MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED: March 8, 1993 GSBCA 12175 FIRE SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. W. R. Hayes, President of Fire Security Systems, Inc., Bossier City, LA, appearing for Appellant. Robert C. Smith, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Judges LaBELLA, DEVINE, and NEILL. NEILL, Board Judge. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. For the reasons set out below, we deny the motion. Background On October 9, 1992, Fire Security Systems, Inc. (appellant) filed a delay claim on its contract number GS-09P-89-KTC-0127 with the General Services Administration (respondent). The claim sought an amount in excess of $50,000. On November 9, appellant filed this appeal alleging the deemed denial of its claim. By letter dated November 20, the contracting officer requested appellant to provide specific information concerning its claim by December 31. This request also said: "Should you fail to supply the requested information to our office by this date, we will proceed in rendering a final decision by January 30, 1993." By letter dated November 30, appellant proffered its answer to respondent's request for additional information. Respondent thereafter moved to dismiss this appeal as premature stating that a contracting officer's final decision was not required until January 30, 1993. Discussion Statute requires that when a certified claim over $50,000 is involved, the contracting officer must, within sixty days of receipt, either issue a final decision or notify the contractor of the "time within which a decision will be issued." 41 U.S.C. 605(c)(2) (1988). Appellant's claim exceeds $50,000 and, therefore, was clearly premature when initially filed as an appeal from a deemed denial but only thirty days after the initial submission to the contracting officer. Respondent relies on this fact in moving to dismiss this appeal. Respondent argues that a final decision is not required until January 30, since the appeal is a certified claim for more than $50,000 and "the proposed deadline for i s s u i n g a f i n a l d e c i s i o n . . . i s reasonable."[foot #] 1 While the contracting officer certainly may seek the additional information he feels is necessary to evaluate appellant's claim properly and to provide a meaningful final decision, he has not proceeded in accordance with statute. The contracting officer has yet to establish a date within which a final decision will be issued. 41 U.S.C. 605(c)(2); Claude E. Atkins Enterprises v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 142 (1992). The contracting officer's request of November 20 for additional information only indicated that a final decision would be rendered by January 30, 1993, if appellant did not provide the requested information. As noted, appellant proffered its response by letter dated November 30, 1992. By its terms, the January 30 deadline for the issuance of a final decision becomes inapplicable. Hence, the contracting officer has yet to meet the statutory requirement to provide appellant with a firm date within which a decision will be issued. Appellant's appeal from a deemed denial has clearly ripened into a mature request. We conclude that we do have jurisdiction over this appeal as one from a deemed denial and, for that reason, deny respondent's motion to dismiss. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 We note that respondent's motion was filed prior to January 30, 1993. As of the date of this decision, however, no contracting officer's decision has been furnished to the Board. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Decision Respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal as premature is DENIED. The parties will be contacted shortly by the Board to schedule a teleconference on the further processing of this case. ____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge We concur: _______________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA Board Judge _______________________ DONALD W. DEVINE Board Judge