MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT GRANTED: December 17, 2010 
CBCA 1804 
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. 
SOMERS , Board Judge. 
ORDER 
Appellant has filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to 
CBCA Rule 6(e). 48 CFR 6101.6(e) (2010). Appellant wishes to amend the complaint to 
reference a lease that had not been included in the original complaint. Respondent opposes 
the motion, contending that, by adding reference to a lease, appellant is presenting a claim 
that had not been presented to the contracting officer. Because appellant did not present a 
claim under this lease agreement to the contracting officer, respondent asserts that appellant 
could not meet the jurisdictional prerequisites of the Contract Disputes Act, 
41 U.S.C. § 605(a) (2006). We grant the motion to amend the complaint, for the reasons set 
forth below. 

 
                
             
             
             
             
           
             
          
                
           
                
       
          
  
              
           
              
               
              
            
              
   
             
                
             
               
             
          
2 CBCA 1804 
Background 
The General Services Administration (GSA, the Government, or respondent) leased 
office space from 6th and E Associates, LLC (6th and E or appellant). The parties entered 
into the first lease agreement, GS-11B-20687 (Lease 20687), on December 28, 1992. Under 
this lease, the Government leased the first two floors in the Bicentennial Building, located 
at 600 E Street in Washington, D.C. Under the second lease agreement, GS-11B-20769 
(Lease 20769), dated April 28, 1993, the Government leased the remaining floors of the 
building, with the exception of a portion of the 6th floor. 
It appears that the two lease agreements, Lease 20687 and Lease 20769, ended when 
the Government leased the entire building through lease agreement GS-11B-01864 (Lease 
01864). Although the lease is dated March 3, 2006, the terms of the lease began on 
February 22, 2004, and will end on February 21, 2014. 
On June 6, 2008, 6th and E filed a claim with the contracting officer. The claim 
identified (inaccurately) Lease 01864 as the “prior lease” and Lease 20687 as the “existing 
lease.” The claim did not reference Lease 20769. 
The claim identified several invoices that had been submitted but not paid.  At issue 
here is the first invoice, identified as Invoice 529. The invoice seeks overtime heating, 
ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) charges that occurred from August 18, 2003, 
through September 17, 2003. It categorizes the charges in two columns. One column 
identifies charges for floors 3-10. The second column identifies charges for floors 1-2. The 
invoice itself does not connect the charges to the lease agreements. However, the lease 
agreements in existence during the time period were the two separate lease agreements, 
Lease 20687 and Lease 20769. The consolidated lease did not commence until after these 
charges occurred. 
When the contracting officer failed to issue a decision within the time period required, 
appellant filed its appeal with this Board on November 20, 2009. After the filing of the 
appeal, by letter dated December 16, 2009, the contracting officer wrote a formal response 
to the claim. As to Invoice 529, the contracting officer stated that “[t]he Government never 
received notification of this charge and it never went through the proper approval procedure. 
The Government cannot reimburse expenses that were not authorized.” 

             
               
            
              
                
               
             
           
   
         
              
               
               
              
              
        
             
                
              
              
                
                
    
            
            
              
           
        
              
            
             
            
               
3 CBCA 1804 
Discussion 
Appellant wishes to amend the complaint to reference Lease 20769 in its claim for 
payment of Invoice 529. It asserts that CBCA Rule 6(e) allows the Board to permit 
amendments to pleadings on conditions fair to both parties. Appellant contends that 
respondent is not prejudiced by the amendment because (1) respondent was a party to Lease 
20769 and has knowledge of its key terms; (2) inclusion of Lease 20769 does not add any 
new claims or causes of action; (3) the claim for payment of Invoice 529 arose under 
Lease 20687 and Lease 20769; and (4) the amended complaint provides more accurate data 
regarding the operative facts and circumstances underlying the claim for payment of 
Invoice 529. 
Respondent opposes, contending that the contracting officer’s response was premised 
upon the fact that appellant’s claim only referenced Lease 20687 for support. Amending the 
claim to include an additional lease, says respondent, is a jurisdictional issue. In order for 
the Board to have jurisdiction over the claim, the claim must be submitted to the contracting 
officer first. Because the claim did not reference Lease 20769, respondent contends that the 
contracting officer did not have an opportunity to evaluate and determine the merits of the 
claim in the context of the second lease. 
Respondent’s position is curious. First, the contracting officer did not issue a final 
decision – this case came before the Board on a “deemed denial” basis. Second, Invoice 529 
does not reference either lease. However, the costs claimed in the first column, identified 
as overtime HVAC for floors 3-10, could not have arisen from Lease 20687, which only 
governed floors 1-2. Lease 20769 covered the costs identified in the first column. The other 
lease referenced in the actual claim letter, i.e.., Lease 01864, did not exist at the time the 
alleged additional costs arose. 
Appellant’s claim that the Government had failed to pay for services identified in 
Invoice 529 provided enough information to place the contracting officer on notice that 
appellant sought payment for costs arising under Lease 20769, as well as costs arising under 
Lease 20687. Thus, the contracting officer had sufficient information concerning the 
contractor’s claim, the leases involved (based upon the information contained on the actual 
invoice which identified the floors covered by the claim), and the sum certain amounts at 
issue, notwithstanding the omission of proper citation to Lease 20769. Accordingly, the 
Board possesses jurisdiction to entertain appellant’s claim. See, e.g. , Holmes & Narver, Inc. , 
ASBCA 51430, 99-1 BCA ¶ 30,131 (1998); Systems & Electronics, Inc. , ASBCA 47811, 
96-2 BCA ¶ 28,501 ; Bath Iron Works , ASBCA 32770, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,438 (1987). 

            
           
       
      
___________________________ 
  
 
4 CBCA 1804 
Decision 
We GRANT appellant’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Appellant’s 
amended complaint, identified as Exhibit A to appellant’s motion, is hereby filed. 
Respondent may file an amended answer in accordance with CBCA Rule 6(f) no later than 
thirty calendar days from today. 
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS 
Board Judge