CBCA 3228

600 Second Street Holdings LLC

Aug 22, 2013Judge McCannSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Not published in the listingGranted

Key Facts

Appellant
600 Second Street Holdings LLC
Respondent agency
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Judge
McCann
Case number
CBCA 3228
Decided
Aug 22, 2013The decision states Aug 22, 2013 on its own face, which agrees with the listing.
Decision type
Not published in the listingThe Board's year tables for 2007 through 2014 carry no Type column, so no disposition was published for this decision. It is not missing data and nothing is inferred from the document.
Law firm for the appellant
The decision's own appearances block names no outside firm, which happens when the appellant appeared pro se, through one of its own officers, or through its in-house counsel.
Outcome
Granted
The appeal is GRANTED.
Read from the shouted disposition line the Board prints above this decision's own date, and quoted from its operative sentence above. No model is involved.

Topics

Real property leasesContract interpretation

Topics are derived from each decision's own text by keyword rules, not a classification by the Board. A decision matching several topics carries all of them, so topic counts sum above the number of decisions. They are ordered strongest first.

Appearances

For the appellant
Timothy C. Hutchens
CBRE, Federal Lessor Advisory Group
Washington, DC
For the respondent
George C. Brown and John P. Sholar
Office of the General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC
Decision PDF (cbca.gov) Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act casesThe Board's year listing this row was read fromThe decision document is hosted by the Board itself, so it is an official copy, and the Board's own Contract Disputes Act case listing is the citable source. The topics, the disposition and the appearances above are read deterministically from the decision's own words; no model is involved.

Research This Decision

Create a free account to open this decision in the CBCA workspace: a grounded decision brief drafted from the Board's own words, the Insights dashboard over the whole corpus, and the filtered browser.

CBCA Decision Brief

A Workflows Hub brief on this decision, drafted from the captured text with every quote and authority checked against it.

Insights

Who prevails before the Board, by topic and by judge, with every denominator visible: merits rulings, not decisions.

Browse with Filters

The whole corpus by year, decision type, topic, judge and disposition, searchable across the decisions' own text.

Full Decision

Full text of the decision5 pages, 7,535 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Aug 22, 2013 on its own faceRespondent SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

Cases cited

4 cases this decision cites, grouped by the forum that decided each, in the order it first names them. 4 of them open at a publisher.

Read from the decision's own words with no model involved: the party names and the citation are as the decision prints them. A case cited to a reporter is not held here, so where it opens was confirmed one citation at a time against an outside database and is labelled as leaving this app; a citation that database could not place, or matched to more than one case, is shown without a link rather than guessed at. A case named without a citation of any kind carries nothing to read, so it is left out rather than guessed at, and this is a floor on what the decision cites.

GRANTED: August 22, 2013

CBCA 3228

600 SECOND STREET HOLDINGS LLC,

Appellant,

v.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Respondent,

The case caption as the decision prints it. Every word is kept; the rule the Board draws around it is not text, so it is not repeated here.

Timothy C. Hutchens, Executive Vice President of CBRE, Federal Lessor Advisory Group, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant.

George C. Brown and John P. Sholar, Office of the General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges SOMERS, POLLACK and McCANN.

McCANN, Board Judge.

Appellant, 600 Second Street Holdings LLC (appellant or 600 SSH), appeals the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) contracting officer’s final decision regarding the interpretation of a lease agreement.

Findings of Fact

1. On November 26, 2002, 600 SSH and the SEC entered into a lease for all of the office space in the office building known as Station Place II located at 600 2nd Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. The lease also granted the SEC the right to thirty-three parking spaces in the Station Place II garage. The lease term was for fourteen years, commencing on January 7, 2006, and expiring on January 6, 2020.

2. The lease contemplates that 600 SSH will contract with SEC employees and other affiliated entities (SEC parkers) for the rental of additional spaces in the garage. The rights granted to the SEC and the SEC parkers with respect to the garage and parking in the garage are set forth in paragraph K.1 of the lease: K. Parking and Loading Docks

1. Permitted Parkers. For security purposes, the Government shall control the Building Two Garage, as well as access to the Building Two Garage and security in and for the Building Two Garage. The Government or any Government-affiliated third-party entity or entities (including Government employees, Government employee organizations, contractors, consultants and authorized visitors), designated or approved by the Government for participation in the Government’s parking security program (“Affiliated Parking Tenants”), shall pay $220 per month to the Lessor, with a three percent (3%) escalation annually throughout the term of the Lease for Building Two, plus any applicable taxes per space, for each space in the Building Two garage that either the Government or Affiliated Parking Tenants may elect to contract for in excess of the thirty-three (33) spaces already provided in the Building Two Rental Rate.

