THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
IS BEING RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN ITS ENTIRETY ON
APRIL 5, 2021
GRANTED IN PART: March 26, 2021
CBCA 6012
1125 15TH STREET, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Brett D. Orlove of Grossberg, Yochelson, Fox & Beyda, LLP, Washington, DC; and
Mark H.M. Sosnowsky and Joie C. Hand of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,
Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant.
Michael Converse and Elyssa Tanenbaum, Office of the General Counsel, General
Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges HYATT, GOODMAN, and RUSSELL.
RUSSELL, Board Judge.
Appellant, 1125 15th Street, LLC, seeks damages for the Government’s holdover in
premises leased by appellant to respondent, General Services Administration (GSA). 
Respondent has conceded liability under a breach of contract theory, specifically, that the
Government breached its implied duty to vacate the premises at the conclusion of the lease. 
Therefore, the only questions relate to the period of the holdover (specifically, on which date


CBCA 6012 2
did the Government vacate the premises), and the amount of any damage award.  For reasons
stated below, we agree with appellant as to when the holdover period expired.  We disagree
with both parties as to the fair market rental value of the holdover period, finding that a fair
and reasonable rental amount is slightly higher than the amount calculated by GSA’s expert. 
Therefore, we grant the appeal in part.
Findings of Fact
The Lease
On April 24, 2006, appellant and the United States, acting through GSA, executed a
lease for the use of 64,507 rentable square feet (RSF) of space consisting of the 10th, 11th,
and 12th floors at a commercial office building located at 1125 15th Street, N.W., in
Washington, D.C.  The tenant agency occupying the space was a component of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  In August 2010, the lease was amended to add
156 RSF for the construction of a guard’s room near the loading dock area on the second
floor of the building.  As a result of that amendment, the total square footage of the leased
space increased to 64,663 RSF.
The lease included a security provision allowing the Government, during the lease
term, to install and operate X-ray and magnetometer screening equipment in the lobby and
loading dock area on the second floor; employ armed guards to screen visitors using the
security equipment; and conduct vehicle and passenger searches at the parking garage
entrance.
The lease was for a five-year term with a single option to renew for an additional five
years.  The lease did not include a holdover clause.  The lease commenced on or about
November 10, 2006, and was set to expire on November 9, 2011.  On or about November 7,
2011, the parties executed a supplemental lease agreement under which the Government
exercised its five-year option to extend the lease to November 9, 2016.  The lease included
a base rent amount, plus a pro-rata share for operating expenses and real estate taxes.  The
base rent amount was the same each year, but the operating expense portion was to be
adjusted up or down based on changes in the consumer price index (CPI).  Additionally, the
real estate taxes were paid in an annual lump sum after the lessor had paid the tax for the
year.  The annual rent amount for the five-year extension, including adjustments for
operating costs and real estate taxes, was $2,579,067.48 per year, or an annual rate of $39.88
per RSF ($2,579,067.48 ÷ 64,663).
Starting in the summer of 2016 and continuing through the summer of 2017, the
parties attempted to negotiate a short-term extension of the lease but were unsuccessful. 
During the negotiations, GSA offered to extend the lease for as much as $50 per RSF for up 

CBCA 6012 3
to forty-eight months with a right of cancellation after forty-two months.  DHS personnel
continued to occupy the premises without a lease from November 9, 2016, to December 31,
2018, when DHS moved to another building owned by the same lessor. 
GSA’s Payments During the Holdover Period
After the lease expired in November 2016, GSA paid rent in the same amount as it
had been paying during the final year of the lease, i.e., $214,922.29 per month or an annual
rate of $39.88 per RSF.  In total, GSA paid the owner $5,523,502.85 in rent for the period
November 10, 2016, through December 31, 2018. 
The Holdover Period
On January 3, 2019, appellant reported to both GSA and DHS that it had completed
a walk-through of the building, that the tenth and twelfth floors still contained government
equipment, and that there were still security guards in the building.  On or around January 15,
2019, the magnetometer and x-ray machines were removed from the building, but the
security guards remained through at least January 17, 2019. 
