchase order. 
On November 30, 2010, CTI’s president wrote to the FBI contracting officer, seeking 
an equitable adjustment in the contract price, “as stipulated by our GSA Federal Supply 
Schedule.” The president said that the billing rates it included in its initial proposal were 
“based on its GSA Schedule approved rates [W.D. #052103, Revision 4, 7/5/2007 which 
included a Health and Welfare rate of $3.16 [per hour].” She maintained that although wage 
determinations requiring payment of health and welfare benefits in excess of $3.16 per hour 
were included in FBI purchase orders, “CTI could not bill the [higher rates] due to [those 
rates] not being approved per our GSA Schedule.” 
On February 10, 2011, CTI sent to the FBI contracting officer a certified claim, 
asserting that the contract price should be adjusted “to allow for the required updates to 
CTI’s approved rates.” The claim was in the amount of $2,334,008.54 and had three 
components: under the purchase order for the period from September 22, 2008, to 
September 30 [sic], 2009, $1,228,350.05; under the purchase order for the period from 
September 27, 2009, to September 26, 2010, $1,015,931.61; and under the purchase order 
for the period from September 30 to December 1, 2010, $89,726.88. 
The contracting officer denied the claim by decision dated April 18, 2011. She noted 
that “[p]ricing for the original task order was negotiated prior to award and the terms and 
conditions of CTI’s GSA Schedule Contract . . . were incorporated. Pricing for the final two 
task orders was based on CTI’s original proposal. Each task order, inclusive of its respective 
pricing, was acknowledged by [CTI’s president].” 
CTI’s assertion that it could not bill for higher health and welfare benefits in excess 
of $3.16 per hour because those rates were not approved for its GSA schedule contract is 
based on a July 27, 2010, letter from GSA contracting officer Larry Mathias to CTI’s 
president. According to this letter: 
2 The modification specifies an end date of December 1, 2011, but the 
accompanying purchase order specifies in two places December 1, 2010, and an e-mail 
message from the FBI contracting officer to CTI’s president says that the purchase order 
“will provide funding through 12/01/2010.” 

 
          
            
             
               
   
           
            
          
           
        
          
          
              
             
           
            
             
            
               
                
             
            
          
           
            
  
            
    
           
            
         
        
5 CBCA 2498 
From October 2007 until April 2009, [CTI’s GSA schedule] contract was 
assigned to a Ms. Natalie Chaney for administration. At that time, requests 
were submitted to . . . update pricing due to changes in Wage Determinations. 
. . . These modification requests . . . were not processed by Ms. Chaney. 
. . . . 
Failure to process pricing update requests from October 2007 until May 2010 
was not the fault of the contractor, as requests were properly submitted but 
never processed. However, despite this failure, any required changes in 
pricing due to changes in Wage Determinations would be covered under FAR 
[Federal Acquisition Regulation] Part 22, section 22.10, paragraphs 22.1007 
and 22.1015. These paragraphs require the Contracting Officer to equitably 
adjust the contract to allow for required updates in Wage Determination 
revisions. 
At some time prior to June 15, 2011, CTI’s president contacted the GSA Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) regarding the matter discussed in Mr. Mathias’ letter. The OIG 
asked the commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), which administers the 
schedules program, for comments. On July 12, 2011, the commissioner provided the 
following report: On September 21, 2007, CTI requested pricing increases based on wage 
determination increases. On October 18, 2007, CTI’s contract was modified to incorporate 
the increases which had been sought. In July 2008, CTI made an electronic submission to 
GSA, asking that its schedule contract prices be updated. By e-mail message sent on July 29, 
2008, by Ms. Chaney to CTI, the submission was rejected for the following reason: 
Text file does not reflect the correct Hourly Bill Rates, Positions and Locations 
as currently approved in the contract under Modification A005 signed by 
GSA’s Contracting Officer on October 18, 2007. Use the information from 
Modification A005 to update the text file and re-submit in accordance with the 
instructions shown below. 
The FAS commissioner concluded that “GSA responded timely to CTI’s request for price 
increases.” He also stated: 
Rates are effective the date modifications are signed and cannot be applied 
retroactively. It is the obligation of the contract holder to notify federal 
customers of changes in DOL rates and provide documentation, including 
modifications to the contact [sic], to support billing discrepancies. 

 
              
         
                  
             
             
                
               
                 
   
            
              
             
               
             
           
              
             
                 
            
  
   
              
             
               
           
             
                 
              
               
             
                 
                
                 
