Opinion ID: 2263053
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The CAB Decision

Text: In its final decision, issued on December 29, 2000, the CAB concluded that, while Eagle had entered into the contract in good faith and had not contributed to the violations, the costs actually incurred [13] by Eagle in performing the contract were $2,182,059, and that Eagle therefore owed the District $959,963 for payment in excess of those costs. In arriving at that figure, the CAB analyzed each of Eagle's claims for costs, including direct labor costs, fringe benefit costs, other direct costs, subcontractor costs, general and administrative costs, and District-based processing facility costs. Most significantly for purposes of this appeal, the CAB found, on the basis of hearing testimony and documentary evidence, that at least five percent of Eagle's costs were attributable not to work performed under the contract with the District, but to Eagle's other janitorial and recycling jobs. It therefore applied a five percent reduction to the costs claimed by Eagle in connection with its recycling operations, including direct labor costs, fringe benefit costs, other direct costs, and subcontractor costs. It also disallowed ten percent of Eagle's costs associated with fuel, maintenance and transportation because it found that Eagle had operated inefficiently in conducting hauling operations between its own Capitol Heights facility and the CWI facility to process recyclables from the District. Finally, it rejected Eagle's claim for $5,548,367 associated with constructing the new District-based facility. This decision was based on (1) the contract's bilateral modification, which stated that the facility would be Eagle's sole responsibility; [14] (2) the fact that the facility retained commercial value even after the District recycling job had ended; and (3) the fact that, because the facility was not completed before the contract was declared void, it did not benefit the District.