Appellant’s Claim and Appeal
On November 7, 2016, appellant filed a claim with GSA’s contracting officer
requesting that GSA pay fair market rent for the holdover period.  On January 26, 2018,
appellant filed this appeal as a deemed denial of its claim to the contracting officer.  The
parties subsequently engaged in extensive discovery and, in February 2020, a hearing was
held followed by the parties’ filings of post-hearing briefs.  The parties presented evidence
on their respective positions as to when DHS vacated the building, and expert testimony on
the fair market rental value for the holdover period.
Appellant additionally presented testimony from one of its representatives on the
amount owed by GSA for real estate taxes due for the holdover period ($134,704.95).  The
representative also explained that a tenant’s operating cost due under the lease was initially
based on the tenant’s percentage of occupancy of the building, and adjusted in subsequent
years based on the CPI.  A second representative provided testimony that he was uncertain
whether GSA had paid any CPI adjustments to the rental amount for the holdover period.
Evidence on the Holdover Period
As for the holdover period, appellant asserted that it is due rent through January 2019
based on the lease provision attaching the right of the Government to maintain security in the
building with the lease period.  The provision allowed “the Government to install . . . security
measures during the term of the [l]ease.”  Specifically, part of the rent included allowing the

CBCA 6012 4
Government to place armed guards in the lobby and near the second floor loading dock of
the leased premises, and to install and operate x-ray and magnetometer screening equipment. 
To support its position that appellant suffered no compensable injury due to the
presence of the security guards and equipment at the property in January 2019, GSA elicited
testimony from one of appellant’s representative that appellant did not have a tenant lined
up to take over the space in January 2019.  The witness additionally acknowledged that the
continued presence of the security guards did not prevent appellant from renting the space
on the floors vacated by DHS personnel, and that tours for prospective tenants could have
occurred in January 2019. 
Evidence on Fair Market Rent
Daniel Klueger, a commercial real estate broker, was appellant’s expert.  During the
hearing, Mr. Klueger admitted that he is not a real estate appraiser, is unfamiliar with certain
appraisal standards, including those in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice, and has no experience with federal government leases.
Mr. Klueger opined that the holdover rent should be around $60 per RSF, or 150 %
of the rent that GSA paid under the lease.  In his expert report, he stated:
The GSA should pay 150% of the then base rent consistent with industry
standards.  In my twelve (12) year career in representing Tenants and reading
leases that had been negotiated by real estate brokers and advisers of all kinds,
every lease that I’ve read has a definition for what happens if the Tenant does
not vacate and stays beyond the stated Lease Expiration Date – this period is
known as Holdover.  The market holdover clause is between 150% of the then
escalated rent (including additional rent) to 200% of the then escalated rent
(including additional rent).
He additionally noted that, in the Washington, D.C., commercial real estate market, tenants
pay a premium for a short-term lease.  He asserted that:
Tenants buy flexibility.  In this case, GSA unilaterally imposed on the
Landlord a flexible, two-year solution for the GSA, and an above market rent
should be charged to the GSA for that flexible term.
Mr. Klueger explained that he spoke with three brokers and, based on those conversations,
concluded that a short-term lease would include a premium of between ten and fifteen
percent attached to the asking rate. 
Appellant also presented testimony from a GSA contracting officer responsible for
GSA’s efforts to negotiate an extension of the lease at the 1125 15th Street building.  The

CBCA 6012 5
contracting officer stated that, in September and November 2016 (before the expiration of
the lease), GSA made two offers, the first at $47.25 per RSF and the second for $49 per RSF,
to continue renting the space for a twenty-four-month period.  The contracting officer
explained that the agency arrived at that figure based on reviewing comparable rents in the
area of the leased premises.  However, the contracting officer also stated that GSA would not
have made the offers but for the effort to resolve the issue of DHS’s occupancy of the
building in holdover status.
A second GSA contracting officer, also called by appellant, provided testimony that
the Government does not typically include a holdover clause in its leases.  He added that, to
end the holdover at the 1125 15th Street property, GSA leased space for DHS at another
building owned by appellant in Washington, D.C.  The contracting officer explained that
GSA paid $50 per RSF under the new lease, but would not have paid this amount absent the
agency’s motivation to end the holdover at the 1125 15th Street building.
GSA presented expert testimony from David C. Lennhoff on the fair market rental
value for the holdover period.  Mr. Lennhoff is certified as a real estate appraiser in the
District of Columbia, has written sections of a book on appraising real estate, and teaches on
the subject of appraising internationally.  He has experience appraising commercial
properties for the purpose of estimating fair market value and fair market rental value for
both property owners and tenants in holdover.
In appraising the holdover value of the property, Mr. Lennhoff applied the standards
contained in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.  He defined market
rental value as an amount that a “landlord would accept and a renting tenant would pay, both
being reasonably knowledgeable and under no compulsion to have to [effectuate the]
rent[al].”  He explained that the primary method of determining market rental value for a
particular property is to consider the rental value of comparable properties. 
Mr. Lennhoff completed two appraisal reports on the property – the first in or around
January 2018 in which he concluded that the property was valued at $38.02 per RSF and the
second in 2019 in which he valued the property at $39.96 per RSF.  In the second report, he
considered a holdover period with a potential length of between twenty-two months and four
years, and also included an adjustment for the uncertainty of the holdover duration.  For data,
he looked at two sources, CoStar, which mostly provides the list asking price for properties,
and CompStak, which provides information on consummated deals like leases.  He explained
that he examined “hundreds of leases” in CompStak.  In determining the effective or
comparable rent, he started with the nominal or face rent of the properties and then adjusted
for factors like variations in lease terms, tenant improvements, concessions (e.g., free rent),
when the lease occurred, class of building, size of the leased space, and location of the
property (e.g., proximity to public transportation).  Mr. Lennhoff also stated that he
considered the presence of the magnetometer, concluding that the presence of the equipment
would not change the rent that a landlord would receive.  Mr. Lennhoff’s analysis regarding

CBCA 6012 6
rental value for the holdover period did not account for increases in real estate taxes beyond
those paid during the first or base year.
Mr. Lennhoff made a positive adjustment of five percent to the rental value of all
comparable properties to account for the uncertainty of the holdover duration.  However, he
admitted that he relied on anecdotal information from two real estate sources as the basis for
this adjustment.  Neither source provided a specific figure as to a percentage that should be
added to an effective rent to adjust for the uncertainty of a holdover duration, only offering
that the tenant would “have to pay a little bit more in rent.” 
At the hearing and in its post-hearing briefing, GSA argued that DHS’s holdover of
the leased space did not cause appellant harm for which appellant is entitled to any additional
compensation.  In support, GSA noted that it had paid monthly rent to appellant during the
holdover period not in dispute (i.e., November 10, 2016, to December 31, 2018) equaling the
amount set out in the expired lease.  The lease amount, $39.88 per RSF, was close to the
$39.96 per RSF amount that Mr. Lennhoff had opined was the fair market rental value for
the leased space during the holdover period.
GSA also attempted to show that appellant could not have rented the space occupied
by DHS during the holdover period for an amount greater, let alone substantially greater,
than what GSA had paid.  GSA elicited testimony from one of appellant’s representatives
that, in December 2015, about eleven months before the DHS lease was set to expire,
appellant was unsuccessful in obtaining a lease from another federal agency to rent space on
lower floors in the building.  The witness testified that appellant had offered to rent the space
for $35.22 per square foot for a fifteen-year period, an amount considerably lower than the
$39.88 per RSF that GSA paid during the holdover period.  Further, GSA presented evidence
showing that space in the building remained empty for many years.  GSA showed that, when
a prior government tenant moved out of the 5th through 7th floors in 2011, the building
owner left that space empty, and it was still empty nine years later at the time of the hearing. 