    
6 CBCA 2498 
Discussion 
The material facts in this case are uncontested. The parties have very different views, 
however, as to the legal import of these facts. 
Our view of the case is for the most part in line with the FBI’s. Under the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, services offered in a firm’s GSA schedule contract are listed at fixed 
hourly rates, but “ordering activities may seek additional discounts before placing an order.” 
48 CFR 8.404(d). Thus, the rates to be paid by agencies which place orders against a 
schedule contract may be, but are not necessarily, the rates listed in that contract. Indeed, 
that is what happened here. On each of three occasions, CTI and the FBI agreed that the 
rates at which the agency would pay for the contractor’s services were discounted from the 
rates in the contractor’s schedule contract. The FBI issued a purchase order, specifying the 
rates which would be paid, and CTI acknowledged receipt of the order and made no 
objection to those rates. Consequently, whether GSA was dilatory in processing a request 
for increased schedule contract rates or not has no bearing on the outcome of this case.
3 
With regard to the wage determination adjustment matter, we note that each of the 
purchase orders cites as applicable a particular DOL wage determination which specifies 
health and welfare benefits. There is no dispute that each of these determinations was 
appropriately included in the orders, or that CTI paid its employee the required benefits. 
CTI’s billable rates – the rates prescribed in the orders – were based on a number of factors, 
including wage rates, health and welfare benefit rates, GSA’s industrial funding fee, and 
whatever else the contractor chose to include. (The exhibit included with the opposition to 
the motion includes markups for vacation, holiday, other fringe benefits, overhead, general 
and administrative expenses, profit, and the industrial funding fee.) Prior to the inception of 
each purchase order, CTI chose, knowing the health and welfare benefits mandated by the 
applicable wage determination, to charge the FBI certain billable rates for its services. If the 
3 CTI’s presentation is confusing as to the contractor’s desire for increased rates 
under its schedule contract. The complaint mentions “request” in the singular and alleges 
that from October 2007 to July 2010, GSA failed to process it. In responding to the FBI’s 
motion, however, the contractor asserts that it made two price increase requests, and that the 
second, “which forms the basis of the equitable adjustment request, is attached as Exhibit B.” 
Exhibit B to the opposition includes a reference to wage determination 05-2103, revision 8, 
dated May 26, 2009. We do not understand whether CTI is alleging that it made one request 
or two, or how GSA could have failed to process since October 2007 a request which could 
not have been made before May 2009. Because of the way in which we resolve this case, 
clarifying this matter is unnecessary. 

 
               
               
          
              
              
                 
             
       
               
            
          
            
                 
                
              
              
       
        
               
                
      
                
               
               
               
                
             
               
              
          
      
        
    
      
      
7 CBCA 2498 
rates CTI chose to charge did not include an increment for health and welfare benefits which 
were not included in the rates listed on CTI’s schedule contract, that is again immaterial, for 
the schedule contract rates and the purchase order rates were different. 
The only period of time during which a new wage determination might have had any 
effect on CTI’s billable rates was the period between May 26, 2009 (the date of issuance of 
revision 8), and September 26, 2009 (the end of the 2008 purchase order). At all other times 
relevant to this dispute, the rates CTI charged were stated after the pertinent wage 
determination had been issued. Revision 8 increased minimum health and welfare benefits 
from $3.24 per hour to $3.35 per hour. Thus, unlike the other wage determinations, which 
CTI should have considered when formulating its prices, revision 8 imposed an additional 
government requirement on the contractor after it had formulated its prices. 
CTI alleges that it increased payments to employees who worked under the 2008 
purchase orders due to issuance of revision 8. We will allow the case to proceed, to the 
extent that CTI will have an opportunity to prove this assertion. We note, however, that even 
for this four-month period, “[c]ontracting officers shall ensure that . . . contract unit price 
labor rates are adjusted only to the extent that a contractor’s increases or decreases in 
applicable wages and fringe benefits are made to comply with the requirements set forth in 
[certain FAR clauses which implement the Service Contract Act].” 48 CFR 22.1006(c)(1). 
To prevail, CTI will have to demonstrate not only that it paid the increased benefits mandated 
by the new wage determination, but also that it was not providing these benefits of its own 
volition, prior to issuance of the determination. 
CTI contends that no case law addresses the matters at issue in this case, and that the 
FBI cannot meet its burden of demonstrating that it should prevail, “accepting all facts as 
true in the complaint[,] [b]ecause there is no case law on point.” The contractor misstates 
the standard for evaluating motions for summary relief. Resolution of a dispute on such a 
motion is appropriate when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, based 
on undisputed material facts. The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the 
absence of genuine issues of material fact. All justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor 
of the nonmovant. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty 
Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242 (1986). 
To defeat a motion for summary relief, the nonmoving 
party must come forward with specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for 
trial. “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the 
non-moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. 
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Where there are no material facts in 
dispute, a case is susceptible to resolution on a motion for summary relief, regardless of 
whether prior case law on point exists. 

 
     
     
       
     
       
     
    
   
       
      
             
              
             
             
_________________________ 
  
 
 
_________________________ _________________________ 
    
  
8 CBCA 2498 
There are no material facts in dispute here. Even accepting as true CTI’s suggestion 
that GSA’s lack of responsiveness to its desire for modification of the schedule contract was 
the cause of the lack of increased billable rates (including to account for higher health and 
welfare benefits) in that contract, the contractor cannot prevail as to most of its claim. With 
the exception of one four-month period, the parties agreed on billable rates which were 
established independently of CTI’s schedule contract rates and in full knowledge of 
applicable wage determinations. Accordingly, we grant summary relief for the FBI as to all 
portions of the case except the question whether the eleven-cent-per-hour increase in health 
and welfare benefits mandated by the Government in wage determination revision 8 should 
result in increased payments under the 2008 purchase order for the period from May 26 to 
September 26, 2009. 
Decision 
The FBI’s MOTION is GRANTED IN PART . As requested by the parties, the 
Board suspends proceedings for thirty days to allow CTI to present, and the FBI to review, 
documentation concerning the remaining portion of the case. The parties shall submit a 
status report on or before the thirty-first day after the issuance of this decision. 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS HOWARD A. POLLACK 
Board Judge Board Judge