GRANTED IN PART: March 6, 2023
CBCA 5997, 6464
SBC ARCHWAY HELENA, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Diana Parks 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.
Opinion for the Board by Board Judge VERGILIO.  Board Judge CHADWICK concurs.
VERGILIO, Board Judge.
SBC Archway Helena, LLC (lessor) seeks $395,474.58 under a design/build lease
with the General Services Administration (agency).  The lessor blames the Government for
277 days of delay in issuing a notice to proceed (NTP), which delayed occupancy and the
start of rent payments.  The period of alleged delay includes 234 days predating the issuance
of the NTP and forty-three days after the NTP and before acceptance for occupancy.  The
agency contends that the lessor simply seeks rent for the period before occupancy, which is


CBCA 5997, 6464 2
not available under the lease or case law, and that the record fails to demonstrate that the
lessor was not responsible for the delay.
Following a hearing, we find the agency responsible for 138 of the claimed 234 days
of delay prior to issuance of the NTP.  Lack of input by anyone with contracting officer
authority for several months contributed to the delayed issuance of the NTP, as did the fact
that construction costs were higher than the parties expected at lease signing.  The record
fails to demonstrate any other compensable delay.
Contrary to the agency’s continued assertions, the lessor is not claiming rent
payments.  The agency’s actions lengthened the period from award to the start date of the
lease.  Rent was not calculated for and did not cover such a delay.  The agency is liable for
substantiated, allowable costs of $59,215.29.
Findings of Fact
The lease
1. On January 6, 2016, the partes signed a contract obligating the lessor to provide
named premises for a firm term of ten years with an agency option to renew for five more
years.  The lease term would begin upon the acceptance of the premises.  Appeal File,
Exhibit 1 at 1.1  The lessor was to be involved in the design and obligated to build out the
space.  Exhibit 1 at 25 (§ 4).  The lease includes a Changes (MAR 2013) and a Disputes (JUL
2002) clause.  Exhibit 1 at 245 (¶ 30), 247 (¶ 33).
2. The lease provides for annual rent as the sum of six components: shell rent, real
estate taxes, tenant improvements (TI), operating costs, parking (priced at $0), and building
specific amortized capital (BSAC).  Shell rent, real estate taxes, and operating costs are
calculated based upon rentable square footage.  The TI and BSAC amounts each are set as
a dollar figure amortized at 5% per year over ten years and thus are priced at $0 for the
option period.  Exhibit 1 at 5 (¶ 1.03.A).  Rent is subject to adjustment based upon the final
TI cost to be amortized in the rental rate.  Exhibit 1 at 5 (¶ 1.03.C).  The lease also states that
a rent reconciliation may be needed based upon square footage and that the lease term
commences upon acceptance of the space.  Exhibit 1 at 28 (¶ 4.12).
1 All exhibits are in the appeal file.  Although the findings of fact often contain
citations to specific pages in the record, and the discussion may reference specific findings,
those details are not meant to exclude reliance on the record as a whole but to offer some
general guidance on what supports a finding.

CBCA 5997, 6464 3
3. The Real Estate Tax Adjustment clause provides for adjustments in rent for
increases or decreases in real estate taxes after the real estate tax base has been established. 
The clause defines the real estate tax base as the unadjusted real estate taxes for the first full
tax year following the commencement of the lease term, when based upon a full assessment
of the property.  Of relevance here, in broad terms, the clause also directs how to calculate
adjustments for changes in real estate taxes.  For a given year, the key factors include the
difference between the current year unadjusted real estate taxes and the real estate tax base. 
Therefore, for a given year, if taxes increase, “[t]he Government shall pay the tax adjustment
in a single annual lump sum payment to the Lessor.”  Exhibit 1 at 10-11 (¶ 2.07).
4. The Operating Costs Adjustment clause provides that, beginning with the
second year of the lease, the agency will pay (or receive) rent adjustments tied to a cost of
living index.  Exhibit 1 at 11 (¶ 2.09).
5. The design-build aspect of the contract required the Government to provide
design schematics and, thereafter, the lessor to provide design intent drawings (DIDs).  In
particular, the Government was obligated to notify the lessor of DID approval or
nonconformance no later than fifteen working days after submission of DIDs.  Exhibit 1 at
25 (¶ 4.01(D)).  No more than forty-five working days after the approval of DIDs, the lessor
was to complete construction documents (CDs).  The Government had fifteen working days
after receipt to review CDs before the lessor prepared a TI price proposal.  The lessor was
to submit a complete TI price proposal within twenty working days following the
Government’s review period.  Exhibit 1 at 25 (¶¶ 4.01(E)-(G)).  The agency then promised
to “issue [the] NTP within 15 Working Days following the submission of the TI price
proposal, provided that the TI price proposal conforms to the [lease] requirements . . . and
the parties negotiate a fair and reasonable price for TIs.”  Exhibit 1 at 25 (¶ 4.01(I)).
6. The Tenant Improvements Price Proposal clause (Sep 2013) reads:
The Lessor’s TI price proposal shall be supported by sufficient cost or pricing
data to enable the Government to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposal,
or documentation that the Proposal is based upon competitive proposals (as
described in the “Tenant Improvements Pricing Requirements” paragraph)
obtained from entities not affiliated with the Lessor.  Any work shown on the
CDs that is required to be included in the Building shell rent or already priced
as BSAC shall be clearly identified and excluded from the TI price proposal. 
After negotiation and acceptance of the TI price, GSA shall issue the NTP to
the Lessor.
Exhibit 1 at 26 (¶ 4.03).

