Ahntech, Inc. v. Administrator, Wage and Hour Div., USDOL (agency decision, August 14, 2025)

Plain-English summary

Ahntech sought a price adjustment under a federal service contract after a collective bargaining agreement raised wages. It petitioned the Board after requesting a Wage and Hour Division determination but receiving no response. The Board asked why the appeal should not be dismissed because its Service Contract Act review authority generally requires a final agency or ALJ decision. Ahntech then acknowledged that it had no final Wage and Hour ruling and requested withdrawal. The Board granted that motion and dismissed the petition without prejudice, leaving the company to pursue the prescribed administrative process.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 41 U.S.C. § 6701; 29 C.F.R. § 8.1(b); 29 C.F.R. § 4.56(a)(2)
• Outcome: Withdrawal granted; petition dismissed without prejudice.
• Key point: An unanswered request for a Wage and Hour ruling did not supply the final decision required for this appeal.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor          Administrative Review Board
                                  200 Constitution Ave. NW
                                  Washington, DC 20210-0001



IN THE MATTER OF:


AHNTECH, INC.,                                 ARB CASE NO. 2025-0067

            COMPLAINANT,                       DATE: August 14, 2025

     v.

ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

            RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Ryan Osborne; Pro Se; Los Altos, California

For the Respondent:
Jonathan Snare, Esq., Jennifer S. Brand, Esq., Sarah K. Marcus, Esq.,
Jonathan T. Rees, Esq., and Katelyn Poe, Esq.; U.S. Department of
Labor, Office of the Solicitor; Washington, District of Columbia

Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and BURRELL, and KIKO, Administrative Appeals Judges

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW WITHOUT PREJUDICE

  This case arises under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act of 1965

(SCA), as amended, and its implementing regulations. 1 On June 17, 2025,
0F

Complainant Ahntech, Inc. filed a Petition for Review with the Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board).

1 41 U.S.C. §§ 6701-6707; 29 C.F.R. Parts 4 and 8 (2025). 2

    In the Petition for Review, Ahntech requested a price adjustment due to a

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) wage increase for Contract No. 47PJ0021D0001 (the Contract). 2 According to Ahntech, it is an incumbent service
1F

contractor under a multi-year fixed-price contract administered by the General Service Administration (GSA) and subject to the SCA. 3 Ahntech sought a price
2F

adjustment from the GSA for Option Year 2025 of the Contract, but GSA denied the price adjustment because it did not receive notice of the terms of the revised CBA until after it exercised Option Year 2025. 4 After the denial, Ahntech “submitted a
3F

formal request to the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) seeking a determination on whether the revised CBA applies to [the] contract and whether a retroactive contract adjustment is warranted.” 5 Ahntech alleged that it “sent multiple follow-up
4F

emails” to WHD, but WHD did not respond to the request. 6 Thus, Ahntech elected
5F

to file a Petition for Review with the Board “for a definitive ruling on this matter.” 7 6F

   In response to the Petition for Review, the Board issued an Order to Show

Cause directing Ahntech to explain why the Board should not dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 8
7F

  On July 10, 2025, Ahntech filed a Response to Order to Show Cause. The

Administrator filed a Reply to Ahntech’s Response to Order to Show Cause on July 29, 2025.

2 Petition for Review at 1.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Id. at 6.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Order to Show Cause at 2. The Board advised that its jurisdiction over the SCA is limited as the SCA regulations provide:
The Board has jurisdiction to hear and decide in its discretion
appeals concerning questions of law and fact from final decisions
of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division or
authorized representative, and from decisions of Administrative
Law Judges under subparts B, D, and E of part 6 of this title,
arising under the Service Contract Act and the Contract Work
Hours and Safety Standards Act where the contract is also
subject to the Service Contract Act.
29 C.F.R. § 8.1(b).
 3

   On August 4, 2025, Ahntech filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review

Without Prejudice. Ahntech concedes that it has not received a final decision or ruling from WHD, and therefore, moves to withdraw its petition as the matter is not yet ripe for the Board’s review. 9 8F

  The Board GRANTS Ahntech’s Motion and DISMISSES the Petition for

Review without prejudice. 10 9F

   SO ORDERED.




                                    RANDEL K. JOHNSON
                                    Chief Administrative Appeals Judge



                                    THOMAS H. BURRELL
                                    Administrative Appeals Judge



                                    PHILIP G. KIKO
                                    Administrative Appeals Judge

9 Motion to Withdraw Petition for Review Without Prejudice at 1. 10 Ahntech intends “to obtain a final decision from the WHD through the prescribed administrative process.” Id. at 1-2. The Board notes that per the SCA regulations, “[t]he Administrator will render a decision within 30 days of receipt of the request . . . .” 29 C.F.R.
§ 4.56(a)(2).