DENIED:  February 23, 2023
CBCA 7402
RICE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Daniel Rice, Chief Operating Officer of Rice Solutions, LLC, Plymouth, NH,
appearing for Appellant.
Anastasia M. Hautanen and Tami Hagberg, Office of the General Counsel,
Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges VERGILIO, SHERIDAN, and O’ROURKE.
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
Appellant, Rice Solutions LLC (Rice), seeks $21,406.25 from the Department of
Health and Human Services (agency or HHS) for failure to pay for work performed under
a contract to provide certified registered nursing anesthetist (CRNA) services.  Because we
find that the contested “on-call” hours were already accounted for in the contract’s described
and previously-used rates, we deny the claim.
The parties elected to have a decision on this matter issued on the record pursuant to
Board Rule 19 (48 CFR 6101.19 (2021)).


CBCA 7402 2
Findings of Fact
On February 6, 2019, HHS awarded Rice a contract to provide CRNA services at the
Pine Ridge Indian Hospital in South Dakota.  The contract was an indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with a period of performance consisting of a one-year
base and four option years.  The base year ended on February 11, 2020.  HHS exercised two
of the option years, and the contract expired in February 2022.  The contract’s task orders
were awarded for consecutive periods of performance of similar lengths (approximately two
weeks) and requirements (regular, weekend, and holiday hours (including on-call hours)).
Each contract year was funded using the following structure: $1,168,500 in regular
hours (eight hours per day, five days per week), $641,696.64 in weekend hours (six hours
per day, two weekend days), and $61,701.60 in holiday hours (six hours per day, ten holidays
per year).  Almost all of Rice’s invoices to the agency were for $55,968.81, which covered
the usual two-week increments at the specified rates.1  This amount was based on a consistent
two-week schedule of 230.77 regular hours at a rate of $193.93 per hour, 48 weekend hours
at a rate of $208.60 per hour, and 4.61 holiday hours at a rate of $254.52 per hour.
Rice’s claim involves task order 75H70622F03027 (task order 3027) for work
performed from January 28 through February 11, 2022, the final two weeks of the contract. 
On February 11, 2022, Rice submitted an invoice in the amount of $77,375.15—$20,000
more than its previous invoices.  The agency approved a portion of this invoice, paying Rice
the usual amount of $55,968.81.  The agency denied the remaining amount because Rice
failed to substantiate the additional hours claimed in the invoice.2  Rice filed a claim with the
agency, which the contracting officer denied in its entirety.  Rice timely appealed the
decision to the Board.
In its appeal, Rice seeks $21,406.34, the unpaid amount of the invoice.  Rice
maintains that it provided the services for the additional hours claimed.  Rice also contends 
that the agency’s failure to pay it for the additional hours violates the implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing and is inconsistent with the parties’ prior course of dealing because the
agency requested invoicing on a pro rata basis, where the firm-fixed-price amount of the task
order was divided by the number of hours worked, rather than an hourly rate multiplied by
1 Some payments were for lower amounts for separate, staffing-related reasons. 
Rice’s contract required it to provide two CRNAs to the hospital, but for several invoice
periods, Rice only provided one CRNA.  This resulted in the agency issuing at least two cure
notices to Rice and authorizing a lower payment than invoiced for the relevant periods. 
2 For task order 3027, Rice invoiced for 309.27 regular hours, 72 weekend hours,
and 9.36 holiday hours. 

CBCA 7402 3
the hours worked.  Rice claimed that there “was more money in the IDIQ contract” and that
it “should have been allowed to bill for the entire final price amount,” including all of the
hours that its employees worked. 
When questioned about the additional amount billed for task order 3027, Rice
provided an employee time sheet showing distinct on-call hours in addition to the typical
regular, weekend, and holiday hours.  This seems to reflect that Rice’s claim primarily relates
to the on-call hours, although it is not directly stated in its briefing.  The agency asserts that
the on-call hours were previously blended into the firm-fixed price up to the funded amount
and that, therefore, Rice has already been paid for them.  Rice counters that the invoice
covers the amount that it should have been paid throughout the life of the contract and
reflects a more accurate description of its employees’ actual hours worked, as demonstrated
by the time sheet.
Discussion
The contract at issue is an IDIQ contract with firm-fixed unit prices for hourly
charges.  Under this contract type, the agency issues task orders and is obligated to pay for
hours ordered and worked.  See National Air Cargo Group v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl.
281, 285 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
The agency has paid Rice for the full amount of the final task order and for all the
hours worked under the task order and contract.  That fulfills the obligations of the agency. 
Rice is not entitled to payment that is in excess of a task order maximum or for hours not
worked.  As explained further below, Rice lacks a basis to obtain the amount it seeks.
This contract type does not entitle the contractor to receive the ceiling price in the
contract; payment is premised on the ordered, actual hours worked.  A contractor thus cannot
seek additional funding under a task order unless a change is made—which has not been
alleged here.  The contract at issue here contains a clear description of the services and
quantity of hours required alongside the funding allocated.  There is no required form of
invoicing prescribed by the contract, hourly or otherwise.  Given that the contract’s IDIQ
framework requires task orders to be funded individually, the agency established a basis for
invoicing within the scope of the contract.
Further, the contract’s statement of work clearly included on-call hours as a part of
the rate for the contract’s obligated services.  It provided that the contracted services duty
schedule was to be based on an eight-hour duty day, five days per week, excluding Federal
holidays.  The contracted services were also subject to call-back on nights, weekends, and
recognized Federal holidays.  The contract also stated that “there will be one anesthesia
provider ‘on-call’ after the regular work day.  The contractor will provide on-call anesthesia

CBCA 7402 4
services during non-duty hours, weekends, and Federal holidays for both surgical and
obstetrical services.”  The contract did not provide for a separate hourly rate for on-call hours
because they were included in the other rates.  Therefore, Rice was required by the contract
to supply on-call CRNA services, and as such, it cannot claim additional payment for these
services.
Rice’s argument that the agency acted outside of the implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing is not compelling.  The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has previously
held that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be used to expand a
party’s contractual duties beyond its express contract.  Metcalf Construction Co., Inc. v.
United States, 742 F.3d 984, 994, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Precision Pine & Timber,
Inc. v. United States, 596 F.3d 817, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).  From the evidence presented, the
agency administered the contract consistent with its terms during the three years of Rice’s
performance.  Rice has not demonstrated any impropriety on the part of the agency.
Whether funds remained on the contract is not relevant to Rice’s claim.  Rice is only
entitled to payment for the hours that it performed consistent with the terms of the contract
and task order.  In reviewing the record, we find that Rice has not provided the necessary
support to show entitlement to the additional funds it seeks.
Decision
We DENY the claim.
     Patricia J. Sheridan     
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge
We concur:
     Joseph A. Vergilio             Kathleen J. O’Rourke    
JOSEPH A. VERGILIO KATHLEEN J. O’ROURKE
Board Judge Board Judge