Discussion
It is well settled that “[t]o recover for breach of contract, a party must allege and
establish: (1) a valid contract between the parties, (2) an obligation or duty arising out of the
contract, (3) a breach of that duty, and (4) damages caused by the breach.”  San Carlos
Irrigation & Drainage District v. United States, 877 F.2d 957, 959 (Fed. Cir. 1989).  As for
the first and second factors, to establish breach for a holdover tenancy, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained that, “[although] a lease [agreement]
may concern and convey a property interest[,] it is also very much a contract” and, further,
“due to [the] definite term of [a] lease and the nature of the landlord-tenant relationship, an
implied duty to vacate is an inherent part of every fixed term lease agreement unless the
parties explicitly express an intention to the contrary.”  Prudential Insurance Co. of America
v. United States, 801 F.2d 1295, 1298-99 (Fed. Cir. 1986).  As against the Government, this

CBCA 6012 7
implied duty to vacate is premised under a “contract implied in fact.”  Cameron University,
DOT BCA 2010, 90-3 BCA ¶ 23,079 (noting that, under the Contract Disputes Act, the board
“do[es] not possess jurisdiction to hear claims founded upon contracts implied in law,” but
that “the remedy of quantum meruit – the reasonable value in the marketplace of the services
rendered – may be applied to cases founded upon a contract implied in fact.”).  The
Government breaches its implied duty to vacate property by holding over beyond the lease
term.  Prudential Insurance Co., 801 F.2d at 1300. 
On the issue of damages, the United States Court of Claims, the predecessor to the
Federal Circuit, has explained that the court has “long recognized that one who occupies the
premises of another does so, absent contrary agreement, with the implied obligation to pay
a reasonable rental therefor.”  Yachts America, Inc. v. United States, 673 F.2d 356, 365 (Ct.
Cl. 1982); see also Garrity v. United States, 67 F. Supp. 821, 826 (Ct. Cl. 1946) (In the
absence of an agreement governing the holdover term, a lessor is entitled “to recover the
reasonable rental value of the premises for the period they were actually occupied by [the
lessee/holdover tenant] after the termination date of the old lease.”).  One of our predecessor
boards determined that damages may be based on the rent paid under the lease agreement
prior to breach, or the fair market rental value.  Cafritz Co. v. General Services
Administration, GSBCA 13525-REM, 98-2 BCA ¶ 29,936 (an appropriate remedy for the
Government’s holdover of lease space is “the fair market rental value of the premises for the
holdover period less what . . . has [already been] paid [to the] appellant during the holdover
period.”); Rupert v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 10523, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,243
(“The rent in the lease is evidence of rental value, but a landlord may establish a rental value
greater than rent.”).
The issues that we must decide in this appeal are (1) whether the holdover period
expired at the end of December 2018 or January 2019, and (2) damages, given that GSA has
conceded liability.
The Holdover Period
As for the question of the holdover period, appellant maintains that the Government
was in holdover through January 2019 when the security equipment was removed and the
security guards were no longer on the premises.  GSA maintains that the holdover period
extended only through December 2018 when DHS personnel vacated the premises.  GSA
argues that appellant suffered no damage due to the presence of the security equipment and
guards on the premises through January 2019.  In support, GSA relies on Cafritz, in which
the board determined that leftover furnishings on property did not extend a holdover tenancy
because the items did not “affect[] the appellant’s use and occupancy” of the property.  GSA
points to evidence showing that the continued presence of the guards as well as the
equipment in the lobby and near the second floor loading dock area did not prevent appellant

CBCA 6012 8
from renting space on the 10th, 11th, and 12th floors vacated by DHS or conducting tours
for prospective tenants on those floors.
We would find GSA’s argument persuasive except that the lease agreement at issue
in this appeal attaches the Government’s right to maintain security in the building with the
duration of the lease.  The specific lease term states, “Lessor agrees to allow the Government
to install . . . security measures during the term of the Lease.” (Emphasis added.)  The record
is unclear why the Government did not remove the security in December 2018 when DHS
personnel vacated the building.  Regardless, under the lease agreement, appellant received
consideration for permitting the Government to maintain armed guards and operate x-ray and
magnetometer screening equipment in the building.  Specifically, the rent included payment
permitting the Government to maintain the security presence.  Accordingly, we find that
appellant’s entitlement to rent was not extinguished when DHS personnel vacated the
building in December 2018, but when the security was removed in January 2019.  See Yachts
America, Inc., 673 F.2d at 365 (“[W]hen a lessee holds over without [a] new agreement after
the expiration of [its] lease, the terms of the old lease agreement apply.”).
Damages
Fair Rental Value 
GSA does not dispute that appellant is entitled to the fair market rental value for
DHS’s occupancy of appellant’s property during the holdover period.  However, the parties
disagree on the amount owed.  Although the evidence shows the shortcomings of both
parties’ analyses on fair market value, we find the analysis offered by GSA’s expert to be the
most helpful and persuasive on the issue.
