MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED: November 4, 2010 
CBCA 1802 
6TH AND E ASSOCIATES, LLC, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Brett D. Orlove of Grossberg, Yochelson, Fox & Beyda, LLP, Washington, DC, 
counsel for Appellant. 
Lesley M. Busch , Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges SOMERS , POLLACK , and WALTERS . 
SOMERS , Board Judge. 
On March 3, 2006, 6th and E Associates, LLC (appellant or lessor) and the General 
Services Administration (respondent or the Government) entered into a lease agreement for 
office space in the Washington, D.C., area. Under the terms of the lease, the annual rent 
includes the utilities and preventative maintenance (PM) cost for all government equipment 
installed on the premises, as adjusted annually based on actual PM and energy costs. 
The building is equipped with a total of six chillers, which provide chilled water to 
the air conditioning systems. Two of the chillers, identified as chiller number 4 and chiller 
number 5, provide chilled water to specific portions of the building. The dispute concerns 

           
     
               
                
             
           
                
             
                 
                
               
              
              
   
            
             
               
               
            
             
             
 
               
               
           
               
                
                 
               
              
          
           
          
               
             
2 CBCA 1802 
the interpretation and application of the lease agreement clauses governing repair or 
replacement of this equipment. 
The lessor contends that the Government should pay to replace the two chillers. It 
states that chiller numbers 4 and 5 are only in place to serve the “supplemental tenant special 
system,” providing chilled water to tenant special air handling units and tenant special fan 
coil units, which cool the government computer rooms, training rooms, and conference 
rooms. The lessor points to rider number 4 of the lease, which it asserts requires the 
Government to pay PM and energy costs for all government equipment installed on the 
premises, including the cost of PM and energy for chiller numbers 4 and 5. The lessor asserts 
that the Government has been paid for these PM costs since the inception of the contract, and 
should be required to pay for repair or replacement of these items. Finally, the lessor 
contends that rider number 3, which the Government claims excuses it from payment in this 
case, was never intended to be an exhaustive list of all government equipment installed on 
the premises. 
The Government disagrees. The Government asserts that it is only required to 
compensate the lessor for the actual PM and energy costs of the government equipment 
specifically listed in rider number 3. The Government argues that, under the terms of the 
lease, the lessor had the obligation to pay for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of all 
equipment except for that equipment identified specifically in rider number 3. The 
Government believes that the chillers provided service to the entire base building, and not 
just to the special tenant heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems, as alleged by 
appellant. 
It is well established that summary relief will not be granted if the moving party fails 
to establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Walsh/Davis Joint Venture v. General Services 
Administration , CBCA 1460, 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,479. The fact that both parties have moved for 
summary relief does not mean that the Board must grant relief in favor of either party; if 
there are any issues of material fact, then summary relief is not proper for either one of the 
parties. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States , 812 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 
While both parties are of the opinion that this dispute is ultimately one of contract 
interpretation, they have, nonetheless, supported their motions with multiple affidavits, an 
expert report, discovery responses, and statements identifying genuine issues of material fact. 
The material indicates considerable disagreement regarding the circumstances leading up to 
the negotiation and execution of the lease under which this dispute has arisen, as well as 
whether PM costs that had been previously paid were properly charged to the Government’s 
expense. 

              
               
             
   
         
      
_______________________________ 
  
 
__________________________________ ________________________________ 
3 CBCA 1802 
We find that several of the unresolved factual issues are material to the ultimate issue 
of how the lease provisions should be interpreted. Accordingly, we do not consider that the 
issue of entitlement is appropriate for disposition on motions for summary relief based upon 
the record before us. 
Decision 
Appellant’s motion for summary relief is DENIED , and respondent’s cross-motion 
for summary relief is DENIED . 
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS 
Board Judge 
We concur:  
HOWARD A. POLLACK RICHARD C. WALTERS 
Board Judge Board Judge