DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: August 27, 1993
                                                             
 
 
                              GSBCA 12517
 
 
                  GLOBAL RADON TESTING SERVICES, INC.,
 
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Paul Jarrett,  president of  Global Radon  Testing Services,
   Inc., Cocoa Beach, FL, appearing for Appellant.
 
        Emily   C.  Hewitt,   General   Counsel,  General   Services
   Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, and NEILL.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge.
 
        After performing work under a contract for  the provision of
   diagnostic  radon  mitigation   surveys  of  several   Government
   buildings, the  contractor, Global  Radon Testing Services,  Inc.
   (Global),  asked the General Services Administration (GSA) to pay
   $2,801 more than the contract amount of $5,170.  Global contended
   that it had performed work additional to what was required by the
   contract, and  that the extra  sum represented the fair  value of
   that work.
 
        By letter dated March 8,  1993, the GSA contracting  officer
   refused to pay more than the contract amount.  He contended  that
   the work for  which Global requested $2,801 was  within the scope
   of the contract.  The letter, citing the Contract Disputes Act of
   1978,  41 U.S.C.A.    601-613  (West Supp. 1992),  advised Global
   that the firm could appeal this contracting officer's decision to
   this Board within ninety days of its receipt.  The letter further
   advised Global that  it could alternatively contest  the decision
   by filing suit  in the Court of Federal Claims within one year of
   the date of receipt.  See 41 U.S.C.A.   609(a) (West Supp. 1992).
 
        On July 30,  the Board received a letter  from Global, dated
   July 27, enclosing the contracting officer's decision  and asking
   that we  expedite payment of  the contested amount.   Attached to
   this letter is a compendium of documents entitled "How Someone at
   GSA, Atlanta Is Raping a Small Business While Trying to Cover His
   Bureaucratic Posterior."
 
        We docketed Global's letter as an appeal of the  contracting
   officer's decision.   In so doing, we directed Global's attention
   to  the  statutory requirement  that  an  appeal  to a  board  of
   contract appeals be filed "[w]ithin  ninety days from the date of
   receipt of  a contracting officer's  decision."  41  U.S.C.   606
   (1988).  We ordered  Global to show cause  why the appeal  should
   not be dismissed because it was filed too late.
 
        In response to our order, Global's president  stated that he
   has "done  everything possible  to work with  GSA" and  that even
   after the  contracting officer's decision was issued, he "was led
   to believe [by GSA officials] that there was no reason to  file a
   complaint with the  Board."   The president  concluded, "I  would
   feel very relieved if I could get my day in court."
 
        Unfortunately for Global,  that day cannot come  before this
   tribunal.   The statutory  deadline for filing  an appeal  with a
   board of  contract  appeals has  been strictly  construed by  the
   Court  of   Appeals  for   the  Federal   Circuit,  because   the
   authorization  to make  the  filing  is  a  waiver  of  sovereign
   immunity.   A late  filing divests the  board of  jurisdiction to
   consider  the case  on its  merits.   Cosmic Construction  Co. v.
   United States, 697 F.2d 1389 (Fed. Cir. 1982); Elden-Rider, Inc.,
   GSBCA 8643, 90-2  BCA   22,878, at  114,901, aff'd, 935 F.2d  281
   (table)  (Fed. Cir. 1991); George's  Lawn & Rental Service, Inc.,
   GSBCA 10087, 89-3 BCA   22,081.  Global did not file this  appeal
   until  144  days  after the  contracting  officer's  decision was
   written.    We  have no  evidence  as  to when  the  decision was
   actually  received.   In  such  circumstances,  we  presume  that
   receipt occurred  five days  after mailing.   Berkshire  Computer
   Products, GSBCA 11539-P, 92-1 BCA   24,587,  at 122,686, 1991 BPD
     302, at  4 (citing Maykat  Enterprises, N.V., GSBCA  7346, 84-3
   BCA   17,510, at 87,213).  We cannot consider an appeal filed 139
   days after receipt, no matter how significant its allegations.
 
                                Decision
 
        This appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   _________________________          _________________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER                   EDWIN B. NEILL
   Board Judge                        Board Judge