3. In the first seven years of the lease term, the monthly base rate for parking has differed from the $220 base rate established by the lease. For the first half of 2006, the rate was the $220 rate stipulated in the lease. In the second half of 2006, the rate was lowered to $175. In 2007, the rate was further lowered to $147 and this price was maintained through 2010. In 2010, the rate was raised to $173.79, which was maintained through 2012.

4. From 2006 to 2012, the number of SEC parkers fluctuated from a low of five in the first half of 2006 to a high of 132 in 2010. In mid-November 2012, 600 SSH notified each individual SEC parker of its intention to raise the base parking rate for 2013 to $270.57. This rate was calculated by taking the $220 base rate in the lease and multiplying it by a three percent escalation for each of the seven years the lease had been in effect ($220 x 1.03 x 1.03 x 1.03 x 1.03 x 1.03 x 1.03 x 1.03 = $270.57). This proposed rate represented about a fifty-six percent increase from the 2012 rate.

5. On November 30, 2012, the SEC’s contracting officer sent a letter to 600 SSH to notify it that the proposed rate for 2013 was not authorized by the lease and that 600 SSH could not charge SEC parkers more than a three percent increase from current rates. After 600 SSH reiterated its intention to continue with the plan of raising the base rate, the SEC’s contracting officer issued her final decision determining that 600 SSH’s rate increase was not permitted by the lease. In response, 600 SSH provided SEC parkers with a notice that until further notice the rate for 2013 would increase only three percent from the 2012 rate. This appeal followed.

Discussion

The issue to be decided here is whether appellant waived any of its rights under the lease by charging less than the rate set forth in the lease. In other words, was appellant free, under the terms of the lease, to charge an amount less than the amount set forth in the lease and still retain the right to charge the stated lease amount at a later date? We find that appellant retained that right.

Contract interpretation begins with an examination of the plain language of the contract. LAI Services, Inc. v. Gates, 573 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Brownlee, 363 F.3d 1203, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The primary objective of contract interpretation is to determine the intent of the parties at the time an agreement is created. Alvin, Ltd. v. United States Postal Service, 816 F.2d 1562, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Gildersleeve Electric, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16404, 06-2 BCA ¶ 33,320. The language of the agreement “must be given that meaning that would be derived from the contract by a reasonable intelligent person acquainted with the contemporaneous circumstances.” Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. United States, 351 F.2d 972, 975 (Ct. C1. 1965);

The lease states that parkers “shall pay $220 per month to the Lessor, with a three percent (3%) escalation annually.” Obviously, this language allows the lessor to charge $220 per month plus escalation. However, a reasonable interpretation of this language does not demand that the lessor charge the entire amount. We do not believe that the parties, when they entered into this lease, intended to compel the lessor to always, without exception, charge third party parkers the stated lease amount. That would mean that 600 SSH would have to charge an amount that was more than it wished to charge, more than it was to its advantage to charge (because charging less would increase revenue), and more than would have been beneficial to the parkers. We find it very doubtful that had 600 SSH initially come to the SEC and indicated that it wanted to reduce parking rates temporarily, but would eventually return to the maximum stated rate, the SEC would have contested 600 SSH’s contractual authorization to do so. Accordingly, the most reasonable interpretation of the lease is that the $220 plus escalation was a maximum. Charging less than the maximum does not violate the lease or waive any rights. The lessor is free to return to the maximum whenever it chooses to do so.

Respondent also argues that the yearly increase in rent is limited to three percent over the previous year’s rent. The lease could easily have said that, but it did not. The lease simply says that 600 SSH can charge $220 plus a three percent escalation per year. The two terms, the base ($220) and the escalation, are not separable. Together, they constitute the maximum. There is nothing in the lease that limits the increase to three percent over the previous year, unless the maximum was charged the previous year.

The only reasonable interpretation that can be applied to this lease is that the clause “$220 per month to the Lessor, with a three percent (3%) escalation annually” is a maximum. Accordingly, any previous charge of less than this maximum does not affect the maximum that 600 SSH can charge in any given year. We have considered respondent’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Decision

The appeal is GRANTED.

R. ANTHONY McCANN

Board Judge

We concur:

JERI KAYLENE SOMERS

Board Judge

HOWARD A. POLLACK

Board Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in 600 Second Street Holdings LLC, CBCA 3228. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the Board wrote them. What the page shows and the text does not repeat is the pagination furniture: the page numbers and the rules the Board draws around its caption and under its signatures. The signatures are set back into the columns the Board prints them in, each judge under the name he or she signed, and the typed copy of that name the page carries beneath each signature is not repeated.

Related Decisions

Same Judge

Same Topic

Same Year

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.