in this case is whether the government was required by the contractual price adjustment clause to compensate call henry for increased costs that it incurred in providing mandated pension benefits and even though the increased costs of the form of withdraw liability in this case we submit that the price adjustment calls does require reimbursement of the withdrawal of liability and that the court federal claims erred by dismissing and focusing on whether or not the nasa requirements solicitation incorporated the fringe benefits and wages pursuits of the service contract act we did we were required to recognize the teamsters and all them so did require you to  pay wages at a certain level wages and fringe benefits including pension benefits we had to provide for anything other than any other friend benefits and a contract severance vacation pay holiday pay but in this issue provide commensurate level of pension benefits that predecessor contractor provided in this particular case call henry chose to do that if i didn't work agree to the same dangerous plan that predecessor wasn't what you'd have to do that they could have they could have shipped selected another plan and provided the same level of benefits so they did different plans that they have all different costs involved different costs to to to manage under the regulations a service contract decrease according to what you were planning to use cost the call henry would have been required to enter into a plan a similar cost at the time you know over the over projecting into the future different plans could have different cost they could have with the teamsters one is the wage terminations they chose to get into that just as the no health insurance case we cited earlier stigler case which this court says if you have health insurance and the cost of the health insurance goes up price increase our contributions and the government would have continued to reimburse about how to how to cure the deficiency we would have received a price of justice for the full underfunded amount and then after you left increasing three different organizations and got those fringe particular case what occurred in this case is that the i m a call him we now have an obligation to go see a new pension plan it never reached the end of that negotiation never entered into the i am of course one of them to join their  withdrawal liability is a requirement on the national three members that if you had paid in our position there absolutely is a requirement for them to reimburse if there is a requirement for them to reimburse us for the cost of providing the pension we would have continued to pay our share through the hourly contributions the employees elected to take out the teamsters bring in the i am and that requires us to withdraw from the plan we now have that exhilarated so that with all those hourly contributions which were reimbursed now or do right now through withdraw liability we think the core of federal claims erred by looking at it from the perspective of is it would draw liability statutorily required is that a fringe benefit we don't disagree that the withdrawal i believe not a pretty benefit employees are not getting any of that money just as they don't get health insurance premiums employers paying the fringe benefit in this case is the pension we had not a geisha and once we chose for soon for the service of providing those benefits the withdrawal liability same as the our contributions are increasing costs hourly contributions are statutory as well as the i think when you look at the treatment of the court of airplanes logic called a part because they looked at it as the statutory statutory to have withdrawal liability and that's true you can be sued if you don't pay your withdraw liability that's what occurred in this case but i call it henry by once they would enter into that union contract there is a section in section twenty nine us eleven forty five it says the hourly contributions are not statutory we can be sued if we don't do our only contribution of course paul henry did all of their hourly contributions was not sued for that and the government reimbursed for that so in our view it's not unlike the lear siegler case where you have a contractor elected a defined benefit plan and in this case health insurance they could have elected any plan on the market as long as it was not lesser than the one  what if you had lost the government contract and then entered into doing business with a private company and then at that point he was to certified you i mean he would have had to pay withdrawal costs that so if you made make sure i understand a question had we went through there was no withdrawal liability or out of the contract government contract and then we have to withdraw and there is withdrawal liability because it's underfunded on the hook for that but you can be on the hook for those that allocatable share that accrued during the term of the government contract in this particular case and the severance benefits cases illustrate that the contract union that benefits once they're picked up by the new if they're not picked up on a new contract or though then severance benefits kicked in the contracts over and the architect cases come from the board contract feels the armed services p c a and the government contracting resources case both relying on the lear sigler basted yes that's that's associated with the terms of the government contract it was mandated by the service contract act even though you can't tell if you're going to bidding on this we're told the teamsters contract that's where you look for your wages and your fringe benefits we look when we see their pension benefits we need to decide do we get in that plan or do a commensurate plan we choose that plan it's now the service now the union contract is a way determination going forward each anniversary year we are not allowed by the pricing just because to factor in any kind of contingencies in case a plan goes out things of that nature we would not do that and we're not allowed to do that is this  opposed to increasing prices and the question as as the court follows that the withdrawal liability wasn't encourages the cost of complying with the c v a's that it was incurred because of the withdrawal from teamsters process but it is for certain it's not foreseeable that you can calculate a specific amount any more than the severances but any time you enter into multiple or pension plan you know there's a possibility if it's not funding stock market crashes it's all time i'd call henry withdrawn before two thousand and six when the stock market's booming there is no withdrawal liability but unfortunately here the the union was decertified in the midst of the downturn which is what kills their pension plan call henry only able to price that continue to two it has done nothing but provide the benefits that service contract that requires them to do it cannot price in the contingencies and now i hole in the back for carrying out the purposes of all service contract active roster that's exactly what the price adjustment causes for these kinds of benefits that i think are foreseeable even if unforeseeable cost us to increase prices so that we health insurance and leer sailors another example of that what happens with the health insurance same as the pension plans