In determining a value for the holdover tenancy, Mr. Klueger, appellant’s expert,
opined that GSA should pay around $60 per RSF, or 150 % of the base rent paid under lease
which he asserted is the industry standard.  He looked generally at what a month-to-month,
holdover tenancy provision in a commercial lease might entail.  In his expert report, he
explained that, “[i]n his twelve year career. . . representing [t]enants and reading leases that
had been negotiated by real estate brokers and advisors of all kinds, every lease that [he has]
read has a definition for what happens if the [t]enant does not vacate and stays beyond the
stated Lease Expiration Date . . . . The market holdover clause is between 150% of the then
escalated rent (including additional rent) to 200 % of the then escalated rent. . . .”  However,
assuming that commercial leases effectuated in the Washington, D.C., area typically include
such a provision as Mr. Klueger opines, we are unpersuaded that this “industry standard” is
a reliable proxy to assess damages in this appeal.  As an initial matter, the standard does not
evidence reasonable rental or fair market value.  “Fair market value has been defined in
various ways.”  Miller v. United States, 620 F.2d 812, 825 (Ct. Cl. 1980).  However, a
frequently quoted definition was set out in Jack Daniel Distillery v. United States, 379 F.2d

CBCA 6012 9
569 (Ct. Cl. 1967).  In that case, the court stated, “The legal definition of fair market value
is the price at which property would change hands in a transaction between a willing buyer
and a willing seller, neither being under compulsion to buy or sell, and both being reasonably
informed as to all relevant facts.”  Id. at 574.  Rent payments made under a commercial
holdover clause, in the substantially inflated range of 150 to 200 % of the base rent paid
under an expired lease, seem inconsistent with the idea of a “reasonable rental” for a
property.  Garrity, 67 F. Supp. at 826. 
Further, notwithstanding appellant’s evidence as to the inclusion of a holdover
provision in commercial leases, we have no record of rental amounts actually paid by a
commercial lessee in holdover status.  We are also disinclined to use what has been proffered
as a standard holdover provision in commercial leases as a basis for a monetary remedy in
this appeal, given the GSA contracting officer’s testimony that federal leases typically do not
include a holdover provision.  Thus, we find that appellant’s evidence based on a commercial
holdover clause that would likely not be included in a federal lease is inapposite or too
speculative to support a reasonable finding of entitlement to $60 per RSF as damages for the
holdover period.  We note that such an award would likely result in an unfair windfall to
appellant and, therefore, will not be made.
Additionally, as already stated, a predecessor board has previously determined that
an appropriate remedy for the Government’s holdover of lease space is “the fair market rental
value of the premises,” less any amount that has already been paid to the appellant.  Cafritz. 
One method of determining “fair market rental value” is to look at rents paid in the same
market for space comparable to the one at issue in the litigation.  Id.; see also Norman v.
United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 231, 270 (2004) (“The fair market value of property is most
traditionally and frequently calculated using the comparative sales approach”); Good v.
United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 81, 106 (1997) (use of the “sales comparison approach” is the
“most reliable method of arriving at the fair market value”).
We find the analysis and opinions provided by Mr. Lennhoff, an experienced and
certified appraiser, to be particularly persuasive on the issue of fair market rental value.  In
his report and testimony, Mr. Lennhoff defined market rental value similar to that set out in
Jack Daniel Distillery, i.e., as an amount that a “landlord would accept and a renting tenant
would pay, both being reasonably knowledgeable and under no compulsion to have to rent.” 
To determine the fair market rental value of the 1125 15th Street property, Mr. Lennhoff
examined hundreds of leases and, to account for a holdover term, assumed a term as short
as twenty-two months and as long as four years.  Similar to the appraiser in Cafritz, to
determine the effective or comparable rent of the properties considered, Mr. Lennhoff started
with the nominal or face rent of the properties and then, to account for the different
characteristics and features of the properties, made adjustments for factors like tenant
improvements, concessions (e.g., free rent), when the lease occurred, class of building, size
of the leased space, and location of the property (e.g., proximity to public transportation). 

CBCA 6012 10
See Cafritz (noting that GSA’s appraiser “adjusted the rental rate for the comparables based
upon their location and building quality in order to produce an ‘apples-to-apples’
comparison”).
