DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: October 24, 1996 GSBCA 13882 D. L. WOODS CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Richard L. Ratliff, President of Don-Lee Inc., Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Appellant. Derwin P. Richardson, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Chicago, IL, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), HYATT, and VERGILIO. DANIELS, Board Judge. On June 21, 1996, a General Services Administration (GSA) contracting officer sent to D. L. Woods Construction, Inc. (Woods) his decision denying a claim made by Woods under a contract for expansion and repair of the Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Indianapolis, Indiana. Woods had claimed that it was entitled to an equitable adjustment of $31,780 to the contract price, consequent to GSA's direction that Don-Lee Inc., a Woods subcontractor, install new piping and connecting apparatus. On September 27, 1996, Woods filed with this Board an appeal of the contracting officer's decision. Appended to the notice of appeal is a copy of the decision, marked "Received 24 Jun 96." The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 provides that an appeal to a board of contract appeals of a contracting officer's decision is timely only if it is filed within ninety days of the contractor's receipt of the decision. 41 U.S.C. 606 (1994). In docketing this case, the Board noted that the appeal appeared to have been filed more than ninety days after Woods' receipt of the challenged decision. We therefore ordered the parties to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In responding to the order, Don-Lee's president, who is representing Woods pursuant to a sponsorship agreement between the two companies, asked the Board to make an exception to the statutory time limitation for filing. He noted that he had experienced a number of personal difficulties shortly before the filing deadline. He also maintained that in light of GSA's having taken nearly two years to resolve the claim, for the agency to take advantage of a requirement for promptness would be unfair. Because the time limitation is part of a statute waiving sovereign immunity, it must be strictly construed. The Board may not consider personal circumstances or equity, or in any other way exercise discretion as to acceptance of an appeal filed later than the statutory deadline. We have no jurisdiction to hear such a case. Cosmic Construction Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389 (Fed. Cir. 1982). Decision We therefore DISMISS this appeal FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge Board Judge