CBCA 5997, 6464 4
7. The above-referenced Tenant Improvements Pricing Requirements paragraph 
specifies, in pertinent part:
D, Each TI proposal shall be (1) submitted by the proposed General
Contractors (or subcontractors) using the TICS [tenant improvements cost
summary] Table in CSI Masterformat; (2) reviewed by the Lessor prior to
submission to the Government to ensure compliance with the scope of work
(specified above) and the proper allocation of shell and TI costs; and
(3) reviewed by the Government.  General Contractors shall submit the
supporting bids from the major subcontractors along with additional backup
to the TICS Table in a format acceptable to the Government.  Backup will
follow the TICS table Master format cost elements and be to level 5 as
described in P-120, Project Estimating Requirements for the Public Building
Service.
. . . .
G. The Lessor shall demonstrate to the Government that best efforts have
been made to obtain the most competitive prices possible . . . . The LCO [lease
contracting officer] shall issue to the Lessor a NTP with the TIs upon the
Government’s sole determination the Lessor’s proposal is acceptable.
Exhibit 1 at 26 (¶ 4.05).
8. Within thirty days after award, the lessor was required to provide the names
of at least two proposed construction contractors.  The contractor was to complete all work
within 100 working days after the NTP.  Exhibit 1 at 12 (¶ 2.10.B), 25 (¶ 4.01.K).
9. The lease specifies that the lease term commencement date, final measurement
of the premises, reconciliation of annual rent, and amount of commission credit, if any, shall
be memorialized by lease amendment.  Exhibit 1 at 28 (¶ 4.12).
After lease award
10. When initially interfacing with the lessor, the agency used both an agency
contract specialist and a contracted broker.  The record does not identify the authority of the
broker, who communicated with various participants.  The record contains no warrant that
would permit or authorize either the specialist or broker to act as a contracting officer. 
See Exhibit 1 at 8 (¶¶ 1.01.(B) (definition of “broker”), 2.02 (authorized representatives are
reflected by signatories to lease or delegated by notice or transferred)).

CBCA 5997, 6464 5
11. On February 18, 2016, the broker wrote to the lessor, citing the lease, and
advising:
Please note that you will need to bid a MINIMUM of 2, preferred 3, subs deep
per each trade.  If you are unable to provide competitive bids, then you must
notify the Govt that only 1 bid will be provided and provide ALL backup
documentation associated with that bid.  An independent Govt estimate or a
technical analysis will have to be completed to confirm fair and reasonable
pricing.
Exhibit 2.  The same document provides specific direction:  “You will be providing 2
separate TICS tables.  1 for TI pricing and 1 for the BSAC costs.  These costs must be
segregated so that the applicable allowances can be applied according to the lease.”  Also, 
“[P]lease be sure to demonstrate both the SHELL Costs and the TI costs accordingly.  The
Govt requires that this be demonstrated so that verification of the allocation of costs is done
per the lease.”  The suggested requirement for BSAC costs in a separate TICS table is not
supported in the lease.  Exhibit 1 at 26 (¶ 4.03) (a paragraph addressing BSAC price
proposals was deleted from the lease), 216-23 (lease exhibits E and F address security
requirements and reflect pricing incorporated into the lease).  Although the agency has not
identified the support for a BSAC TICS table, the agency was entitled to a breakout of BSAC
costs.  When security requirements changed, the agency appropriately sought details related
to the changes.
12. On July 18, 2016, the tenant (another government agency) wrote to the agency,
lessor, and broker that the tenant was “entitled to more than 1 review [of proposed drawings]
. . . . We will not concur on 100% drawings without additional reviews and I will not go to
my leadership for additional RWA [(reimbursable work authorization)] funding until the
needs of the CLIENT are satisfied.”  In response, after commenting that lease requirements
are other than suggested by the tenant (indeed, the lease does not require 50% or other
interim CDs), the lessor states that “upon confirmation that we’ve been forwarded all the
100% CD review comments, we will review and confirm that they conform to the Lease
requirements and the approved DID’s.”  Exhibits 52, 53.  The lessor does not identify in the
record what, if anything, the agency (or tenant) ultimately did or required that did not comply
with the lease’s design requirements.  The mere submission of drawings identified as 100%
complete by the lessor did not mean that they were in accordance with the lease and would
not require refinements or be subject to negotiations.
13. On September 6, 2016, the lessor submitted a TI budget proposal with a
breakdown of TI and shell costs, each including “other lessor soft costs . . . typically project
management, mortgage banking fee, counsel, travel, appraisal, permits, etc.,” although the
details priced only building permit costs.  Noted as absent, but submitted on September 23,

CBCA 5997, 6464 6
2016, was a price for tele/data cabling.  Exhibits 3 at 2-3; 4 at 1; 5.  On September 8, 2016, 
the lessor was informed that shell work was not segregated in the submission.  In an attempt
to conform to the lease requirements, on September 9 and 23, 2016, the lessor submitted
additional information regarding price breakdowns and proposals.  Exhibits 4, 5.  On
October 12, after conferring with an agency lease specialist and an estimator, the broker
provided comments to the lessor.  The broker wrote that the submissions were not in the
proper format, did not identify shell and BSAC costs, and did not contain detailed
subcontractor pricing or bid comparison worksheets.  Exhibit 6.  On November 1, 2016, the
lessor submitted a revised TI budget proposal, backup documentation, and responses to
agency budget comments.  Exhibit 7.
14. The lessor maintains that on September 23, 2016, GSA issued, but withheld
from the lessor, a “fair and reasonable determination” after performing a review of the
lessor’s TI proposal and considering previously awarded projects similar in scope and price. 
The agency did not issue such a price determination.  The determination by an agency
estimator was internal and did not address all of the TI costs in the latest proposal.  Exhibit
164.
15. By October 26, 2016, the lessor had completed shell construction and
demobilized the construction site awaiting completion of negotiations and receipt of the
NTP.  Transcript, Vol. 2 at 51.
16. Following various discussions and submittals (including requests for
information from the lessor on behalf of a general contractor, Exhibit 17), in November and
December 2016 and January 2017, the lessor submitted proposed TI and BSAC pricing with
backup documentation.  The final submittals reflect some new pricing, accounting for
variations in the market, and the withdrawal of one subcontractor’s bid and pricing by
another.  Exhibits 7, 15, 16, 18; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 76.  On November 9, the lessor received
approval on the updated 100% CD’s and thereafter submitted revised security pricing. 
Exhibit 10.  The agency was aware of both the lessor’s desire to obtain the NTP and move
forward with the work and various concerns of the tenant.  Exhibits 57-59, 133 (broker to
lease specialist:  “Are we within the allowance and RWA that has been provided?  If not, we
need to know ASAP so [tenant] can go back and get additional funding.  Shell construction
is complete and the lessor is antsy to get the TI going.”).
17. On January 3, 2017, relying upon a review of submissions, comments from the
broker, and a fair and reasonable determination by an agency estimator (again, internal, and
not issued to the lessor), the agency’s lease specialist indicated to the broker that there
appeared to be a “green light” for issuance of the NTP.  Exhibit 167.  There was no 
contracting officer action and no indication of contracting officer involvement at this point
in time.  The NTP was not issued for several months, following further submissions by the

CBCA 5997, 6464 7
lessor and discussions.  The lessor provided revisions to its security pricing on January 6,
2017, and backup and further pricing in February, March, April, and May 2017.  Exhibits 18,
23, 24, 27, 29.
18. By early January 2017, the Government had made a determination of fair and
reasonable pricing on the latest submissions covering the scope of the project.  The lease
specialist acknowledged this, and indicated that the NTP should be issued.  No contracting
officer was involved at this point to take action—affirmatively issuing the NTP or providing
a basis not to issue the NTP.  Direction was not given to the lessor.  A valid reason to
withhold the issuance of the NTP from the end of January 2017 until its actual issuance is
not supported in the record.  As explained below, the contracting officer’s stated reasons for
not issuing the NTP prior to June 2017, are not sound.  Anything accomplished by the
contracting officer, lessor, and tenant between early January and June 2017, should have
been done by January 2017, with active contracting officer involvement.
19. Although the lessor alleges that its delay began in October 2016, that
conclusion does not give sufficient weight to the lessor’s failure to allocate pricing, and
provide adequate support, for its TI, BSAC, and shell costs.  The lessor obtained new pricing
when a proposed subcontractor rescinded its bid.  This new pricing reflected additional
competition.  The need for new pricing was not the fault of the Government.  It reflected a
circumstance of the negotiation process, which also required agreement on the pricing and
design, which had to be within the budget of the tenant.  The lessor is overly ambitious in
asserting the negotiation process would have concluded within fifteen days of its submission
of pricing; the issuance of the NTP was premised on the contracting officer’s determination
that the proposal is acceptable.  The lessor played a role (i.e., concurrent delay) in not
obtaining a fair and reasonable determination until early January.  Therefore, the excusable
and compensable delay cannot begin until the date the NTP should have issued.  With the
active involvement of a contracting officer, the NTP should have issued on January 30, 2017.
After January 2017; issuance of the NTP in June 2017; and beneficial occupancy
20. The record reveals no involvement by a contracting officer for several months
between the lease signing and mid- to-late February 2017, when the contracting officer began
to get familiar with the situation.  Exhibit 157; Transcript, Vol. 2 at 83-84.  Although the 
contracting officer testified that a contracting officer would have been brought into the
process when needed, Transcript, Vol. 2 at 91, the agency provided no authoritative
responses to various lessor inquiries that would affect the lessor’s actions, or specific
determinations on any alleged inadequacy of a lessor submission.  No contracting officer
responses to lessor inquiries or statements of agency position were issued during the early
period of negotiations to finalize the design build aspects of the space and the pricing.

