It Is Now Uncontroversial: An EPA Clause Doesn't Bar A Full Equitable Adjustment For Adding Fringe Benefit Requirements To A Government Contract After Award

“Synonyms of uncontroversial: not likely to be disputed or to cause strife or quarrel : not relating to or arousing controversy” 

--Miriam-Webster Dictionary

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (“CBCA”) issued a new decision dated Sept 2, 2026, involving a sick leave Executive Order (“EO”) price adjustment under the Changes clause. The case is captioned Maximus Education, LLC dba Aidvantage v. Department of Education (“DOE”), CBCA 8407, 8408 (2026). https://www.cbca.gov/files/decisions/2026/NEWSOM_09-02-26_8407__MAXIMUS_EDUCATION_LLC_DBA_AIDVANTAGE%20(DECISION).pdf. The case involved the application of an Economic Price Adjustment (“EPA”) clause to a contract change order inserting the sick leave requirement into the contract after award and its interaction with the price adjustment provisions of the sick leave EO.

DOE defended the Board case rather feebly but apparently argued that no price adjustment was due because of the EPA clause. That claim had already been resolved by another case at the CBCA called  Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. v. Department of Education, CBCA 8250, et al., 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,915. In that appeal, the Board held that the EPA provision in a student loan servicing contract did not bar the contractor from obtaining a price adjustment for federal contractor minimum wage increases under FAR 52.222-55. We discussed some of the EPA issues in a prior blog. See https://www.awrcounsel.com/blog/2023/4/4/back-to-basics-sca-price-adjustments-on-cost-reimbursement-and-hybrid-contracts?rq=Economic%20Price%20Adjustment. Now with Great Lakes and the Maximus cases, we have some answers to the overlap of the EPA clause with the price adjustment clause. 

Here is what the Board said in the Maximus case:  

The Legacy contract was awarded in 2009, and, after EO 14026 was signed in 2021, the respondent unilaterally modified the contract to incorporate FAR 52.222-55. Maximus argues that this modification was a contract change, entitling to the costs it incurred because of the change. Clearly, this is correct. The insertion of FAR 52.222-55 into the Legacy contract was a contract change. The straightforward and uncontroversial conclusion is that, if FAR 52.222-55 increased Maximus’s costs, the Government must compensate the contractor in accordance with the changes clause. See Exhibit 1 (CBCA 8047) at 7 (paragraph (c)(1)(2)). An economic price adjustment clause does not bar recovery under the Changes clause. Great Lakes, 25-1 BCA at 189,419; see Lockheed Support Systems, Inc. v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 424, 429-30 (1996).

Id. (emphasis added).  

Curiously, however, when the Board went to adjust the price, it did so under the sick leave clause and not the Changes clause, but that was possibly a function of how Maximus priced its claim, or it is just plain wrong. The Great Lakes case only dealt with entitlement and not quantum. However, the sick leave EO, like the Service Contract Act (“SCA”)  clause, only gives an adjustment for the extra out of pocket fringe benefits  incurred by the contractor. As we blogged about recently, the Changes clause gives the contractor a right to a full equitable adjustment, and that includes overhead, G&A, and profit. See https://www.awrcounsel.com/blog/2026/8/24/what-happens-when-there-is-no-sca-wage-determination-in-a-contract ; https://www.awrcounsel.com/blog/2026/9/28/what-happens-when-there-is-no-sca-wage-determination-in-a-contract-part-ii. As the Board correctly noted above, this addition of a sick leave EO requirement into an existing contract is processed under the Changes clause. And the Lockheed Support Systems case cited by the Board makes the full adjustment right clear.  

Accordingly, the CBCA  is now on record again that, same as the situation under the SCA, when a new EO sick leave benefit requirement is added to an existing contract, that constitutes a change to the contract and entitles the contractor to a full equitable adjustment in the contract price. The presence of an EPA clause does not alter that “straightforward and uncontroversial conclusion.”