Parsons Government Services has won a round before a federal contract board in a case alleging the Department of Energy owes it a $6 million incentive fee after deployment of the Salt Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals on May 10 dismissed DOE’s contention Parsons failed to allege facts showing it is entitled to the fee.
The Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) is meant to treat and reduce radioactivity in liquid waste at the federal nuclear complex near Aiken, S.C. Phase II of Parson’s contract entailed commissioning and one year of operation.
The SWPF started radioactive operations in October 2020.
Parsons said it would have met a 3-million-gallon target in the first year of operation but the DOE-approved simulant used during commissioning was a different size than the actual radioactive waste, leading to clogs in the system, according to the document.
“Parsons claims that it later learned that the filter clogging was caused by the much smaller particle size found in the actual waste being processed compared to the particle size found in the waste simulant used during commissioning,” the appeals board said. This caused temporary shutdowns during early radioactive waste processing, according to the document.
Parsons said the “lack of meaningful information from DOE on the actual waste particle size, and the significance of the particle size impact on processing operations” kept it from optimizing SWPF to better handle the actual waste, according to the board.
“We DENY DOE’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because Parsons has alleged facts that, if proven, state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” the contract appeals board said in the recent decision.
“Phase II had no fixed fee,” the appeals board said. “If Parsons did not receive an incentive fee payment, it made no profit,” according to the contract appeals board.
Parsons formally asked for the $6 million fee in March 2023 and the request was rejected in June, which prompted the current appeal.
The board agreed “Parsons had pled sufficient facts to support its claims regarding superior knowledge, impracticability of performance, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,” a company spokesperson said in a Tuesday email.
DOE declined to comment.
Parsons is represented in the appeal by the Crowell & Moring law firm in Washington, D.C.