CBCA 5997, 6464 8
21. The contracting officer sought additional pricing from the lessor; the tenant
needed to see additional support for the dollars and seek additional funding.  Exhibit 51.  On
May 4, 2017, the lessor provided final pricing.  Exhibit 29.  By May 2017, the contracting
officer was trying to determine what additional information the tenant would need to be
satisfied.  The contracting officer did not specify any information lacking for the agency. 
Exhibit 118.
22. On June 16, 2017, the contracting officer issued the NTP as to tenant
improvements.  Exhibits 31.  As of that date, the lessor proceeded with performance.  The
substance of the notice is repeated in a bilateral lease amendment signed in June and
July 2017.  The agreement provides:
[T]hese parties for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, covenant and agree that the said Lease is
amended, effective, Upon Government Execution, as follows:
. . . .
[The agency] approves the Tenant Improvement and Building Amortized
Security Costs (BSAC) price of $2,014,175.38.  The Lessor shall amortize the
amounts of $470,589.54 (TI) and $120,000 (BSAC) for a total of $590,589.54
into the rent at the rate of 5.0% percent [sic] over ten (10) years.  The
remaining amount not to exceed $1,423,585.85 via a one-time lump sum
payment by the Government upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of
the tenant improvements by the Government and receipt of an invoice from the
Lessor.
. . . .
All other terms and conditions of the lease shall remain in force and effect.
Do NOT proceed beyond this amount without the expressed written
permission of the Contracting Officer.
Exhibit 32 at 1.  The amendment provided the lessor 140 working days after the NTP to
complete all work.  Exhibit 32 at 2.  This alters the lease, as originally signed:  the 134
working days reflects an increase from the original lease period of not later than 100 working
days following issuance of the NTP.  Exhibit 1 at 25 (¶ 4.01.K); Transcript, Vol. 1 at 139-40
(lessor requested the additional time based on anticipated impact of additional complexity,
costs, and effort needed to perform).  The parties do not address the express limitation (“Do

CBCA 5997, 6464 9
NOT proceed beyond this amount without . . . permission of the Contracting Officer”) as a
factor in the relief sought by the lessor.
23. On September 6, 2017, the lessor submitted a request for equitable adjustment
(REA) seeking $276,871.95, premised on a delay in issuing the NTP from October 26, 2016,
to June 16, 2017.  Exhibit 33.  The lessor certified the REA as a claim on November 6, 2017. 
Exhibit 34.
24. The contracting officer denied the claim on January 4, 2018, writing that the
lessor was responsible for the delay.  Exhibits 37, 38.
25. By bilateral lease amendment, the parties established the lease term to begin
January 11, 2018, and continue through January 10, 2033, with ten of those years firm. 
Moreover: “All other terms and conditions of the lease shall remain in force and effect.”  The
document establishes the real estate tax base, TI allowance, operating costs, and the BSAC
amount, with the total annual rent the same as in the original lease.  Exhibits 1 at 5 (¶
1.03.A), 39 at 2 (¶¶ 1.03.A, .C).
26. On January 12, 2018, the lessor filed with the Board the appeal docketed as
CBCA 5997.  Exhibit 40.
27. The lessor submitted to the contracting officer an amended claim dated August
3, 2018, revising the amount sought to $349,714.31 for delay totaling 277 calendar days. 
Exhibit 145.  The contracting officer denied the claim on August 23, 2018.  Exhibit 147.
28. On March 4, 2019, the lessor submitted an amended claim seeking
$395,474.58, for the same 277 calendar days.  Exhibit 149.  On May 6, 2018, the lessor filed
an appeal from a deemed denial of the claim, docketed by the Board as CBCA 6464. 
Exhibits 151, 152.
Other relevant facts
29. The lessor’s initial and subsequent drawings and pricings were for a design-
build project at a cost greater than that identified in the lease.  Lease amendments specify that
the TI allowance was $590,589.50, whereas the allowance in the NTP was $2,014,175.38. 
Exhibits 143, 144; Transcript Vol. 1 at 139.  The lessor contributed approximately $80,000
toward the shell, in addition to what was anticipated under the lease, for which the lessor
would not be reimbursed.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 104-05.  These “extra” costs, with
implications for the life of the lease (because of Government liability for tax increases based
on the value of the property, and other costs to be paid as a lump sum or amortized over the

CBCA 5997, 6464 10
term of the lease), were a factor for the tenant to consider regarding the requirements, its true
needs, and its budget, as it needed to secure additional funding to proceed.  E.g., Exhibit 51.
30. The lessor has not identified in the record what, if any, requirements the agency
imposed in addition to those required under the lease, without compensation, or what the
agency may have inappropriately rejected.  Stated another way, the record does not
demonstrate that what the lessor submitted at each stage was acceptable and in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the lease.  Overly broad testimony that everything complied
at every stage is not convincing.  With few exceptions, the record and briefing do not detail
the determinations or actions of the agency (or tenant) alleged to be inappropriate.  The lease
allowed for a negotiation process.
31. The agency and contracting officer maintain that the lessor failed to comply
with the terms and conditions of the lease in specific instances: (1) the lessor never supplied
competitive bids; (2) the lessor (itself or its contractors) used Davis-Bacon wage rates; and
(3) the lessor’s price proposals failed to conform to lease requirements.
32. The agency has an obligation, as made explicit in the lease, to negotiate fair
and reasonable pricing.  The lease discusses fair and reasonable pricing and best efforts to
obtain competition.  The contracting officer testified regarding his involvement, noting
reliance on the reservation of the right to reject all bids, at his sole discretion.  He concluded
that the bids provided by the lessor were unreasonably high, so he exercised his discretion
to require competition to achieve lower prices.  Transcript, Vol. 2 at 125-26.  The bases for
his opinion regarding the prices is not sufficiently supported in the record.  Moreover, the
agency does not rebut the lessor’s communications in September 2016, that it had a limited
ability to obtain competitive pricing and often received single bids for subcontracts.  Exhibit
4 at 1.
33. The agency identifies no language in the lease that prohibits Davis-Bacon Act
wage rates, and we see none.  The agency first raised the use of Davis-Bacon rates as a
problem on April 26, 2017, and, on the same day, issued a determination that this project
does not require such rates.  Exhibits 28, 107, 110.  Thus, about one year elapsed during
which the lessor received no authoritative direction not to use the rates.  A timely contracting
officer’s determination would have resolved the matter well before January 2017.
34. The testimony of the contracting officer failed to demonstrate persuasively
what was missing from the lessor’s TICS submissions, beyond some initial failure to
segregate certain costs.  We do not doubt the testimony that the pricing tables did not
conform in every respect to those specified in the lease, Transcript, Vol. 3 at 37-40, but no
practical impact was demonstrated, particularly as the information sufficed for agency
determinations of fairness and reasonableness. 

