DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: December 2, 1993 GSBCA 12526 PLURIBUS PRODUCTS INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Peter V. Martino, Pluribus Products Inc., Brooklyn, NY, appearing for Appellant. David L. Frecker, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, WILLIAMS, and GOODMAN. LaBELLA, Board Judge. Pluribus Products, Inc., filed an appeal from a contracting officer's decision to terminate for default two purchase orders for wooden box sets issued under a contract with the General Services Administration (GSA). GSA filed a Motion for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction alleging that the appeal was filed late, which we grant. Background On July 2, 1992, respondent awarded Pluribus Contract No. GS-02F-58339 for the provision of wooden box sets. Appeal File, Exhibit 3 at 1st unnumbered page. The contract covered the period of July 2, 1992, through March 31, 1993. Id. On or about April 2, 1993, the contract was modified to extend the delivery date of five purchase orders for boxes until April 20, 1993. Appeal File, Exhibit 12 at 1st unnumbered page. GSA did not receive boxes from purchase orders AW-NY-2461 and SW-NY-2463 by the April 20 delivery date. By letter dated May 6, 1993, the contracting officer terminated for default the two purchase orders because they had not been received by the delivery date. Appeal File, Exhibit 14. The letter advised Pluribus that it could appeal the contracting officer's decision to the Board within ninety days of its receipt. Id. The letter also advised Pluribus that it could also contest the decision by filing suit in the Court of Federal Claims within one year of the date of receipt. Id. Pluribus received the termination letter on the same day, May 6, by facsimile transmission at 12:29 p.m. Attachment to Appellant's Notice of Appeal. On August 6, 1993, the Board received appellant's Notice of Appeal dated August 5 in which Pluribus stated that it intended to appeal the contracting officer's decision. On August 30, 1993, respondent filed a Motion for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction alleging that Pluribus did not file its appeal until ninety-two days after it received the contracting officer's final decision. By letter dated September 1, 1993, we requested Pluribus to respond to respondent's Motion for Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction. Pluribus never responded to the Board's request. On October 13, 1993, we ordered Pluribus to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In response to our order, appellant's general manager stated that he had not received information he requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (1988). He went on to state that he was "stonewalled to present [his] case" without this information and requested an extension until the information is received and reviewed. Appellant's letter of October 25, 1993. Discussion While statutory deadlines for filing an appeal previously were strictly construed, courts recently have become more forgiving. See, e.g., Wood-Ivey Systems Corp. v. United States, 4 F.3d 961 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For example, the Supreme Court has held that a rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling of filing deadlines applies to suits against the Government. Irwin v. Veterans Administration, 498 U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990). However, even applying principles of equitable tolling will not help Pluribus. Pluribus never responded to respondent's motion. Appellant's only attempt to respond to our order was to request more time to conduct discovery regarding the merits of its appeal, not as to the lateness of its appeal. Pluribus has stated that it needs more time, but has never indicated why its appeal should not be dismissed. Furthermore, Pluribus has not demonstrated any connection between its need for more time for discovery and its response to our order to show cause. While there might be cases where the facts warrant applying principles of equitable tolling to allow for late filing, this is not one of them. Our appellate authority has stated that a late filing divests the Board of jurisdiction to consider the appeal on its merits. Cosmic Construction Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1982). See also Elden-Rider, Inc., GSBCA 8643, 89-3 BCA 22,078, at 111,049. Pluribus did not prepare its Notice of Appeal until ninety-one days after it received the contracting officer's decision as evidenced by the date of appellant's notice. We did not receive the Notice of Appeal until ninety-two days after Pluribus received the contracting officer's decision. Because appellant's appeal is inexcusably late, we cannot consider the merits of the case. Decision Respondent's motion is GRANTED and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. VINCENT A. LaBELLA Board Judge We concur: MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge