ORDER:  February 5, 1993
                                                  
 
 
                        GSBCA 10945(7703)-REIN-R
 
 
                      TELE-SENTRY SECURITY, INC.,
 
                                             Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                             Respondent.
 
         Kenneth K.  Takahashi, Takahashi  & Associates,  Rockville,
   MD, counsel for Appellant.
 
         Robert  W. Schlattman,  Office of General  Counsel, General
   Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges LaBELLA and HENDLEY.[foot #] 1 
 
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
         The appellant, Tele-Sentry Security, Inc. (Tele-Sentry) has
   requested  that  we  clarify  an  issue  addressed  in  our prior
   decision, and  affirmed by the  Court of Appeals for  the Federal
   Circuit, Tele-Sentry Security, Inc., GSBCA 10945(7703)-REIN, 91-2
   BCA   23,880,  at 119,613, aff'd  per curiam, 950 F.2d  730 (Fed.
   Cir. 1991).  The instant issue arises from the appellant's motion
   to  recover attorney's  fees incurred  in  litigating that  case,
   pursuant  to the  Equal Access  to  Justice Act,  5 U.S.C.    504
   (1988).  We docketed that  case only after both parties submitted
   certificates of finality.  
 
         The  appellant stated that  it had submitted,  on September
   13, 1982, the  claim that was denied by  the contracting officer,
   and  that   we  subsequently   adjudicated.     The  respondent's
   certificate said that the appellant did not submit  a justiciable
   claim  until February  23, 1984.    Noting this  discrepancy, the
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1  Judge Suchanek, who participated in our original
   decision, is no longer with the Board.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   appellant asked the Board to clarify, for purposes of determining
   interest accrued on the claim pursuant to 41 U.S.C.   611 (1988),
   the date of the appeal we adjudicated.
 
 
         This is the fourth time  that we have reviewed our decision
   for the appellant concerning  this issue.  We find  first that on
   September 13, 1982, the appellant  filed a certified claim for an
   equitable adjustment  of $122,832.28 with the contracting officer
   and reserved the right to add to that amount.  Appeal File, GSBCA
   10945(7703)-REIN, Exhibit  22.  However, the  contracting officer
   on  October  21, 1982,  found  that the  claim  lacked sufficient
   documentation  and, rather  than deny  it altogether,  instructed
   appellant  to refile it  with proper support  within thirty days.
   Tele-Sentry, 91-2 BCA at 119,612.  The appellant did not reply to
   this  order,  but  instead  submitted on  February  23,  1984,  a
   "consolidated claim" for  a total of $351,591.51,  which included
   the  amounts sought in the claim filed in September 1982.  Appeal
   File,  GSBCA  10945(7703)-REIN,  Exhibit  28.    The  contracting
   officer then  issued a final  decision on September 26,  1984, in
   which the  Government conceded  $127,584 in  liability for  delay
   costs, but  denied  other  amounts.   Tele-Sentry,  91-2  BCA  at
   119,613.   The  appellant appealed  that denial  to the  Board on
   January 28, 1985.  Id.
 
         We find that  the appellant submitted a  properly certified
   claim for a  sum certain only  on February 23,  1984.  See  Essex
   Electro Engineers,  Inc., 960 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (defines
   claim for purpose of the  Contract Disputes Act); see also Albers
   Construction  Co.,  GSBCA  6150, 83-1  BCA     16,171, at  80,374
   (indicating  that a contracting officer "may  not be compelled to
   issue a decision until he  has received [the necessary] detail. .
   ." on an  ambiguous claim).   As  we noted in  our decision,  the
   contracting  officer  only  denied the  claim  dated  1984, Tele-
   Sentry, 91-2  BCA at 119,613,  and the appellant filed  an appeal
   challenging  that decision--not  any deemed  denial  of the  1982
   decision.  The 1984 claim is  the only one that has been  pursued
   by the appellant, and we  hold that for purposes of the  Contract
   Disputes Act,  41 U.S.C.   611 (1988), it  is the 1984 claim that
   precipitates the running of interest under the Act.
 
 
 
                                      ___________________________
                                      JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                      Board Judge
   I concur:
 
 
 
   ___________________________
   VINCENT A. LaBELLA
   Board Judge