__________________________________________________ MOTION AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED: April 18, 1995 __________________________________________________ GSBCA 12711 INCORE, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Theodore M. Bailey, San Antonio, TX, counsel for Appellant. M. Leah Wright, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and NEILL. NEILL, Board Judge. This case involves a claim by the Government for a credit of $197,269.65 for construction work done at the United States Border Station in Laredo, Texas. The work in question relates to the installation of caissons which are to support a new and an existing loading dock at the border station. Appellant contends that, under the contract's payment provision relating to the installation of the caissons, a per linear foot unit price for "drilling" is to be applied to the entire design length of each pier or caisson actually installed. Both parties are of the opinion that the issue of appellant's entitlement to the amount originally claimed can be decided on the basis of specific contract provisions. Respondent has, therefore, moved for summary relief. Appellant opposes the motion and has filed a cross motion for summary relief. While the parties are of the opinion that this dispute is ultimately a question of contract interpretation, they have, in presenting their arguments, relied on facts which, if not actually in dispute, are at least clouded with uncertainty as the record currently exists. It is well established that summary relief will not be granted if a moving party cannot establish the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Copeland's Enterprises, Inc. v. CNV, Inc., 945 F.2d 1563, 1565-66 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Armco, Inc. v. Cyclops Corp., 791 F.2d 147, 149 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, after a review of the submissions filed by the parties, we conclude that neither moving party can meet this burden. Accordingly, we do not consider that the issue of entitlement is appropriate for disposition on motions for summary relief. The issue which the parties have framed for purposes of their motions, however, is a crucial one and, if resolved, should readily lead to a resolution of this dispute. We, therefore, invite counsel to supplement their submissions with any additional documentation they deem appropriate and then, pursuant to Board Rules 9 and 11, seek a decision on the merits regarding this issue of entitlement based on their respective record submissions. Decision Appellant's motion for summary relief and respondent's cross motion for summary relief are DENIED. ___________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge We concur: _____________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge _____________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge