GRANTED IN PART: March 6, 2017

GRANTED IN PART: March 6, 2017

CBCA 3860

1441 L ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

Brett D. Orlove, Matthew S. Kirsch, and Nicholas J. Larson of Grossberg, Yochelson,

Fox & Beyda, LLP, Washington, DC, and Benjamin A. Klopman of Benjamin A. Klopman,

Chartered, Rockville, MD, counsel for Appellant.

Elyssa Tanenbaum and Justin Hawkins, Office of General Counsel, General Services

Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges VERGILIO, DRUMMOND, and ZISCHKAU.

VERGILIO, Board Judge.

On May 16, 2014, the Board received a notice of appeal from 1441 L Associates, LLC

(lessor) (the successor to 9th & D Joint Venture; “lessor” denotes the appropriate entity as

distinctions between the original and successor are not material) concerning its lease contract,

GS-11B-20810, with the General Services Administration (agency or GSA). The parties

entered into a three-year lease extension of a twenty-year lease. The extension agreement

specifies that the annual rent shall be $7,394,982 (or $616,248.50 per month) “plus accrued

operating costs.” After noting that the current annual escalated operating costs amount is

$1,696,355.10, the agreement provides that the Government shall continue to pay to the

lessor the cumulative operating expense adjustments over the original base year; that is,

annual adjustments to operating costs based upon changes in price indexes. The agreement

does not contain a dollar figure for those adjustments.

CBCA 3860

2

At issue in this dispute is the interpretation of the extension agreement as it relates to

the cumulative operating costs to be paid by the agency. The plain language of the agreement

supports the general position of the lessor. The monthly rental payment is to include the

basic rental rate ($616,248.50 per month) plus the cumulative operating expense adjustments

over the original base year. That monthly adjustment amount was $52,470.97 in the first year

of the extension. The agency concludes that the monthly adjustment amount was $31,691.24,

as it looks to operating costs established ten years into the underlying lease as the base; that

position is inconsistent with the plain language. The agreement requires the agency, in the

initial year, to pay more than the basic rental rate. The reference to the original base year

clearly does not reference adjustments accumulated from a different time period. Contrary

to the position of the agency, parol evidence is consistent with the plain language of the

extension agreement. The record reveals that the lessor rejected agency attempts to alter the

base for calculating adjustments to the operating costs. The contracting officer was unable

to obtain lessor agreement with attempts of the agency to change the operating costs base;

thus, that the contracting officer put forward a per square foot figure to reflect operating costs

and taxes does not evidence an interpretation to be imputed to the lessor when the lessor

rejected such an approach. Moreover, a draft of the extension agreement specified that the

basic rent included the new operating costs base; that language did not survive the

negotiation process.

After its initial claim, the lessor has altered the amount sought, in part based on

amounts paid (or to be paid) by the agency, the passage of time with indexed increases

definitized, and a reduction in rental space. The lessor now seeks $249,356.63 for each of

the three years, plus accrued interest. The lessor is entitled to this amount for the first year

(less amounts already paid for the initial months of year one of the extension); for the second

and third year, the lessor is entitled to this amount less any necessary adjustments because

of a space reduction. Given the dispute over payment, the lessor has not discussed or shown

entitlement to recover interest under the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3901(d)(5) (2012).

The lessor is to recover interest under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7109,

calculated from April 8, 2014. The Board grants in part the appeal to this extent.

Findings of Fact

Terms of the contract relevant to the positions of the parties

1.

On October 30, 1992, the parties entered into a lease contract for a fixed tenyear period. Exhibit 3 at 1 (all exhibits are in the appeal file). The annual rent was

$3,777,857.06 (or a monthly rent of $314,821.42), with options available for the agency to

increase the rental space. The lease also provided for adjustments in the agency’s obligations

CBCA 3860

3

to pay real estate taxes and operating costs. Exhibit 3 at 1, 11-12. This agreement reflects

an initial annual payment of approximately $32.51 per net usable square foot (nusf).

2.

The agency had the right to renew the lease for a ten-year period:

The Government has the right to renew this Lease for a period of ten (10)

years. The rent for this option term shall be $30.80 /NUSF, (i.e., the base

rental for the space to be leased only, not counting the base cost of services

and its corresponding escalations, shall be $1.80/NUSF more for the option

term than for the firm term).

Exhibit 3 at 1 (¶¶ 1, 5).

3.

Paragraph 3.4, an Operating Costs clause from the General Services

Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) (June 1985), 48 CFR 552.270-23, provides

as follows, with the added, agreed-upon sentence next to paragraph (A) that “The base cost

of services is $798,220.00.”:

(A) Beginning with the second year of the lease and each year after, the

Government shall pay adjusted rent for changes in costs for cleaning services,

supplies, materials, maintenance, trash removal, landscaping, water, sewer

charges, heating, electricity, and certain administrative expenses attributable

to occupancy. Applicable costs listed on GSA Form 1217, Lessor’s Annual

Cost Statement, when negotiated and agreed upon, will be used to determine

the base rate for operating costs adjustment.

(B) The amount of adjustment will be determined by multiplying the base

rate by the percent of change in the cost of living index. . . .

(C) If the Government exercises an option to extend the lease term at the

same rate as that of the original term, the option price will be based on the

adjustment during the original term. Annual adjustments will continue.

....

(E)

The offer must clearly state whether the rental is firm throughout the

term of the lease or if it is subject to annual adjustment of operating costs as

indicated above. If operating costs will be subject to adjustment, it should be

specified on block 19 of GSA Form 1364, proposal to lease space, contained

elsewhere in this solicitation.

CBCA 3860

4

Exhibit 3 at 12. The parties understood that rental was subject to annual adjustments of

operating costs; as specified in paragraph (A), the lessor provided a completed GSA Form

1217. Exhibit 3 at 187-88. The $798,220 amount reflects annual base operating costs of

approximately $6.87 per nusf ($798,220 ÷ 116,206 nusf).

4.

The ten-year, firm term of the lease commenced on June 13, 1993, and ended

on June 12, 2003. Within the first year, the agency exercised options to increase its leased

space while increasing the base cost of services for which it was liable; the agency also added

fully serviced space through bilateral amendments effective in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2000.

Adjustments were made to the total annual rent and to the operating costs. Exhibits 6-9, 1314, 16, 21. During the initial ten-year term the parties entered into bilateral modifications

adjusting the agency’s payments for operating costs; these adjustments were made to base

operating costs as adjusted for the additional space, not the $798,220 figure in the lease

identified as the base cost of services (finding 3). The agency paid adjustments to operating

costs, which by the end of the period were $20,779.72 monthly. Exhibits 10, 12, 15, 17-20,

22-23.

5.

In a letter, the agency unilaterally exercised its renewal option for a ten-year

term, through June 12, 2013:

the option is for a ten (10) year term at a rental rate of $30.80/nusf for 156,206

NUSF of office and related space. This rental rate includes base operating

costs. As stated in your letter dated June 12, 2002, the original base year

operating costs and real estate taxes shall be the same base year for the 10 year

option period.

Exhibit 24. Bilateral supplemental lease agreement (SLA) 50 amended the lease to reflect

the agency’s exercise of the option. The new annual rental rate was $5,060,501.43 (or

$421,708.45 monthly), composed of an annual base rent of $4,811,144.80 (or $400,928.73

monthly) and a monthly adjustment of $20,779.72, to reflect escalations and adjust for an

error correction. The new base operating costs became $1,316,060.13 or approximately

$7.66 per nusf. The contractor submitted its annual operating cost statements on GSA Form

1217 in support. Exhibit 26. By bilateral SLA 51, effective in November 2004, the annual

rent was reduced to correct for errors. Exhibits 27, 31. For the second ten-year term, lease

payments were adjusted annually to reflect index adjustments to operating costs. Exhibits

28-30, 32-38.

6.

Bilateral SLA 81, dated September 18, 2012, amended the lease. Terms

included the following:

CBCA 3860

5

1.

In compliance with paragraph 3.4 of lease attachment A. (SFO

#91-158) the rental rate will be adjusted for increased operating

costs following the instructions for adjustment in paragraph

3.4(B).

2.

