DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  February 17, 1993
                                                  
        
 
                              GSBCA 12197
 
 
                        MARCI ENTERPRISES, INC.,
 
                                           Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Frederick P. Weiner, President, Marci Enterprises, Inc., Los
   Angeles, CA, appearing for Appellant.
 
        Michael   D.  Tully,  Office  of  General  Counsel,  General
   Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, and NEILL.
 
   PARKER, Board Judge.
 
        Marci  Enterprises,   Inc.,  appellant,  has   challenged  a
   decision  of the  contracting officer  for  the General  Services
   Administration (GSA),  respondent, to  terminate for default  its
   contract to provide waterproof barrier material.  Appellant filed
   its notice of appeal by letter dated August 5, 1992.  In addition
   to contesting the default termination, appellant alleged that GSA
   owes  appellant $12,218.14 in connection with two purchase orders
   issued  under  the   contract.    These  costs   essentially  are
   termination  for  convenience  costs.   Appeal  File,  Exhibit 8.
   Appellant has elected to proceed  under the Board's small  claims
   procedure.  Rule 13.  
 
        Respondent moves to  dismiss the appeal in part  for lack of
   jurisdiction.  Because appellant never presented  a claim for the
   purchase order  costs  to  the  contracting  officer,  respondent
   contends  that the Board lacks jurisdiction over any question but
   the   propriety  of  the  default  termination,  the  only  issue
   addressed in the contracting officer's final decision.
 
        We agree with  respondent.  This  Board has jurisdiction  to
   review only matters presented first to the contracting officer; a
   complaint specifying entitlement to a certain dollar amount filed
   with the Board, but not  first with the contracting officer, does
   not vest us with jurisdiction over  the monetary claim.  Van Ness
   Associates,  Ltd., A  California  Limited Partnership  v. General
   Services Administration, GSBCA  11862, slip op.  at 4 (Sept.  16,
   1992); 41 U.S.C.    607(d) (1988).  Of course,  the Board retains
   jurisdiction to decide whether respondent properly terminated the
   contract for default.   Overall Roofing  & Construction, Inc.  v.
   United States, 929 F.2d 687, 689 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
 
 
        Finally, since the remaining  issue in this appeal  does not
   involve a  monetary claim,  the Board's  small claims  procedure,
   available  to  contractors  seeking $10,000  or  less,  cannot be
   invoked.   41 U.S.C.    608(a); Rule 13.   Nevertheless,  we will
   make every effort to resolve the appeal in an expedited manner.
 
                                Decision
 
        For  the  reasons   stated,  the  portion  of   this  appeal
   concerning amounts allegedly owed in connection with the purchase
   orders is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.  Rule 28(b).  
   __________________________
 
                                           ROBERT W. PARKER
                                           Board Judge
 
 
 
   __________________________
   __________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS                      EDWIN B. NEILL
   Board Judge                             Board Judge