you have to have tiriac actuaries that try and ballpark what it's going to take to provide that benefit sometimes or close some times are wrong sometimes because your investment experience there are dramatically wrong to where you have increased funding so the way to determination is every annual anniversary year here later terminations incorporating the that is called henry's teamster contract the fringe benefits and the wage provisions that is the way he's term it so here once we decided we're going to get into this particular pension plan every time there isn't a wage term anniversary year they're reincorporated the pension benefits in call henry's teamsters contract so here there's no question in this case that that contract requires call henry to pay the pension benefits in the teams all we're saying here is that since the union contract which is the way germany's requires us to pay these pension benefits price adjustment has to pay for the cost of it regardless of what you call it the our contribution or the withdraw liability here or the  are claims focused on neat on the fact that it's statutorily required but looking at looking at the language in the service contract act it says the fringe benefit shell include medical or hospital care pensions on retirement or death compensation for injuries illness vacations holidays that sort of thing the the provision that they're citing says and other bona fide fringe benefits not otherwise required by federal state local law the focus is on the benefits not the cost benefits the benefits by that section system pension benefits so we had an obligation in the service contract act provides pension multimeter a pension plan plan protection amendments this case really boils down to what is provided for in the collective bargaining agreement that the terms of the collective bargaining agreement are what are in the wage determination and this good back to the food services case cited in the brief nine nine hundred ninety four vents up second eight nineteen and the determinative question is not based just like this case was what is provided for in the collective bargaining agreement plan that is the scope of fringe benefits that are required under the service contract act and you can go through the department of labor regulations and ninety third i'm sorry twenty nine c f r par for in four point one sixty three sara graph on that explains that the successors obligations are governed by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement going back further on four point one hundred  seventy one and the bona fide pretty benefits are the legally enforceable obligations in the written collective bargaining agreements one of the criteria so if i find this confusing if the collective bargaining  the contribution costs the labor costs would then be allowable under the cost cost i mean if it was there's a long way of saying if what they're asking for was mandated by the collective bargaining agreement not a federal statute with the governor in top required to pay it under the cost reimbursement clause perhaps and i'm i'm wavering on that your honor because it's in the collective bargaining agreement once it is in the collective remit under the service contract act if it is at substantial variance with the fringe benefits that are provided then the agency can challenge that collective bargaining agreement so the first step is getting it in the collective bargaining agreement and then there are are provisions in the n c a a which would allow for instance if it's not an arm's length transaction if that's your but i mean i don't i don't see how you have any which intimate basis for challenging that here because it's an obligation imposed by the federal government it's certainly not they're giving benefits that are not commensurate with the rest of workers in the country because everybody complains we are we do this and i think the basic your function is is you know your honor it is if it's in the collective bargaining agreement that's the fringe benefit and that is that is our position here in the collective bargaining agreement required by the collective bargaining agreement it would be part of the fringe benefits provided that our or the minimum requirements under the service contributions that were being paid at figure snapshot in time so that can impact how much a particular employer that withdrawals would actually pay for the that's the benefit of its employees when it leaves so you could have a situation where brinton's you have one employer not the government contractor who is actually paying ninety percent of the contributions to fund government contractor several years later withdraw that government contractor even though very many parts of the years it was maybe one percent or two percent of that of contributions it's  wages and benefits determination require a contract because it's not necessarily tied to the wages and benefits paid to these employees it could be due to wages and benefits paid on their contractual obligations and in fact in this area the law doesn't matter and the remedies available are different based on the source of of the duty to contribute union is provided by u s c twenty nine eleven thirty two but if the employer should choose not to continue paying those the remedy is not to go into court but they have to go to the national labor relations board and so the remedy available to the employer is different based on the source of the younger geisha and that is analogous to what obligation to contribute our that is incorrect in our briefing we cited and what it says in the union contract is the after providing for the contributions the agreed payment set forth by the employer shall be used by the pension fund to provide retirement benefits for eligible employees in accordance with the pension plan of the un as the sermon by the trustees of the pension fund the employer agrees to become a party to the agreement and declaration of trustees stablish and the teamsters of seoul obligation we are contractually obligated to provide the pension benefits and this is a factual issue we're on a motion to dismiss if you get there's some ambiguity in that language it should go back to the court of federal clients to determine what the intent of the par we don't dispute the union contract controls we view it much more broadly and then the government does that may be a factual dispute i would only address a couple of things the the definition under the all time for pension protection amendments act specifically defines our withdrawal liabilities our allocatable share of the benefits that are vested so we're not on the hook through withdrawal liability for some other employees or for future on vested benefits or on the hook for what the actuaries say is our vested benefits at that point in time on the last issue with the l r b i haven't had a chance to review that particular case but there are some and all of these cases that provide a different remedy when the lawyer refuses to continue to pay into a pension plan after withdrawal liability because they have an obligation under labor at all or maintain the status quo if they don't and their union can go after him for that want to completely separate and different from the case here are our issues we had to provide was pension benefits we paid to provide it was