CBCA 5997, 6464 11
35. Regarding the lack of competitive bids or proposals, the language of the lease
references a Government ability to make a fair and reasonable determination on price.  Such
occurred on various occasions.  The lessor explained that its success at obtaining competition
was limited as it received only one bid for various items despite seeking pricing from
multiple vendors; the location and work involved drew little interest.  The agency had a duty
and right to seek competition, but its withholding of the NTP for several months has not been
fully tied to the lack of underlying pricing, particularly by the time a contracting officer took
action under the lease.  The parties needed to negotiate a fair and reasonable price for a
design that was acceptable to and within the budget of the tenant.  Given the variance
between the expected, and proposed costs, the negotiation process took some time and
required the tenant to obtain funding.  The record supports the conclusion that the time was
reasonable through the time the lease specialist concluded that the NTP should be issued,
because at that point there was apparent initial agreement.  No contemporaneous contracting
officer issuance discounted the conclusion.  Subsequent discussions and negotiations
finalized designs and pricing, but the NTP should have been issued after the lessor finalized
pricing in its submissions of January 2017.
36. Many of the observations and conclusions of the contracting officer and agency
seem disingenuous.  Whatever the contracting officer accomplished during his involvement,
beginning only after months had elapsed in the preoccupancy phase, could have been
accomplished by an active contracting officer to permit the issuance of the NTP after
obtaining the seeming go-ahead in January 2017.
Compensable delay period
37. Based upon the record (including the contemporaneous conclusions of the lease
specialist, with support from the agency estimator), negotiations should have been concluded
and an acceptable price established by early January 2017.  Given the apparent agreement
and subsequent price revisions, and the lease requirement to act within fifteen working days,
the agency should have issued the NTP by January 30, 2017.  A contracting officer’s timely
involvement would have facilitated such an issuance.  The observations and positions of the
contracting officer and agency supporting the actual issuance of the NTP in June 2017,
overlook a basic point of factual and legal significance: a contracting officer’s involvement
in the process by January 2017 (at the latest) should have brought matters to resolution by
the end of January.
38. The lessor claims it was further delayed from November 30, 2017, through
January 11, 2018.  The  record supports no delay for that period.  Finding 20; Transcript
Vol. 1 at 146-48, 150 (lessor mobilized and began construction before receipt of formal
NTP).  That the lessor completed the construction earlier than anticipated is not evidence of
delay.

CBCA 5997, 6464 12
Lessor’s costs
39. The lessor received no payments under the lease before occupancy.  The time
between award and occupancy was lengthened by Government-caused delay.  Costs for that
extended period were not part of the calculated lease compensation.  The lessor had
anticipated a twelve-month period between award and occupancy, not a period made longer
by delay.  E.g., Transcript, Vol. 1 at 134–35, 163.
40. Both the real estate taxes and the operating costs calculated in the “rent and
other consideration” reflect the product of the rentable square footage and the tax base and
operating costs base, on an annual basis.  The calculation is for the period of occupancy.
Exhibit 1 at 5.
41. Receipts demonstrate that, for the period from October 26, 2016, to June 16,
2017, the lessor incurred $18,267.06 for property taxes, $2136.94 for insurance, $29,024.07
for the mortgage, $42,483.73 in operating costs, and $8496.73 for a construction loan, a total
of $100,408.53.  These ultimately claimed costs are not simply estimates based on pricing
in the lease (which reflects a completed building for operating costs, taxes, and some other
items).  Exhibits 33, 145, 149; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 162.  The lessor did not include any of
these amounts as preoccupancy costs when calculating the rental payments, initially or
subsequently.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 134-35.  The agency has not indicated what in the record
might rebut the assertions of the lessor that rental payments do not include a portion for the
claimed period of delay.  A prorated amount to compensate the lessor for these costs for 138
of the 234 claimed days of delay is $59,215.28 (138/234 x $100,408.53).
42. The lessor also seeks increased, future insurance costs ($37,500 for fifteen
years), inflation ($26,089.54 over fifteen years), return on capital ($123,431.10 for fifteen
years), inefficiency ($30,220) (without supporting documentation or credible support), and
legal fees ($50,472.14 and increasing).  Exhibit 149.
Discussion
The Board makes a de novo determination, considering the record as a whole.  The
dispute involves alleged periods of delay and payment for those periods.  The Board has
rejected the agency’s position that the lessor is foreclosed from obtaining any relief.  The
lessor is not seeking lost rent or rental income as asserted by the agency.  SBC Archway
Helena, LLC v. General Services Administration, CBCA 5997, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,207 (2018). 
The agency does not contend that any particular cost the lessor is seeking must be denied
because: (1) it was or should have been included in the lease pricing, or (2) the bilateral
amendments (which establish pricing at particular dollar amounts and specify a dollar

CBCA 5997, 6464 13
amount as a limitation of payment not to be exceeded without written permission) preclude
relief.  See, e.g., Findings 13, 22, 25.
This situation of an agency suspending or delaying performance before occupancy,
thereby delaying rental payment and consideration to the lessor, is not unique.  Given the
general rejection of any liability by the agency here, despite earlier cases, the Board explains
further the potential implications when the Government delays the start of occupancy and
rent payments.  The lease does not price separately, as a basis for reimbursement, lessor costs
or expenses that are incurred prior to occupancy.  Payment of rent, for the period of
occupancy, is not at issue.  However, with a preoccupancy period lengthened by the delay,
the lessor incurred costs under the lease (from signing, through the preoccupancy phase made
longer by the delay, to the end of occupancy) that it would not have incurred under the lease
as signed.  That is, preoccupancy costs of the lessor for the period of delay are not reflected
in the lease pricing.  Such out-of-pocket costs are impact costs for which an agency is liable. 
That is, although a lessor routinely may incur various costs preoccupancy, a delay requires
it to incur the costs under the lease for the delay period—the longer period not priced under
the lease.  The impact costs do not duplicate payments made under the lease but reflect costs
during the lease period that would not have been incurred under the lease without the delay.
The delay
The agency discounts the lessor’s attempt to be reimbursed for the alleged delay
periods.  As found above, the record demonstrates that the lessor was a contributing cause
for some, but not all, of the claimed period of delay; the lessor bears the responsibility for
its portion of the delay.  With a developed record, the agency contends: “[The lessor] has
presented no evidence that it contemporaneously requested damages for any delay.  Indeed,
the only evidence is that [the lessor] failed to conduct a CPM [critical path method] 
analys[i]s and failed to engage an independent consultant.”  Agency’s Post-Hearing Brief at
5.  The agency misevaluates the record.  The agency was aware of the lessor’s attempts to
hasten the issuance of the NTP and had received communications about Government delays
and potential lessor claims.  The record does not discount or rebut the lessor’s general
contention that without assurances of the NTP, it could not move forward with construction,
such that it was unable to fit out the space and make it ready for occupancy.  Only with the
space accepted for occupancy would the lessor receive lease payments.  A CPM analysis and
an expert are not needed to establish such a proposition (lacking the assurances of the NTP,
the lessor could not move forward to make the building ready for occupancy and obtain
rental payments).  This is self-evident, particularly without substantive specifics in
opposition.  Government delay meant that the time from lease award to the start of
occupancy (or the end of the lease term) increased by 138 calendar days.  Those extra days
are not accounted for under the lease payments.  Case law does not dictate that the contractor
foot the entire bill for impact costs for the period of compensable delay preceding occupancy.

CBCA 5997, 6464 14
Regarding the alleged periods of delay, the facts, as explained above, support the
conclusion that the NTP should have been issued by January 30, 2017, but not earlier.  The
lessor, in relying on the NTP by October 2016, fails to account for the negotiation process,
the actual higher-than-expected prices which required the tenant to obtain funding, and the
lessor’s actions in not segregating or supporting various costs in the TI, BSAC, and shell
components.  Active contracting officer involvement and a willing lessor should have
achieved the NTP issuance by the end of January 2017.  Separately, the claimed period of
delay from November 30, 2017, through January 11, 2018, has not been substantiated
factually or legally.  The lessor completed work faster than anticipated in a bilateral lease
amendment.  Findings 37-38.
The Board concludes that the record supports a portion of the delay claimed by the
lessor.  The agency is liable for 138 days of claimed delay preceding the issuance of the NTP
but not liable for the remainder of the claimed delay (the lessor’s own actions and inactions
contributed to some of the delay prior to the NTP issuance, and no delay has been established
for the post-NTP issuance period when the lessor completed work in fewer days than
allocated by bilateral lease amendment).  The compensable delay period falls within the
preoccupancy period, a time for which the lease allocates no specific payment.  The lessor
does not seek rent for this period (rent under the lease began with occupancy) but seeks what
it characterizes as its costs incurred.  Having determined the compensable delay period, the 
Board must determine what costs are compensable as proven on the record.
Pricing the delay
The situation can be described as follows.  At the time the parties signed the lease,
lease payments included consideration for a preoccupancy period (POP) without the delay,
and for the tenant occupancy period (TOP).  What had been envisioned as sequential periods
are no longer consecutive.  There is a delay period in between, only the Government-caused
portion (GCP) is of significance here (the lessor bears the burden of lessor-caused delays and
time for a reasonable negotiation process which can be treated as part of the POP).  Thus, the
lease as signed covered the period of POP + TOP.  Because of the Government-caused
delays, the lease covers POP + GCP + TOP.  Although one can assume that lessor-incurred
costs during the GCP would have been incurred to some degree without the delay as part of
the initially expected TOP, the total period for lessor-incurred costs expanded, essentially
shifting costs covered under rent payments to the new TOP.  Because the lease now covers
a longer period than agreed to at lease signing (from signing to the end of occupancy), the
lessor must incur taxes, insurance, mortgage, operating costs, and construction loan costs for
the added days of the GCP.  These costs in the GCP are unaccounted for in the payments. 
Alternatively, if one views the costs incurred during the GCP as built into the rent (ignoring
that costs would be related to an occupied space), then the same period at the end of the TOP
would be unaccounted for.  The lessor has elected to seek the costs for the GCP period,

