_________________________________________________ DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: May 14, 1993 _________________________________________________ GSBCA 12311 CENTENNIAL LEASING, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Peter DeVito, President of Centennial Leasing, Wall, NJ, appearing for Appellant. David L. Frecker, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, BORWICK, and HYATT BORWICK, Board Judge. The appellant, Centennial Leasing Corporation (Centennial), has appealed the decision of a Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) contracting officer terminating for default a delivery order issued under a General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. Respondent has moved for dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because no decision on the default termination has been issued by the GSA schedule contracting officer. Respondent is correct that, to be appealable, the applicable regulations require a decision on the default termination by the schedule contracting officer, not just a decision by the ordering contracting officer. We thus dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but provide other direction to the schedule contracting officer. Background On June 12, 1991, GSA awarded Centennial FSS contract no. GS-OOF-9034A for the lease of automobiles. Appeal File, Exhibit 7. On March 25, 1992, the NAVFAC issued delivery order N62467- 92-F-4200, to lease an automobile for one year under the subject schedule contract. Appeal File, Exhibit 13. On August 26, 1992, the NAVFAC contracting officer terminated for default delivery order N62467-92-F-4200. Appeal File, Exhibit 14.1 Appellant filed a timely appeal with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), which was docketed as ASBCA No. 45209. The ASBCA dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but transferred the appeal to this Board. At present, no decision has been issued by the GSA schedule contracting officer concerning the termination for default of delivery order N62467-92-F-4200. Discussion The regulations governing the administration of GSA schedule contracts are set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR provides that the GSA schedule contracting officer shall: (a) Exercise general supervision of schedule contracts; (b) Issue decisions on disputes which relate to schedule contracts, or arise under orders which cannot be resolved by the ordering office and the contractor; (c) When necessary, terminate schedule contracts for default. . . . 48 CFR 38.205 (1992) (FAR 38.205). The FAR allows an ordering office to terminate purchase orders for default, repurchase from other sources, and charge defaulting contractors excess costs. FAR 8.405-4, 8.405-5. However, should the contractor be terminated for default but claim that its failure was excusable, the FAR states that "the ordering officer shall promptly refer the matter to the schedule contracting officer." FAR 8.405-5(2). In addition, the FAR states that unresolved disputes between an ordering office and a contractor shall be referred to "the schedule contracting officer for action under the Disputes clause of the contract." FAR 8.405-7. This Board, in a similar factual situation, construed these regulations to require a decision to be issued by the schedule contracting officer for a dispute to be appealable to this Board. See GF Office Furniture, Ltd., GSBCA 11058, 91-3 BCA 24,157. Under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, all claims by the Government shall be the subject of a decision by the contracting officer. 41 U.S.C. 605(a) (1988). A decision by the contracting officer is "the very linchpin and necessary prerequisite for the board's jurisdiction." McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 754 F.2d 365, 370 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing Paragon Energy Corp. v. United States, 645 F.2d 966 (Ct.Cl. 1981)). As no decision has been issued by the GSA ____________________ 1 On September 1, 1992, GSA's contracting officer terminated for default contract no. GS-OOF-9034A. A separate appeal, contesting the GSA contracting officer's decision to terminate the entire contract, is docketed as GSBCA 12037. schedule contracting officer concerning the default termination of this delivery order, we lack jurisdiction. GF Office Furniture, Ltd. The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction must be granted. This does not end the matter. The Government placed appellant in a pit of bureaucratic quicksand. The NAVFAC contracting officer advised appellant that it could appeal the default termination of the purchase order to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Appeal File Exhibit 14. This advice- -which appellant followed--was erroneous. Should the appellant maintain that the default was excusable, "the ordering office shall promptly refer the matter to the schedule contracting office." FAR 8.405-5. There is no evidence that the NAVFAC contracting officer made such a referral. The result is that appellant is left without a proper forum to pursue the appeal of the termination of this delivery order. The record, however, suggests that the schedule contracting officer is aware of the default termination of the purchase order. The terminated purchase order, plus the notice of appeal to the Armed Services Board, is included in an appeal file submitted by the GSA. NAVFAC has made an actual, if not formal, referral to the schedule contracting officer. The schedule contracting officer should issue a decision on the termination for default within thirty days from the date of this decision. If the contracting officer fails to issue the decision, we will impute NAVFAC's termination decision to GSA and will permit appellant to reinstate and pursue its appeal. GF Office Furniture, Ltd. Decision This appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: __________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA Board Judge __________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge