______________________________________________________ DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: September 8, 1994 ______________________________________________________ GSBCA 12640 GENERAL CLEANING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. David M. Johnson of Johnson, Killen, Thibodeau & Seiler, Duluth, MN, counsel for Appellant. Paul J. Maxse, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Chicago, IL, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, NEILL and DeGRAFF. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. General Cleaning Corporation (GCC) and the General Services Administration (GSA) entered into three successive contracts for janitorial services at the federal building in Duluth, Minnesota. GCC claimed that it had not been paid the proper amount for its services and this claim was denied by the contracting officer. GCC then filed this appeal and GSA filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As explained below, GSA's motion is granted. Background GCC performed janitorial services at the federal building from March 1983 until February 1986 pursuant to contract GS-05B- 42291. GCC performed these same services from March 1986 until February 1989 pursuant to contract GS-05B-42593, and from March 1, 1989, until May 31, 1992, pursuant to contract GS05P88GAC0202. Appeal File, Exhibits 1, 4. On May 1, 1992, GSA sent a release of claims form to GCC and asked GCC to complete the form by listing any claims against GSA and to return the form to GSA. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. On November 6, 1992, GCC sent a claim letter to GSA, stating that it was owed $19,222.78. In its letter, GCC notes that it had provided services to GSA for nine years and was supposed to have been paid each month. The letter does not identify the months for which GCC claimed not to have received payment. Id., Exhibit 4. On April 29, 1993, GCC sent another letter to GSA which lists the amounts billed and the amount of payment received for each contract. This letter states that GCC claimed that it was owed $13,246.70 for work performed pursuant to the first contract (1983 through 1986), that it was owed $13,057.74 for work performed pursuant to the second contract (1986 through 1989), and that it had been paid $7,081.66 more than it had billed for work performed pursuant to the third contract (1989 through 1992). Appeal File, Exhibit 5. On June 23, 1993, GCC sent another letter to GSA. This letter, like the April 29, 1993 letter, clearly segregates the amounts that GCC claimed for each contract, stating: [T]he first three-year contract has an unpaid balance of $13,246.70 and the second three- year contract has an unpaid balance of $13,057.74. The third three-year contract is in excess of the contracted amount by $7,077.19 which we assumed was part payment against the unpaid balance. Subtracting the third three-year contract from the first two three-year contracts leaves a total unpaid balance of $19,227.25. Appeal File, Exhibit 6. GSA examined GCC's claim letters and determined that GCC was due $9,940 for work performed pursuant to the third contract (1989 through 1992). Appeal File, Exhibit 7. The contracting officer issued her decision in a letter dated August 10, 1993. In this letter, GSA directed GCC to submit an invoice for $9,940 in order to "reconcile [GCC's] claim regarding contract GS05P88GAC0202 only" and to submit a release of claim form stating that GCC had no claims outstanding on this contract. The letter explains that GSA's records concerning the other two contracts were being recalled from archives so that GSA could evaluate the remainder of GCC's claim. Appeal File, Exhibit 8. GCC submitted an invoice dated August 17, 1993, in the amount of $9,940 and GSA paid the invoice. Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 2; Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer, Attachment B. The contracting officer issued her decision concerning the first and second contracts in a letter dated September 10, 1993. In this letter, GSA explained that the files for the first contract had been destroyed and that GCC had signed a release of all claims concerning the second contract. The release, which states that GCC had no claims against GSA concerning the second contract, is attached to the contracting officer's decision. Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 3. GCC filed this appeal on October 7, 1993. In its notice of appeal, GCC clearly states that it is appealing the contracting officer's August 10, 1993 decision concerning the third contract, GS05P88GAC0202. GCC also states that it is seeking $9,282.78, which it claims is the unpaid balance due pursuant to the third contract. Appeal File, Exhibit 9. On July 12, 1994, the Board convened a conference call in order to permit GCC to identify the invoices for the third contract which GCC claims that GSA has not paid. GCC explained that, after reviewing the appeal file, it concluded that GSA paid the amounts invoiced by GCC for the third contract.[foot #] 1 GCC stated that the work for which it wishes to recover in this appeal was performed pursuant to one of the two earlier contracts. Conference Memorandum dated July 13, 1994. Discussion GCC concedes, and the appeal file establishes, that it was paid in full for the work that it performed pursuant to the third contract. Because there is no dispute between the parties concerning the third contract, we dismiss any claim related to that contract. GCC contends that it is owed money pursuant to one of the earlier contracts, and that the Board should consider GCC's "equitable claim of recovery." GCC's Opposition to GSA's Motion to Dismiss at 3. GSA argues that the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider any claim for payment due pursuant to either the first or the second contract, because GCC never appealed from the contracting officer's decision concerning those contracts. GSA is correct. We possess jurisdiction to consider a case only if a timely appeal is filed from a contracting officer's decision. 41 U.S.C. 605, 606 (1988). GCC did not file an appeal from the contracting officer's September 10, 1993 decision, which is the decision that addresses GCC's claim for payments due pursuant to the first and second contracts. GCC only appealed from the contracting officer's August 10, 1993 decision, which addresses GCC's claim for payments due pursuant to the third contract. Because GCC did not file an appeal from the contracting officer's September 10, 1993 decision, we lack jurisdiction to consider ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The appeal file establishes that GCC's conclusion is correct. GSA paid GCC in full for the work performed pursuant to the third contract. Appeal File, Exhibits 14-17, 19-21, 25, 28, 29. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- whether GCC is owed any amounts for work that it performed pursuant to the first or the second contract. DECISION The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. __________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: _____________________________ ____________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge Board Judge