CBCA 5997, 6464 15
which are both costs for an incomplete space and costs which now are defined or known. 
The costs expected and priced in the lease for the TOP reflect a built-out space with inherent
taxes and operating and other costs.  Thus, the approach of the lessor is geared to reflecting
its true, uncompensated impact costs arising because of the Government-caused delay.
The contracting officer and agency remain of the view that the lessor is liable for all
delay.  Accordingly, there is no indication that the ultimate total payments under the lease
will compensate the lessor for those claimed costs attributable to Government delay and the
longer total period from award to the end of occupancy.  Had the contracting officer
negotiated rates to include the period for delay, such should have been identified in the
record.
While each party makes broad arguments in support of its position, with limited case
analysis, the panel concludes that the language of the lease and instruction in one
precedential case dictates the results here.  In Coley Properties Corp. v. United States, 593
F.2d 380 (Ct. Cl. 1979), the contract incentivized the contractor to complete construction of
both Government and commercial space as quickly as possible so as to start rent income on
each aspect.  Although the contractor completed construction during the contract-designated
period, there was Government delay during construction.  (Using the shorthand from above,
although the POP + TOP period was not altered, the POP would have been shortened—but
for the compensable change—and accrued to the benefit of the contractor.)  The Changes
clause obligated the Government to compensate the contractor for its increase in the costs of
performance, which the court read as limited to unanticipated and extra out-of-pocket costs.2 
These compensable costs were for both the Government and the commercial spaces, which
together formed part of the consideration under the contract; the latter space was to be
completed within a time frame after completion of the Government space.  The compensated
costs were for real estate taxes, premium time, general conditions expenses, field and
supervisory payroll, and home office overhead—incurred in performing the contract as a
result of the delays or changes.  A contract clause prohibited payment of increased interest
paid on construction loans.  Although in one sense all of the costs were expected to be
incurred, the delay which lengthened the contractor’s time to complete the spaces, rendered
the costs unanticipated and extra out-of-pocket expenses under the lease.  Reduced income
2 The phrase “unanticipated and extra out-of-pocket costs” may be viewed in
light of this example: Owner (O) rents an apartment to tenant (T) with T to pay rent plus
utilities and other costs.  For a portion of the rental period, T sublets to dweller (D) with D
to pay rent plus utilities and other costs.  D stays an extra month.  T is entitled to extra
consideration; D’s assertion that T would have incurred rent and other costs anyway does not
lessen the impact of D’s extension and D’s obligations, as the extra month is not priced under
the sublet agreement.

CBCA 5997, 6464 16
when rent was not received under the Government or commercial portions because of delay
did not translate to an out-of-pocket expense.  Aware of the economic detriment suffered by
the contractor, the court held that the lack of rent income was not a cost of performance.3
The lessor does not ask for lost rent, although, without any factual support, the agency
continues to so characterize the claims.  Under the lease, rent obligations began with
occupancy and continue for at least ten years.  The rental period remains intact; however, it
began later than anticipated at lease signing.  In substance, the lessor seeks compensation for
costs it has paid or will be obligated to pay that are not reflected in the rent payments. 
Regarding taxes and operating costs, the lessor maintains that the base rates (for which it is
liable under the lease) have increased because of the delay, such that its cost of performance
increases.  Other costs, relating to construction loan interest, return on capital costs, costs
incurred as a result of inefficiencies and delays, and legal fees, it maintains were incurred
only because of agency delays.  Further, the lessor seeks payment for what it describes as
operating cost increases (higher insurances costs) arising from tenant improvements priced
higher than anticipated in the awarded lease.
As required under the lease and Coley, the Government is liable for impact costs the
lessor incurred during the 138-day period of Government-caused delay.  The lease pricing
does not compensate the lessor for the added property taxes, insurance, mortgage, operating
costs, and loan costs the lessor must bear because of the delay.  As a change, constructive
suspension, or delay, the costs that have been supported as incurred and priced on a daily
basis are reimbursable as compensable impact costs.  Payment for the costs incurred during
3 The agency offers no sound reason to read the lease and apply Coley in a
different manner.  The result here is consistent with the notion that the relief rests on a cost
claim, not a repricing claim.  See, e.g., Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure,
Inc. v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 5168, et al., 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,474, at182,039.  This
lessor’s costs were impacted by the delay, unlike the showing in JDL Castle Corp. v. General
Services Administration, CBCA 4717, et al., 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,249, at 176,857 (“Although JDL
provided documents concerning two mortgage loans in connection with the property, it failed
to provide any evidence that these loans were procured because of or were affected by the
delay.”  JDL did not prove its impact costs.).  This lessor could not perform while it awaited
the NTP, such that the length of the revised preoccupancy period, caused by Government
delays, resulted in additional costs during the contract period.  Moreover, as in Coley, lease
pricing incentivized the lessor to complete the building for occupancy, so delay directly
impacted lessor’s expenditures because of the lengthened time.  Nassar Group International,
ASBCA 58451, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,405, at 181,832 (“Appellant is entitled to an equitable
adjustment for costs incurred as a result of any unreasonable government caused delays . . .
under a constructive suspension theory.” (emphasis added)).

