ARB Case No. 98-097
(Formerly ARB Case No. 97-068)
ALJ Case No. 93-DBA-65
DATE: May 19, 1998
In the Matter of:
BHATT CONTRACTING
COMPANY, INC., Contractor
and
VIJAY A. BHATT
Individually and as President
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING FEES AND EXPENSES
This matter is before the Board pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended,
40 U.S.C. §276a et seq., its related Acts (see 29 C.F.R. §5.1), and 29
C.F.R. Part 7 (collectively, DBA). Bhatt Contracting Company, Inc. and Vijay Bhatt (collectively,
Bhatt) filed a petition pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §5.12(c) requesting removal of their names from
the debarred bidders' list. On January 26, 1998 the Board issued a Final Decision and Order granting
the petition. Bhatt now requests that the Board grant attorney fees and other expenses pursuant to
the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. §504 (EAJA).
The Board has previously ruled that administrative proceedings under the DBA
are not subject to the attorney fee and costs provisions of the EAJA. We have held that DBA
administrative proceedings are not "adversarial adjudications" within the meaning of the
EAJA, because there is no statutory requirement for an administrative proceeding conducted
pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. Paul G. Marshall, Jr., WAB Case No. 88-37
(Jan. 31, 1991); Roderick Construction Co., WAB Case No. 88- 39 (Dec. 20, 1990). In those
decisions we also noted the fact that DBA proceedings are not listed in the enumerated types of
Department of Labor administrative proceedings subject to EAJA. 29 C.F.R. §16.104. (The
regulation at 29 C.F.R. §6.6(a) explicitly excludes from EAJA coverage DBA administrative
proceedings conducted before an Administrative Law Judge.)
[Page 2]
Bhatt's request for attorney's fees and expenses is DENIED.