Annual Cost of Services will increase from $1,669,060.70 to

$1,696,355.10 minus the previous increase of $1,669,060.70

specified in SLA 78 to equal $27,294.40 increase annually. The

monthly amount of $2,274.53 increases the monthly payment

from $443,065.57 to $445,340.10 (exclusive of any SLA for

overtime utility services).

Exhibit 38 at 1. The agreement sets forth the calculations, identifying the base cost of

services as $1,316,060.13 (referencing SLA 50).

The particular language in dispute and payments

7.

The lease was to end on June 12, 2013. Finding 5. A bilateral modification

extended the lease for three years, from June 13, 2013, to June 12, 2016, for a stated square

footage of office and related space. Pertinent terms of the agreement follow:

2.

The annual rent for the extension term commencing, June 13,

2013, shall be $7,394,982.00, payable at a rate of $616,248.50

per month, in arrears (based on 176,071 RSF [rentable square

feet] times $42.00 per RSF / 156,206 NUSF times $47.34 per

NUSF) plus accrued operating costs. Said rental is inclusive of

all HVAC overtime or extended hours per SLA #9 . . . with the

exception of . . . . Rent shall continue to be adjusted for

operating costs escalations as provided in SFO [solicitation for

offers] #05-028, Section 2.2 for the second and third years of the

extension period.

....

4.

The current annual escalated operating cost amount is

$1,696,355.10 (Per SLA #81). The Government shall continue

to pay to Lessor the cumulative operating expense adjustments

over the original base year. The base year shall remain

unchanged. The next such increase is due on June 13, 2014.

CBCA 3860

5.

6

The real estate tax base is $585,044.16 (Per SLA #33) and shall

remain unchanged. The percentage of occupancy will remain

the same at 100%.

All other terms and conditions of the lease shall remain in full force and effect.

Exhibit 39. The agency executed the agreement on June 17, 2013. Exhibit 39. The parties

have stipulated that the reference to section 2.2 of SFO #05-028 is a typographical error for

the intended reference of section 3.4 of SFO #91-158, that of the underlying contract quoted

in finding 3. Exhibit 56.

8.

The agency paid the lessor the total of $616,248.50 and $52,470.97, for initial

months under the extended lease, but $616,248.50, for the remainder of the initial extension

year. Complaint and Answer (¶ 10); Finding 11.

Claim and contracting officer decision

9.

By submission dated November 26, 2013, the lessor submitted a certified claim

seeking $104,941.94 said to be due and payable under the lease, plus interest accrued and

payable under the Prompt Payment Act, as set forth in section 28 of the lease. The claim

specifies that in November 2013, the lessor received $1,232,497 (two monthly payments of

$616,248.50 each, for October and November payments). The lessor deemed these to be

partial payments, deficient because the payments only included the monthly base rent due

under the lease, and not the cumulative operating costs adjustments based on the index. The

claim references two statements in supplemental lease agreement 83: “the annual rent for the

extension term commencing, June 13, 2013, shall be $7,394,962.00, payable at a rate of

$616,248.50 per month . . . plus accrued operating costs” and the “Government shall

continue to pay to Lessor the cumulative operating expense adjustments over the

original base year” (emphasis added). Further,

The monthly amount of the CPI [consumer price index] Increases due to

Contractor under the Lease is currently $52,470.97 per month. Accordingly,

the Government owes the Contractor $104,941.94 (the “Delinquent Amount”).

Notably, from the date SLA 83 was signed (June, 2013) until the date of the

October and November 2013 payments, the Government had paid the CPI

Increases correctly.

Exhibit 40 at 1-2. In the absence of evidence and argument on this point, the Board

concludes that the contracting officer received the claim on April 8, 2014, one day before

issuing a decision on the claim.

CBCA 3860

7

10.

In a decision dated April 9, 2014, the contracting officer concluded that the

lessor is owed $31,691.24 per month since June 2013, and that $1,316,060.13 is the operating

cost base for adjustments beginning in June 2014 (when the next adjustment is to be made).

