MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DENIED: December 2, 2019
CBCA 5997, 6464
SBC ARCHWAY HELENA, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Diana Parks Curran and Hadeel N. Masseoud of Curran Legal Services Group, Inc.,
Johns Creek, GA, counsel for Appellant.
Justin S. Hawkins, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges VERGILIO, KULLBERG, and CHADWICK.
VERGILIO, Board Judge.
The lessor, SBC Archway Helena, LLC, moves to impose sanctions on the General
Services Administration (agency).  In these cases, the lessor contends that the agency is
solely responsible for a delay of 277 days in issuing the notice to proceed, while the agency
maintains that the lessor bears responsibility for some of the delay.  The lessor served
discovery upon the agency.  According to the lessor, the agency provided excuses as to why
it could not produce various documents, with some documents being provided only after
depositions had been taken.  The motion, which chastises the agency for supposed tactics in
delaying full responses, focuses upon two documents:


CBCA 5997, 6464 2
  1. An email from [the] Contracting Officer . . . stating in writing to the tenant
agency that Appellant gave it more pricing information than the Government
asked for in its TICS [tenant improvement costs] pricing submitt[al], thereby
contradicting GSA’s contention that Appellant was partially responsible for the
Delay. (Exhibit 13); and
  2. A critical email thread illustrating the Government’s responsibility in causing
the Delay, whereby [the] Contracting Officer . . . admits:
At this point as a Contracting Officer, I would be extremely hard
pressed to defend the US Government against any claim by
[lessor] as the lessor.
In the motion, the lessor characterizes these emails to be of a “damning nature . . . in
placing the responsibility in causing the Delay squarely on the Government,” and concludes
that the agency intentionally has withheld the documents in an effort to obstruct and conceal
agency liability in causing the delay.  The lessor seeks a variety of sanctions, to include:
taking facts pertaining to the matter in dispute to be established for the purpose of the case
in accordance with the lessor’s contentions, particularly that the agency is solely responsible
for the delay; forbidding the agency from challenging the accuracy of any evidence presented
by the lessor, and refusing to allow the agency to support or oppose any claims or defenses.
The lessor highlights various portions of the first referenced email.  While the writer
asserts that the lessor provided all information that is in a typical tenant improvement costs
table, albeit in a different format, the language is silent regarding any actual or potential
lessor delay that may exist.  The lessor does not connect this email to the agency’s basis or
bases supporting lessor-caused delay; i.e., the agency may be able to demonstrate lessor-
caused delay even if the lessor provided additional pricing information.
Similarly, in the second referenced email, the highlighted language does not state that
the agency is solely responsible for the delay.  The sentence is not an admission that the
agency may be liable for any and all claims by the lessor against the agency.
The Board reviews de novo any findings made by a contracting officer.  These bits of
information represent no smoking gun as suggested by the lessor.  The lessor blows out of
proportion the significance of such statements.  The lessor has failed to establish a basis to
impose the sanctions sought.

CBCA 5997, 6464 3
Decision
The Board DENIES the lessor’s motion to impose sanctions.
    Joseph A. Vergilio          
JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
Board Judge
We concur:
   H. Chuck Kullberg______     Kyle Chadwick               
H. CHUCK KULLBERG KYLE CHADWICK
Board Judge Board Judge