DENIED: January 12, 2012 
CBCA 2466 
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Bryan K. Pollard of Otis Elevator Company, Farmington, CT, counsel for Appellant. 
James F. H. Scott, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
VERGILIO , Board Judge. 
On August 8, 2011, the Board received this timely-filed appeal from Otis Elevator 
Company (contractor), concerning a dispute arising under its contract with the General 
Services Administration (agency), under which the contractor performed elevator 
maintenance and preventive maintenance services at the William S. Moorhead Federal Office 
Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The contractor has elected the small claims procedure, 
such that this decision binds the parties but does not establish precedent. 41 U.S.C.A. 
§ 7106(b) (West 2011); Rule 52. The Board denies the claim. 
During an annual elevator brake maintenance/repair on November 4, 2009, the 
contractor removed and reinstalled cotter pins on the brake assembly of the elevator involved 
in this dispute. On June 30, 2010, the assembly dropped, damaging an armature. The agency 
directed the contractor to perform the required repairs, for which the contractor seeks 
$47,985.92 . The agency has denied the claim; it contends that the damage was caused by 
improper performance under the contract--either the reuse of a cotter pin that ultimately 
failed or the failure to replace the cotter pin during maintenance. The agency asserts that, 
under the terms of the contract, the contractor (not the agency) ultimately is liable. 

 
            
   
                
         
            
                  
           
          
            
          
             
               
        
 
               
                 
                 
 
             
                
              
             
               
               
       
              
             
             
     
           
             
             
                   
               
             
               
2 CBCA 2466 
Under the Description and Scope of Work clause, the contract requires the contractor 
to provide an effective preventive maintenance program. Exhibit 1 at 7, 19 (exhibits are in 
the appeal file). In particular, under the Scope clause, the contractor is to provide “all quality 
control, management, supervision, labor, materials, supplies, and equipment necessary to 
provide full elevator maintenance services for passenger elevators” in the building. Exhibit 
1 at 19. Specifically, the contractor is to perform preventive maintence. Exhibit 1 at 30. The 
contract defines “preventive maintenance” to be “[s]cheduled work on items of equipment 
or systems required to provide continuing operation, to preclude unnecessary breakdowns, 
and to prolong the life of equipment by checking, inspecting, testing, adjusting, repairing, 
cleaning, painting, lubricating, greasing, oiling, and replacing expendable items.” Exhibit 
1 at 20. The contract specifically identifies applicable safety codes and standards. Exhibit 
1 at 19-20. The parties represent that no language in the referenced codes and standards 
expressly permits or prohibits the reuse of cotter pins. 
The parties attribute the damage either to the lack of a cotter pin or the failure of the 
cotter pin. Given the passage of time between the brake maintenance and the damage, the 
record does not support the notion that a cotter pin was not used. This leaves the question 
regarding the reuse of the cotter pin. The age and characteristics of the cotter pin have not 
been established. 
The record does not permit a conclusion on the acceptable practice within the industry 
regarding the reuse of cotter pins. For example, a statement in the affidavit of an agency 
property manager, who expresses his “understanding” that the cotter pin is not to be reused, 
is of no evidentiary value, given his unstated credentials and unstated bases for his 
understanding. Exhibit 65. While the agency refers to and relies upon a published statement 
that cotter pins should not be reused, the statement is in an advisory circular from the 
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, regarding acceptable 
methods, techniques, and practices for aircraft inspection and repair. Exhibit 67. There is 
no demonstrated relevance to this case involving elevators. Similarly, a broad statement on 
wikipedia that cotter pins should not be reused lacks sufficient persuasive authority to be 
given weight in resolving this dispute. 
On behalf of the contractor, the record includes statements of individuals with 
pertinent experience who indicate that the “cotter pin used in the elevator brake assembly 
does not require preventative maintenance because it has no moving parts and its sole 
purpose is to secure a brake pin and hold it in place” and “cotter pins are not restricted to a 
one-time use.” Exhibits 102, 103. However, the cotter pins were subjected to removal at 
least annually for brake maintenance, are of an unspecified age (with references to them 
perhaps being as old as the equipment, thirty-five years), and may have been used more than 

 
              
              
             
              
             
               
            
                 
                   
                
               
          
          
                
              
           
               
               
            
         
            
                
           
              
              
    
______________________________ 
  
 
3 CBCA 2466 
once. These statements do not address potentially often reused cotter pins or any expected 
life. Moreover, the references to the contractor’s practices do not speak to industry practice. 
The contractor makes several statements in a letter dated August 4, 2010, to the 
agency: “When servicing the brakes we must remove the cotter pins, at which time we 
provide a visual inspection, however this inspection is limited to what can be seen. 
Considering the above and lack of any visual damage Otis did not consider the cotter pin 
defective and reused accordingly.” “The same debate occurs almost daily regarding light 
bulbs. If a light bulb is operating correctly should you change it? How do you anticipate 
when it will fail? Same is true of a cotter pin. Pin integrity failed, this is not maintainable 
nor is it predictable.” “Otis did not recognize the need for cotter pin replacement during our 
inspections and break down of brake assemblies. Otis would have no way of knowing when 
a pin could or would fail.” Exhibit 51 at 1. 
These statements highlight the predicament of the contractor, particularly given the 
lack of specific guidance in safety codes. However, replacing a cotter pin only after it has 
failed (as suggested by the light bulb example) does not reflect preventive maintenance. The 
contractor has not demonstrated that it performed preventive maintenance pursuant to the 
terms and conditions of the contract. Specifically, the contractor has not shown that it was 
reasonable to reuse the cotter pin in question. This conclusion falls short of determining that 
cotter pins are or are not expendable items or otherwise should not be reused, as answers to 
those ultimate questions must await a different case and record. 
In summary, the record demonstrates that the repairs were necessary because a reused 
cotter pin failed. The contractor has not demonstrated that the reuse of a cotter pin here 
complied with the preventive maintenance requirements of the contract. Therefore, the 
repairs do not constitute additional work for which the contractor must be paid. The 
contractor, not the agency, is liable for the cost of repairs to the damaged elevator. 
Decision 
The Board DENIES the appeal. 
JOSEPH A. VERGILIO 
Board Judge