Exhibit 41; Agency Post-Hearing Brief at 12 (¶ 39) (agency confirmed this position,

conceding lessor entitlement generally to $31,691.24 monthly for cumulative operating costs,

as well as indexed adjustments for years two and three, but not an additional $20,779.72

monthly, or $249,356.73 annually). On May 16, 2014, the lessor filed a notice of appeal with

this Board, seeking operating costs under the lease, including annual index adjustments, and

interest under the Prompt Payment Act.

11.

From October 2013 to May 2014, the agency paid the lessor $616,248.50 per

month. From June 2014 through March 2015, the agency paid the lessor $647,939.74 per

month. This amount includes $616,248.50 (basic rent) and $31,691.24 (operating cost

adjustments from SLA 50 forward). Amended Complaint and Amended Answer (¶¶ 22, 25).

On September 28, 2014, the agency reduced the space being leased. Amended Complaint

and Amended Answer (¶ 27).

Facts relating to the extended lease and arguments of the parties

12.

In a draft of the lease extension agreement, the agency included a paragraph

that set the annual rent, with the rate “inclusive of the new operating cost base” and with the

statement, “Rent shall continue to be adjusted for operating costs escalations as provided in

SFO #05-028, Section 2.2 [sic] for the second and third years of the extension period.” On

February 5, 2013, in marking up that draft, the lessor inserted a figure of $1,828,306.58 into

a sentence establishing a new operating costs base. Exhibit 47 at 3 (¶¶ 2, 4).

13.

Thereafter, with negotiations ongoing, the lessor deemed all negotiations null

and void as of May 3, 2013. The lessor specified a basic objection to any changes in the

operating costs and present tax bases. Exhibit 48 at 2. Later, the lessor provided a draft

agreement extending the lease with a monthly rent of $49.14 per RSF plus accrued operating

expenses. As in the final version, rent would continue to be adjusted for operating costs

escalations in the second and third years of the extension period. The specific language

found in paragraphs four and five of the extension agreement, finding 7, was in the draft; the

paragraphs obligated the agency to continue to pay the cumulative operating expense

adjustments over the original base year. Exhibit 49 at 3.

14.

After reviewing the draft, on May 10, 2013, the agency contracting officer sent

the lessor a two-sentence email message:

CBCA 3860

8

The Congressionally approved Prospectus does not give me the authority to

execute a lease above $50.00 and your offer of $49.14 plus the accrued

passthroughs (tax and operating expense) of approximately $4.15 equaling

$53.29.

It appears that we are wasting each other’s time.

Exhibit 50. In arriving at the $4.15 figure, the contracting officer was assuming a base year

amount of $1,316,060.13, as found in supplemental lease agreement 50, at the start of the

second ten-year term, Exhibit 26, as defining the operating costs to be added to the basic rent.

Transcript at 77, 175-76 (all transcript references are to volume one).

15.

During the negotiation process, the contracting officer “tried to go back to a

new [operating costs] base and he [lessor’s president/owner] didn’t want anything to do with

it.” Transcript at 232-33. The contracting officer did not get the lessor’s agreement to insert

a reference to the operating costs base found in SLA 50 into the extension lease language;

despite the attempts of the contracting officer to update the base year for escalation purposes,

the lessor insisted upon utilizing the original base year for operating costs. Transcript at 23437, 242-46, 251-52, 265-66, 268-69. Even if the contracting officer considered the phrase

“original base year” utilized during negotiations and in the agreement as referencing

$1,316,060.13, Transcript at 253-54, 271-72, and the contracting officer determined that the

lessor knew (or should have known) this from the message referring to $4.15, as the

operating costs and tax bases, finding 14, the $1,316,060.13 figure is not found in the

agreement as the operating costs base, and the $4.15 figure is not found in the agreement.

The contracting officer did not obtain what he sought through the negotiation process; rather,

the lessor insisted that the lessor continue to receive adjustments over the original base year.

