DENIED: April 11, 2019
CBCA 6233
WILLIAM BRENT SCHAEFFER,
Appellant,
v.
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
William Brent Schaeffer, pro se, Hendersonville, NC.
John B. Alumbaugh, Office of the General Counsel, Agency for International
Development, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges VERGILIO, O’ROURKE, and CHADWICK.
VERGILIO, Board Judge.
The Board received from William Brent Schaeffer (contractor) a timely appeal of a
contracting officer’s decision denying a claim for more than the contracted rate for services. 
Despite negotiating and signing the contract, and receiving the agreed-upon rate, the
contractor contends he is entitled to more under an agency regulation.  The parties submitted
the case on the record.  The regulation does not dictate a different rate.  The Board denies the
appeal.
Findings of Fact
1. The parties negotiated and entered into a contract with an effective date of
April 16, 2013.  The contractor provided personal services.  Compensation was based upon
an agreed annual rate or salary, as well as other reimbursable costs.  The contract specifies
that the agency shall pay the contractor compensation subject to the applicable conditions and


CBCA 6233 2
limitations set out in the contract.  The contract sets forth a maximum obligation to cover all
compensation and reimbursable costs, as well as an annual rate of compensation.  Exhibit 4
at 5 (¶ A.3.A, .C, .D) (all exhibits are in the appeal file).
2. The contract dictates that it shall be interpreted in accordance with the body of
federal procurement law in the United States.  The contract is a complete statement of the
duties, compensation, benefits, and the like.  Exhibit 4 at 32-33 (¶ GP.26).
3. For the performance period, beginning in 2013 through the submission of the
claim in 2018, the contractor was paid at the agreed upon rate, as dictated in the contract and
twenty-five bilateral modications.  Complaint at 1 (¶ 2); Answer at 5.
4. Appendix D.4(e)(1) of the agency’s acquisition regulations (AIDAR) identifies
the method to establish a salary for personal services contractors:
Salaries for Personal Services Contractors shall be established based on the
market value in the United States of the position being recruited for.  This
requires the Contracting Officer in coordination with the Technical Officer to
determine the correct market value (a salary range) of the position to be filled.
. . . The market value of the position then becomes the basis along with the
applicants’ certified salary history . . . for salary negotiations by the
Contracting Officer. . . . The crucial point is the establishment of a realistic and
reasonable market value for a job.  The final determination regarding the
reasonableness of a salary level rests with the Contracting Officer.
48 CFR Ch. 7, App. D.4(e)(1) (2013).
5. The contractor filed a claim seeking an additional $46,358.92, claiming that
contrary to the AIDAR, the agency utilized the incorrect base rate in establishing the salary
for the position.  Exhibit 1.  The contracting officer denied the claim by decision dated
May 29, 2018.  Exhibit 2.  The contractor filed an appeal with the Board on August 13, 2018.
Discussion
The contractor seeks additional compensation, alleging that the compensation rate in
the contract violates the AIDAR.  Specifically, the contractor posits particulars as to what the
“market value in the United States” should encompass.
The regulation provides that salaries shall be based on the market value in the United
States for the recruited positions, but does not direct that there is a one-to-one

CBCA 6233 3
correspondence between a market value and the ultimate salary.  Quite the contrary, the
regulation recognizes that salaries may be negotiated and states: “The crucial point is the
establishment of a realistic and reasonable market value for a job.  The final determination
regarding the reasonableness of a salary level rests with the Contracting Officer.”  The
regulation does not require a change to the contract.  See American Telephone & Telegraph
Co. v. United States, 307 F.3d 1374, 1377-79 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  The negotiations apparently
led to the establishment of a realistic and reasonable market value for the job.  The contractor
has not established a basis to reform the contract.
Other theories to deny the appeal, raised by the agency, need not be addressed.
Decision
The Board DENIES this appeal.
     Joseph A. Vergilio          
JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
Board Judge
We concur:
   Kathleen J. O’Rourke          Kyle Chadwick               
KATHLEEN J. O’ROURKE KYLE CHADWICK
Board Judge Board Judge