___________________________________________
 
              DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:
                             March 18, 1994
              ___________________________________________
 
 
                              GSBCA 12685
 
                        F. T. I. SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                           Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Peter A. Foley, Charlotte, NC, counsel for Appellant.
 
        Sharon A. Roach, Office of General Counsel, General Services
   Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), DEVINE, and DeGRAFF.
 
   DeGRAFF, Board Judge.
 
        F.T.I. Systems, Inc. (FTI) filed this appeal on November 23,
   1993.  On February 7, 1994, GSA filed a motion to  dismiss Counts
   I, II, and  IV of  the complaint  for lack of  jurisdiction.   On
   March 9,  1994, FTI advised  the Board that  it does not  wish to
   respond to GSA's motion.  GSA's motion is granted.
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
        The parties entered  into a contract on April  27, 1992, for
   the  lease of  office space  in Charlotte,  North Carolina.   The
   contract  requires  FTI  to  provide  materials  such  as  duplex
   electrical  outlets and  subdividing  partitions.   The  contract
   specifies certain ratios that FTI was to utilize when it prepared
   its  cost estimate,  in order  to determine  the amount  of these
   materials that  would  be  needed.   For  example,  the  contract
   provides that  one duplex electrical  outlet would be  needed per
   one hundred  square feet  of space  and that  one linear  foot of
   partitions would be  needed per ten  square feet  of space.   The
   contract explains that GSA would make an adjustment to the amount
   paid to  FTI based upon the actual amount of these materials that
   FTI provided.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1.  
 
 
        In a letter dated March 3, 1993, GSA states that it is due a
   credit  for certain  materials.   For example,  GSA  states that,
   based  upon the  ratios  contained in  the  solicitation and  the
   number of square feet being  leased, FTI should have  anticipated
   providing  1,931 linear  feet of  partitions  and 193  electrical
   outlets.  Instead, FTI actually  provided only 956 linear feet of
   partitions and 164 electrical outlets.  GSA's letter states that,
   based upon the actual amount  of materials that FTI provided, GSA
   is entitled  to deduct $16,676.68 from  the amount to  be paid to
   FTI.  Appeal File, Exhibit 3. 
 
        On July  1, 1993,  GSA sent  Supplemental Lease  Agreement 2
   (SLA 2)  to FTI.  SLA 2 provides that GSA is entitled to a credit
   of $16,676.68.  Appeal File, Exhibit 6.   FTI refused to sign SLA
   2.  Appeal  File, Exhibit 8.  On August 30, 1993, the contracting
   officer sent a letter to FTI stating that GSA intended to  take a
   credit for $16,676.68  by deducting this  amount from FTI's  rent
   payments.[foot #] 1          This    letter     satisfies     the
   requirements  for a contracting officer's decision.  Appeal File,
   Exhibit 11.
 
        Appellant's complaint  contains four  counts.   In Count  I,
   appellant requests reimbursement  for utilities and  maintenance.
   In Count II,  appellant requests reimbursement for  providing two
   additional bathrooms.   In Count III, appellant  takes issue with
   the $16,676.68  credit and  also appears to  take issue  with the
   amount that  it was  paid for  construction work.   In  Count IV,
   appellant  requests reimbursement for lost income and delay.  FTI
   never submitted a  written claim to  the contracting officer  for
   utilities and  maintenance, the  two bathrooms,  the construction
   work, or lost income and delay.  
 
                               Discussion
 
        GSA contends that we lack jurisdiction to consider Counts I,
   II,  and IV.   We agree.   In  addition, we lack  jurisdiction to
   consider Count  III to  the extent that  it requests  payment for
   construction  work.   These counts  contain  requests for  relief
   based upon contractor  claims which have never  been submitted to
   the contracting officer for a  decision.  We lack jurisdiction to
   consider such claims.  41 U.S.C.   605(a) (1988); Paragon  Energy
   Corp.  v. United  States,  645  F.2d 966  (Ct.  Cl. 1981).    The
   $16,676.68  credit  constitutes  a  Government  claim,  and   the
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1     GSA later determined  that the amount of  the
   credit to  which it  was entitled was  $14,676.68.   Appeal File,
   Exhibit 14.  (The appeal  file contains two exhibits numbered 13.
   The parties should refer to  the document dated December 20, 1993
   as Exhibit  13 and to  Supplemental Lease Agreement 4  as Exhibit
   14.)
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   August 30,  1993  letter   constitutes  a  contracting  officer's
   decision concerning that claim.  Thus, we possess jurisdiction to
   consider that  part of Count  III which  concerns the  $16,676.68
   credit.
 
 
                                Decision
 
        Counts I, II, IV, and that  part of Count III which requests
   payment  for  construction   work  are  DISMISSED  FOR   LACK  OF
   JURISDICTION.
 
 
 
                                      ____________________________
                                      MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   ____________________________       ______________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS                 DONALD W. DEVINE
   Board Judge                        Board Judge