Discussion

The lessor now seeks $249,356.63 per year for each of the three years of the extension

lease as payment of accrued operating costs unpaid or disputed by the agency, plus accrued

interest. Lessor Post-hearing Brief at 24. This appeal presents no novel legal principle. The

lessor bears the burden of proof. The Board conducts a de novo review of a contracting

officer’s decision. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(d). The plain language of an agreement typically

prevails in matters of contract interpretation. McAbee Constr., Inc. v. United States, 97 F.3d

1431, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

CBCA 3860

9

Interpretation

At issue in this dispute is the interpretation of the extension agreement as it relates to

the cumulative operating costs to be paid by the agency. The lessor contends that it is

entitled to cumulative operating costs beginning in year one of the extension, calculated from

the start of the twenty-year lease, with index adjustments for the final two years of the

extension period. The agency contends that for the first year of the extension period the

lessor is entitled to operating costs adjustments calculated utilizing an operating costs base

established ten years into the underlying lease, and index adjustments calculated utilizing that

figure for the final two years of the extension period. The agency contends that a portion of

the operating costs are included in the $616,248.50 monthly figure, such that any additional

payment would represent duplicative recovery of operating costs by the lessor.

The extension agreement specifies that the annual rent for the extension term shall be

payable at a rate of $616,248.50 per month plus accrued operating costs. Further, the rent

shall continue to be adjusted for operating costs escalations. The agreement both recognizes

that the current annual escalated operating cost amount was $1,696,355.10 and that the

agency shall continue to pay to the lessor the cumulative operating expense adjustments over

the original base year. Finding 7.

The plain language of the written agreement dictates the result. In addition to the

basic rent, the lessor is to receive accrued operating costs, also referred to as cumulative

operating expense adjustments. No adjustment would be made for year one; however,

indexed adjustments would be made for years two and three. The monthly adjustments over

the original base year were $52,470.97. The phrase “original base year” does not mean a

figure utilized at the ten-year period of the lease.

The agency requests that the Board consider parol evidence to support its

interpretation. It is permissible to consider parol evidence if such supports the plain language

of an agreement. Here the parol evidence indicates that the lessor did not agree to agency

attempts to alter the original base year of operating costs as the starting point for payments

to supplement the basic rent. The formulation of an agreement with operating costs included

in the basic rent was considered, but was not adopted. The contracting officer did not

establish an interpretation that was consistent with the negotiations to reflect a mutual intent.

Findings 12-15.

Finally, the agency suggests that the lessor would receive a windfall if its

interpretation is adopted. The bilateral written agreement provides for payments during the

extension period. The agency is obligated to pay in accordance with the agreement.

However, the agency also has not demonstrated that the lessor’s interpretation would result

CBCA 3860

10

in a windfall or duplicative payments. While the agency and this contracting officer harken

back to SLA 50 as resetting the operating costs base, in fact, that SLA noted the basic rent

and the adjustments of the accumulated operating costs, which for ease of calculations

resulted in a single number for calculations from that point forward; however, the agency was

obligated to pay the accumulated operating costs adjusted from the start of the lease. Finding

5. Nothing changed through SLA 81. Finding 6. The lease extension did not alter this

agency obligation to pay cumulative operating costs.

Payment

The lessor seeks $249,356.63 annually, for the entire extension period, plus accrued

interest. This roughly represents the originally sought $52,470.92 per month as the

cumulative operating costs less the amount the agency concedes it is obligated to pay,

$31,691.24 per month. Findings 10-11. The plain language of the lease supports the

entitlement sought by the lessor. However, the lessor already received payment of a portion

of the $249,356.63 for some months during year one of the extension, finding 8, such that

a reduction must be made. Further, a reduction to operating costs payments may be required

for years two and three after the space reduction during year two, finding 11.

The parties have offered no substantive discussion on the calculation of interest under

the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C.§ 3901 et seq. (2012), or the Contract Disputes Act, 41

U.S.C. § 7109. Given the dispute over payment, the lessor has not articulated a basis to

recover interest under the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C.§ 3901(c)(5) (interest penalty not

required on payment not made because of a dispute over the amount of payment). The lessor

has prevailed in this dispute. It is entitled to recover interest under the Contract Disputes Act

calculated from April 8, 2014 (the date the contracting officer received the underlying claim),

until the date of payment.

Decision

The Board GRANTS IN PART the appeal.

______________________________

JOSEPH A. VERGILIO

Board Judge

We concur:

______________________________

JEROME M. DRUMMOND

Board Judge

______________________________

JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU

Board Judge