Mr. Lennhoff prepared two appraisal reports.  In the second report, completed in
2019, he made an adjustment to account for the uncertainty of a holdover tenancy.  Based on
his analysis, Mr. Lennhoff opined that the fair market rental value of the office space at 1125
15th Street, beginning on November 10, 2016, was $39.96 per RSF inclusive of a five
percent premium to account for the uncertainty of the holdover period.
Both experts concluded that appellant was entitled to an adjustment of the effective
rent specifically to account for the uncertainty of a holdover period, and both primarily relied
on fairly limited anecdotal evidence provided by other brokers to opine on what that
adjustment should be.  Based on conversations with three brokers, Mr. Klueger explained
that tenants in the Washington, D.C., area pay a premium of between ten and fifteen percent
for a flexible lease term, like a short-term or holdover lease.  To support his assessment of
a five percent adjustment for the uncertainty of a holdover lease, Mr. Lennhoff relied on
conversations that he had with two real estate contacts.  Mr. Lennhoff testified that he did not
receive a solid answer to his question about an amount or percentage that would be paid over
the asking rent for a holdover term, only that the tenant would “have to pay a little bit more
in rent.”  Given that both experts agree that appellant is entitled to some compensation for
the uncertainty of a holdover tenancy and rely on the same type of information to support
their respective positions (i.e., anecdotal), we afford both opinions some consideration. 
Mr. Lennhoff found that the fair market rental value of the holdover tenancy was $39.96 per
RSF inclusive of his assessment of a five percent premium for the uncertainty of the holdover
period.  To afford some consideration to Mr. Klueger’s opinion on the issue, we find that the
fair market rental value of the holdover tenancy is $41.96 per RSF, adding an additional five
percent to Mr. Lennhoff’s assessment (i.e., $39.96 x 1.05). 
However, we are unpersuaded by both appellant’s other arguments in support of a
higher amount and respondent’s argument that appellant is not entitled to damages.  Both
parties rely on unaccepted offers to rent to make their case.  We find such evidence
unpersuasive to show fair market rental value.  See, e.g., Missouri Baptist Hospital v. United
States, 213 Ct. Cl. 505, 527 (1977) (“Evidence of an offer is inadmissible to prove fair
market value.”).  Specifically, we will not, as appellant urges, consider the amounts that GSA
offered during the parties’ attempts to resolve the holdover, in the range of $50 per RSF, as
an indication of fair market rental value.  Further, the record does show that GSA’s offers
were based on at least one other factor in addition to fair market rental value.  Specifically,
GSA’s contracting officers both provided testimony that the agency would not have made
such substantial offers but for the agency’s motivation to end the holdover tenancy.  Finally,
we will not, as respondent urges, consider appellant’s effort to rent other space at the
building, including its offer to a potential tenant to rent space at $35.22 per square foot

CBCA 6012 11
(which is lower than the $39.88 per RSF paid by GSA during the holdover period), as an
indication of fair market rental value for the space that was occupied by DHS. 
Real Estate Taxes and Operating Costs
Appellant presented undisputed testimony from one of its representatives that GSA
owed $134,704.95 in real estate taxes for the holdover period.  The representative also
explained that GSA was obligated, during tenancy, to pay a pro rata share for operating costs
adjusted annually based on the CPI.  A second representative provided testimony that he was
uncertain whether GSA paid any CPI adjustments to the rental amount for the holdover
period.  We find that appellant is entitled to both the unpaid real estate tax amount and any
operating costs due under the lease.
Decision 
The appeal is GRANTED IN PART.  Appellant is entitled to rent of $41.96 per RSF
for the holdover term of November 10, 2016, to January 31, 2019 (minus rent that GSA has
already paid), $134,704.95 in real estate taxes, any unpaid operating costs, and interest under
the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7109(a) (2018), calculated from November 7, 2016,
the date on which appellant submitted its claim to the contracting officer, through the date
that the award is paid.  
   Beverly M. Russell           
BEVERLY M. RUSSELL
Board Judge
We concur:
   Catherine B. Hyatt              Allan H. Goodman         
CATHERINE B. HYATT ALLAN H. GOODMAN
Board Judge Board Judge