Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405


                                                                                                                 

       MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: December 19, 2000
                                                                                                                 


                          GSBCA 15420-R


               TMD U.S.A., INC./VINCENT SCHICKLER,

                                             Appellants,

                                v.

                 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                             Respondent.

     Vincent Schickler, President of TMD U.S.A., Inc., Smithtown, NY, appearing for
Appellants.

     Robert T. Hoff, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), NEILL, and HYATT.

DANIELS, Board Judge.

     Appellants, TMD U.S.A., Inc. and its owner-president, Vincent Schickler, move the
Board to reconsider and overturn its decision in TMD U.S.A., Inc./Vincent Schickler v.
General Services Administration, GSBCA 15420 (Nov. 16, 2000).

     Appellants seek damages apparently resulting from their having been debarred by
respondent subsequent to the conclusion of a contract between the parties.  In an earlier case,
the Board found that respondent had taken improper actions under the contract and awarded
to TMD the damages it had proven.  In the recent decision, as to which reconsideration is
sought, we dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the subject claim is for
damages resulting from the debarment, rather than under the contract, and boards of contract
appeals have no authority to consider such a claim.

     In seeking reconsideration, appellants ask that we consider the following factors:  (a)
the earlier decision found Government actions improper; (b) in that decision, we awarded
damages; (c) the debarment resulted from actions under a contract; and (d) the debarment
prevented TMD from bidding on subsequent contracts.

     All these factors are irrelevant to our reasoning and conclusion.  Whether the
Government acted properly or not, either under the contract or in debarring TMD, has no
impact on our jurisdiction to consider a claim for damages resulting from a debarment. 
Similarly, the fact that we awarded damages in a case over which we had jurisdiction does
not compel a conclusion that we may award damages in all cases brought by the same
contractor, even under claims which have some relationship to each other.  Most if not all
debarments result from actions occurring under a contract, and all debarments prevent the
affected firm from bidding on subsequent contracts; there is nothing unique about appellants'
situation.

     The jurisdiction of a quasi-judicial tribunal, such as a board of contract appeals, is
limited to those matters specifically entrusted to that tribunal by statute, rule, or regulation. 
Munson v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 216 F.3d 1037, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  A party's
representations concerning the existence of jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction where
none exists.  Monasteri v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2000).

                             Decision

     Because appellants have given no good reason for reconsidering our decision in this
case, the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED.





                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge

We concur:





_________________________               _________________________
EDWIN B. NEILL                     CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                        Board Judge                             Board Judge