DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: May 7, 1993
                                                       
 
 
                             GSBCA 12409-P
 
 
                    KORCHMAR LEATHER SPECIALTY CO.,
 
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Michael D. Korchmar, President of Korchmar Leather Specialty
   Co., Cincinnati, OH, appearing for Protester.
 
        John E. Cornell, Office of General Counsel, General Services
   Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and WILLIAMS.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On April 28, 1993, Korchmar Leather Specialty Co. (Korchmar)
   filed an  "appeal" in  which it protested  the award  of contract
   number GS07F67070 to Sunshine  Leather Corporation (Sunshine) for
   Federal  Supply  Class 8460  leather  briefcases.   Specifically,
   Korchmar  claimed  that  Sunshine  intended  to  manufacture  the
   briefcases using material  which did not meet  the specifications
   and requested  that the first article production  be inspected by
   an appropriate General Services Administration (GSA) official.
 
        This case was  docketed as an appeal on April  29, 1993, and
   on May  3, 1993,  the Board convened  a telephonic  conference to
   ascertain whether the  case was properly characterized  an appeal
   or a protest.  During that conference, appellant's representative
   stated that Korchmar  intended to file a  bid protest challenging
   the award  of the contract  to Sunshine.  Counsel  for respondent
   admitted  that   the  GSA  contracting   officer  had  misadvised
   appellant  concerning where it should file its protest, directing
   it  to this  Board instead  of to  the General  Accounting Office
   (GAO).    Conference Memorandum,  May 3, 1993.   During  the same
   conference, appellant  admitted that the articles  being procured
   were briefcases and not automatic data processing equipment.
 
 
        In protest cases, this Board only has jurisdiction to review
   decisions by a  contracting officer in procurements  of automatic
   data processing  equipment.  40 U.S.C.   759(f)  (1988).  Statute
   defines  the term automatic  data processing equipment  (ADPE) to
   mean "any  equipment or  interconnected system  or subsystems  of
   equipment that  is used  in the  automatic acquisition,  storage,
   manipulation,    management,    movement,    control,    display,
   switching[,] interchange, transmission,  or reception of  data or
   information. . . ."  40 U.S.C.    759(a)(2).  Leather  briefcases
   are  plainly not ADPE  within the  meaning of  the statute.   The
   Board, therefore, lacks jurisdiction over this protest.
 
                                Decision
 
        This case is  DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE  from this forum  for
   lack of jurisdiction.
 
 
 
                                      ______________________________
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   ____________________________       ____________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS                 ANTHONY S. BORWICK
   Board Judge                        Board Judge