Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
         _____________________________________________________
 
           MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED: February 7, 2001
         _____________________________________________________
 
 
                              GSBCA 15259
 
 
                      BARCLAY PROPERTIES, L.L.C.,
 
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Sigurd Rudholm of Barclay Properties, L.L.C., Muskegon,  MI,
   appearing for  Appellant.
 
        Joel Malkin, Office  of Regional  Counsel, General  Services
   Administration, Chicago, IL, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), NEILL, and DeGRAFF.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
        The parties in  this case are in dispute  regarding a credit
   to  be  provided  in  the  rent  charged  by  appellant,  Barclay
   Properties,  L.L.C. (Barclay), for premises leased to the General
   Services Administration (GSA).  GSA, with the consent of Barclay,
   arranged  directly for  certain  electrical work  to  be done  in
   Barclay's building.  It was allegedly understood at the time that
   GSA  would pay  for the  work but  be later  compensated for  the
   expense by  an appropriate  reduction in the  rent due  under the
   lease.  
 
        Barclay now challenges the  amount of the credit claimed  by
   GSA.   GSA has  filed a  motion for  summary relief  in which  it
   contends that there is no dispute regarding the material facts in
   this  case and  that it  is  entitled, therefore,  to the  credit
   claimed as  a matter of law.  We  disagree for the reasons stated
   below and, therefore, deny the motion.   
 
                               Background
 
                                                                   2
 
        On  October 5, 1999,  the parties entered  into Supplemental
   Lease  Agreement  (SLA)  No. 1,  which,  among  other provisions,
   states: 
 
        Lessor  will  reimburse   the  Government  for  IWS-LAN
        [intelligent work station-local area  network] data and
        electrical   work  done   by   Government,  which   was
        originally to  be done  by Lessor.   The  reimbursement
        amount is presently being determined.  Once that amount
        is  determined, the  Government will  deduct a  monthly
        amount from the rent paid to Lessor for a five (5) year
        period beginning  on August  1, 1999  through July  31,
        2004.  
 
   Appeal File, Exhibit 10.  
 
        During 1999,  GSA did  have improvements  done to  Barclay's
   property by an  electrical contractor  at a  cost of  $68,845.49.
   Appeal File,  Exhibit 6.   According to the  contracting officer,
   the cost of these  improvements was to  be credited back to  GSA.
   Nevertheless, after Barclay challenged the amount of this credit,
   the  contracting  officer  determined  that  a  reimbursement  of
   $33,498.45  would be a  fair and  reasonable settlement  amount. 
   Id., Exhibit 15.
 
        In the  face of continued  objection from the lessor  to the
   amount of the credit  sought, the contracting officer,  by letter
   dated February 22, 2000, rendered a final decision demanding that
   Barclay provide a credit of $33,498.45.  Appeal File, Exhibit 15.
   Barclay has appealed that decision.  Id., Exhibit 16.          
 
                               Discussion
 
        Resolving  a  dispute  on a  motion  for  summary  relief is
   appropriate where  no genuine issue  of material fact  exists and
   the  moving party  is entitled to  judgment as  a matter  of law.
   Anderson v.  Liberty  Lobby,  Inc.,  477 U.S.  242,  247  (1986);
   Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Olympus Corp.
   v. United States , 98 F.3d 1314, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1996);  Copeland
   Enterprises, Inc. v. CNV, Inc., 945 F.2d 1563, 1565-66 (Fed. Cir.
   1991); Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387,
   1390 (Fed.  Cir. 1987);  Armco, Inc. v.  Cyclops Corp.,  791 F.2d
   147, 149 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
 
        Notwithstanding the Government's contention to the contrary,
   we  find in reviewing the record  presently before us fundamental
   material  facts  in  issue.     SLA  No.  1  states  that  "[t]he
   reimbursement amount  is presently  being determined."   We  find
   nothing in  the record  which indicates  that agreement  was ever
   reached upon  that point.   Indeed,  the documentation  submitted
   thus far strongly suggests that the parties continue to  disagree
 
                                                                   3
 
   as to two significant matters -- the scope of the work to be done
   by the Government and the value of that work.  
                                Decision
 
        In the  absence  of certainty  and  agreement on  these  two
   material  issues  of fact,  GSA's  motion for  summary  relief is
   DENIED.
 
 
                                           _______________________
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge
 
   We concur: 
 
   ______________________                  ________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS                      MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
   Board Judge                                  Board Judge