CBCA 5997, 6464 17
the period of delay during non-occupancy is somewhat akin to what the Eichleay formula
addresses–unabsorbed home office overhead costs that would have been and were incurred
during a period of suspension but are not part of the payments under the contract.  Eichleay
Corp., ASBCA 5183, 60–2 BCA ¶ 2688, aff’d on reconsideration, 61-1 BCA ¶ 2894 (1960). 
However, this lessor does not seek that (unabsorbed home office overhead) relief but, rather,
seeks other costs directly tied to the leased space and the delay and change to the lease.
The record supports payment of $59,215.29 for the period of delay.  The amount is
derived as a percentage of the substantiated, compensable costs incurred during the claimed
delay period.  As required under the lease and by Coley, the agency must pay its share of 
local property taxes, insurance, mortgage, operating costs, and the construction loan, for the
delay period.  The lessor incurred these costs as preoccupancy (not rental) costs because of
the delay; the costs were not factored into the lease payments because the Government delays
extended the length of the preoccupancy period.  The lessor will incur these types of costs
for a longer period (from signing to the end of occupancy) than priced under the lease.  That
extra time period represents a compensable delay or change for which the lessor is to be
made whole under the lease.
The lessor also seeks relief based on projected consumer price index (CPI) changes,
as well as claimed inefficiency costs, return on capital costs, and attorney fees and expenses. 
Each of these attempts at recovery fails.
Claims for relief on projected CPI changes are speculative.  Further, the lessor has not
provided a factual or legal basis for relief.  The projected period to finalize the build out was
established in conjunction with the NTP and again reflected in a bilateral amendment
associated with occupancy.  The bilateral agreements retained the language of the lease but
did not attempt to alter the basis for CPI calculations.  Findings 22, 25.
The lessor seeks inefficiency costs and returns on capital costs.  Again, legal and
factual shortcomings in its presentation prevent relief.  No reliable facts in the record address
true inefficiency costs.  The lessor contends that it infused additional capital into the project. 
Part of that appears to be for shell costs for which the lessor says it is not seeking
compensation.  The remainder has not been shown to be other than costs factored into the
ultimate pricing for the space or compensable under the contract.  To the extent that some
of the costs reflect interest, there is no basis to award interest on monetary claims.  Servidone
Construction Corp. v. United States, 931 F.2d 860, 863 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (a court may not
award interest on monetary claims against the Government unless specifically authorized by
statute or contract, citing the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 611 (1988) (now codified
at 41 U.S.C. § 7109 (2018)), which contains an explicit statutory grant for the collection of
interest on a recovery under a claim but has no separate provision for recovery of interest on
borrowings).

CBCA 5997, 6464 18
The lessor seeks attorney fees and expenses in connection with its preparation of its
initial and subsequent claims and the prosecution thereof.  Lessor’s Post-Hearing Brief at 21
(¶ 7).  The lessor has not identified any attorney-related costs not associated with the
preparation and prosecution of its claims.  Such fees and expenses related to claim
prosecution are not recoverable as a contract cost (if at all, a successful claimant may be
compensated under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 (2018)).  Tip Top
Construction, Inc. v. Donahoe, 695 F.3d 1276 (2012).  The lessor does not recover the
requested costs here.
Decision
The Board GRANTS IN PART the lessor’s appeals, such that the lessor is to be paid 
$59,215.29.  Interest runs from November 6, 2017, the date the contracting officer received
the initial certified claim, 48 CFR 33.208 (2021).
     Joseph A. Vergilio          
JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
Board Judge
I concur:
    H. Chuck Kullberg         
H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge
CHADWICK, Board Judge, concurring.
Absent controlling precedent, I might not agree that the costs awarded in this decision
were caused directly by the agency’s delay (as opposed to being merely costs that the lessor
paid during the delay).  I tend to think that the but-for costs of the initial delay will not be
known until the end of the lease term—when the value of the agency’s later-lasting tenancy
in the building can be netted against the lessor’s costs of financing the preoccupancy delay
of about 4.5 months.  As the majority notes, we do not write on a clean slate.  The Court in
Coley Properties Corp. v. United States, 593 F.2d 380 (Ct. Cl. 1979), awarded a lessor
“impact costs” apparently “including real estate taxes . . . , general conditions expense, field
and supervisory payroll, and home office overhead” in similar circumstances.  See id. at 383 

CBCA 5997, 6464 19
(defining “impact costs” for the “postal portion” of the project rather than for the “tower
portion” addressed by the court).  I concur here as an application of Coley, even though I do
not think the Coley court focused on the question of but-for causation.  See id. at 383-84
(addressing mainly “whether . . . the Changes Clause of the Agreement applies to
construction of the tower as well as to construction of the postal portion”).
     Kyle Chadwick               
KYLE CHADWICK
Board Judge