____________________________________________________ DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: August 24, 1993 ____________________________________________________ GSBCA 11481 GRIGOR E. ATOIAN, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Grigor E. Atoian, pro se, Woodland Hills, CA. Michele M. Feher, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, San Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DEVINE, HENDLEY, and DeGRAFF. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Based upon a dispute between the parties concerning a lease, appellant claims that he is entitled to recover in excess of $500,000 from respondent. Although the contract between the parties is governed by the Contract Disputes Act, appellant never submitted a claim to the contracting officer. Because the submission of a claim is a statutory prerequisite to our review, count 2 of the appeal, which is the only count remaining, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Findings of Fact On January 30, 1987, the General Services Administration (GSA) awarded a contract to Grigor Atoian for the lease of an office building in North Hollywood, California. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. The lease contract, which provides that it is subject to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 601-613 (1982) (CDA), contains a Disputes clause which establishes how the parties intend to resolve all disputes arising under or related to the contract. The Disputes clause defines a "claim" as a "written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain . . . " The Disputes clause provides that any claim made by Mr. Atoian must be submitted to the contracting officer for a written decision. The clause also requires that, if Mr. Atoian wishes to submit a claim exceeding $50,000, he must certify that the claim is made in good faith, that supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which he believes GSA is liable. Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 24. GSA terminated the lease contract in January 1990. Appeal File, Exhibit 3. On March 20, 1990, Mr. Atoian submitted a claim letter to the contracting officer in the amount of $33,093.71, for necessary repairs to the office building. In his letter, Mr. Atoian notes, "I would appreciate your earliest attention to this matter, as you know the premises are vacant and can not be rented under the present condition." Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 17. In an April 17, 1990 letter to a GSA employee other than the contracting officer, Mr. Atoian states, "I need to get the funds from GSA as soon as possible in order to repair the damages and be able to start marketing the property, meanwhile I am sustaining tremendous amount of losses due to unmarketable property." Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 18. Mr. Atoian wrote to the contracting officer on May 10, 1990, and asserts in his letter, "I need the funds immediately in order to repair all the damages on the building so that it is marketable. As it stands, the premises are vacant and I am sustaining great losses each day." Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 19. Mr. Atoian again wrote to the contracting officer on June 20, 1990, and stated, "The bills are mounting and our reserve account is depleted as the property has had to remain empty for several months now. I have enclosed copies of utilities bills and shut-off notices. Each day we are delayed furthers our losses." Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 20. On October 8, 1990, Mr. Atoian wrote to a GSA employee other than the contracting officer, "The building cannot be rented without the itemized repairs and this loss of revenue for the last 10 months is causing acute financial problems." Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 21. In a February 5, 1991 letter to a GSA employee other than the contracting officer, Mr. Atoian maintains, "I need to repair all damages left behind by [the government tenant], in order to be able to market and lease the space. I had to come up with mortgage payments during the last 14 months to keep the property from going into foreclosure. . . ." Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 22. Finally, on May 22, 1991, Mr. Atoian wrote to a GSA employee other than the contracting officer, "I have been unable to lease the said premises because of the extensive damage caused by [the government tenant] to the building. I need funds to pay for the necessary repairs. I will also hold GSA responsible for all rent loss and mortgage payments from January 1990 till receipt of payment." Supplemental Appeal File, Exhibit 23. GSA's contracting officer treated Mr. Atoian's March 20, 1990 letter which sought $33,093.71 in repair costs due to Government damage to the premises as a claim submitted pursuant to the contract's Disputes clause. In a letter dated June 27, 1991, the contracting officer denied Mr. Atoian's claim. Appeal File, Exhibit 13. On September 25, 1991, Mr. Atoian filed this appeal with the Board. The complaint that Mr. Atoian filed here on November 22, 1991, contains four counts. Count 1 contains Mr. Atoian's challenge to the June 27, 1991 contracting officer's denial of Mr. Atoian's March 20, 1990 claim for repair costs. Count 2 is denominated by Mr. Atoian in his complaint as "Loss of Income." On March 22, 1993, the parties stipulated to the dismissal, with prejudice, of counts 1, 3, and 4, based upon a settlement agreement. Only count 2 remains before the Board for decision. In count 2 Mr. Atoian alleges that, because GSA failed to respond favorably to his March 20, 1990 claim within 60 days, he was unable to effect repairs to his office building and, thus, unable either to rent the building to another tenant or to sell the building. In his complaint, Mr. Atoian states, "I am claiming the amount of $5,000 per month, from January 10, 1990 until the date of the payment. . . . The actual loss of income, after mortgage, insurance, etc. would be between $8,000 to $10,000 per month, totaling $180,000 for a year and half. Therefore, my total negative on the property has run about $15,000 a month for the same period, amounting to $270,000." Complaint, at 6. In a July 8, 1993 filing with the Board, Mr. Atoian states that the amount of his claim is $12,533 per month, from January 1990 until the date that he receives payment. Appellant's Reply in Opposition to the Government's Motion for Summary Relief. Discussion The CDA, which governs the lease contract at issue here, requires that "[a]ll claims by a contractor against the government shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision." 41 U.S.C. 605(a). Consistent with the CDA, the contract between GSA and Mr. Atoian defines a claim as a written demand for a sum certain which is submitted to the contracting officer. In addition, if a contractor's claim exceeds $50,000, the CDA and the contract require that the contractor certify the claim in a particular manner. 41 U.S.C. 605(c). Because Mr. Atoian never submitted a claim which meets these requirements to the contracting officer, the Board lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.[foot #] 1 Although some of the letters that Mr. Atoian sent to GSA mention lost revenue, none contains a demand for a specific amount of lost profits or a demand for payment. Similarly, although the complaint that Mr. Atoian filed in this appeal requests payment for lost profits, the complaint does not clearly state the amount that Mr. Atoian seeks. Mr. Atoian's July 8, 1993 Board filing contains his first and only clear statement of the sum that he believes is due from GSA. But, a document filed with the Board does not constitute a claim submitted to the contracting officer. Because Mr. Atoian never submitted a claim to the contracting officer, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. In addition, even if either the complaint or the July 8, 1993 filing could be considered to be a claim, we would lack jurisdiction because Mr. Atoian seeks an amount in excess of $50,000 and he never fulfilled the certification requirements of the CDA and the contract. Decision For the reasons set forth above, count 2 of the appeal, which is the only count remaining, is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. _____________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: ____________________________ ______________________________ DONALD W. DEVINE JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 In its answer to Mr. Atoian's complaint, GSA asserts that count 2 is not properly before the Board because Mr. Atoian never submitted a claim for lost profits to the contracting officer for decision. Answer at 1, 5. Although GSA never filed a motion to dismiss count 2, we are obligated to determine whether we possess jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.