CBCA 6511

Nash Street Property Associates, LLC

Nov 6, 2020Judge BeardsleyGENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
DecisionDismissed on other grounds

Key Facts

Appellant
Nash Street Property Associates, LLC
Respondent agency
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Judge
Beardsley
Case number
CBCA 6511
Decided
Nov 6, 2020The decision states Nov 6, 2020 on its own face, which agrees with the listing.
Decision type
Decision
Law firm for the appellant
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
Outcome
Dismissed on other grounds
The short pay claim is DISMISSED, and only appellant's claim for other than CDA interest remains to be decided in this appeal.
Read from this decision's own closing paragraph, which is what the Board printed where it printed no disposition line, and quoted from its operative sentence above. No model is involved.

Topics

Payment and interest

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.

Appearances

For the appellant
Seamus Curley
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
Washington, DC
For the respondent
James Scott and Jessica Gunzel
Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration
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 decision2 pages, 2,551 characters, read from the Board's own documentDecided Nov 6, 2020 on its own faceRespondent GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Decision documentOfficial source: Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, Contract Disputes Act cases

Authorities cited

1 authority read from this decision's own text, grouped by the body of law each comes from. Select one to read it at its publisher.

Contract Disputes Act1

Read from the decision's own words with no model involved. Statutes, regulations, the acts these forums argue by name, and cases at the board, this office or the Comptroller General are recognized; any other citation form is left out rather than guessed at, so this is a floor on what the decision cites.

GRANTED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART: November 6, 2020

CBCA 6511

NASH STREET PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

Seamus Curley of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Washington, DC, counsel for

Appellant.

James Scott and Jessica Gunzel, Office of General Counsel, General Services

Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for 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.

Before Board Judges BEARDSLEY, ZISCHKAU, and CHADWICK.

BEARDSLEY, Board Judge.

Respondent, the General Services Administration, offset the amount of $128,230.79 from its lease payment to appellant, Nash Street Property Associates, LLC, to recoup real estate taxes GSA alleged it had wrongly paid. Appellant has moved for summary judgment in the amount of the offset claiming that the government’s right to offset is barred by the Contract Dispute Act’s (CDA) six-year statute of limitations, 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4)(A) (2018). Appellant also moved for an award of interest in the amount of $7452.69 from the date of the offset until November 15, 2018, the date appellant submitted its CDA claim. GSA does not oppose this motion, except to challenge appellant’s claim for $7452.69 in other than CDA interest. GSA states that it cannot produce any documentary evidence that a contracting officer asserted a claim to withhold the funds and resolve the issues of tax liability and of damages within the CDA limitations period. Based on the Board’s decision in 1000-1100 Wilson Owner, LLC v. General Services Administration, CBCA 6506, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,642, which involved almost identical facts to this case, GSA’s claim for $128,230.79 is, therefore, barred by the CDA statute of limitations.

On October 2, 2020, appellant filed a notice withdrawing its claim in this appeal for $24,956.55 in rent GSA failed to pay appellant in order to recoup taxes for which GSA alleged it had wrongly reimbursed appellant (the short pay claim). GSA did not oppose appellant’s decision to withdraw the short pay claim.

Decision

The Board GRANTS IN PART appellant’s motion for summary judgment and enters judgment for appellant in the amount of $128,230.79, plus CDA interest to run from November 15, 2018. The short pay claim is DISMISSED, and only appellant’s claim for other than CDA interest remains to be decided in this appeal.

Erica S. Beardsley

Board Judge

We concur:

Jonathan D. Zischkau

Board Judge

Kyle Chadwick

Board Judge

The parties are currently briefing for the Board the issue of appellant’s entitlement to other than CDA interest.

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Nash Street Property Associates, LLC, CBCA 6511. 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.