____________________________________________________ DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: August 22, 1994 ____________________________________________________ GSBCA 12724 BULFINCH TRIANGLE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Leonard M. Singer of Heidlage & Reece, Boston, MA, counsel for Appellant. Gerald L. Schrader, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, BORWICK, and HYATT. PARKER, Board Judge. Bulfinch Triangle Associates Limited Partnership (Bulfinch) leased additional building space to the General Services Administration. The dispute concerns the amount of money the Government owes appellant for the costs associated with the additional space. Because Bulfinch failed to certify its claim to the contracting officer, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Background GSA awarded lease no. GS-01B(PEL)-03802Neg to Bulfinch on December 7, 1992. The contract was for the rental of office space in the building located at 180 Portland Street in Boston, Massachusetts, for use by the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS). The parties determined that INS's space needs 2 had expanded, so the appellant built out additional space. By letter dated June 23, 1993, Bulfinch requested an equitable adjustment of $245,045 for costs associated with the additional space. See Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Attachment 1. GSA made a partial payment of $53,497. By letter dated October 7, 1993, appellant requested additional payment in the net amount of $195,548, the difference between the original claim and the partial payment. Id. The contracting officer sent a response to Bulfinch by letter dated October 12, 1993, which stated in part: Therefore, based on all the information available regarding this matter, I hereby offer the BTALP $143,000. This offer is inclusive of the $53,497.00 partial payment that has already been processed. Also, please be aware that interest on this amount is not due because interest is not payable on costs under dispute. If this amount is not acceptable to you, you may proceed with your rights under Paragraph 23 of the Lease entitled "Disputes." Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Attachment 3. According to the contracting officer, the October 12, 1993 letter was not intended to be a final decision on the matter. Id., Attachment 2. Discussion The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 requires that all claims by a contractor against the Government relating to a contract be in writing and submitted to the contracting officer for a decision. 41 U.S.C. 605(a)(1988). Section 605(c)(1) of the Act provides in part: For claims of more than $50,000, the contractor shall certify that the claim is made in good faith, that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief, and that the amount requested accurately reflects that contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the government is liable. Id. Proper certification of a contractor's claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite for claims over $50,000. Fischbach and Moore Int'l Corp. v. Christopher, 987 F.2d 759, 762 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Appellant's claim to the contracting officer was not certified. Although the letter by the contractor to the contracting officer demanded prompt payment of $195,548, the 3 letter contained no language which would satisfy the certification requirement. Without the required certification, the Board lacks jurisdiction. The Board lacks jurisdiction for another reason as well. The Contract Disputes Act requires the contracting officer to issue a final decision on the contractor's claim. Section 605(a)(1) provides in part: All claims by the government against a contractor relating to a contract shall be the subject of a decision by the contracting officer. The contracting officer shall issue his decisions in writing, and shall mail or otherwise furnish a copy of the decision to the contractor. The decision shall state the reasons for the decision reached, and shall inform the contractor of his rights as provided in this chapter. 41 U.S.C. 605(a)(1)(1988). Although no "magic words" are required in the final decision, the essentials for the Board's jurisdiction are a claim which has been clearly asserted by the contractor and decisively rejected by the contracting officer. Trans-Atlantic Industries Inc., GSBCA 10803, 91-1 BCA 23,412, at 117,458. The contracting officer never issued a final decision on this claim. In the October 12, 1993 letter, the contracting officer, as opposed to rendering a final decision on the claim, offered the contractor a sum less than requested in what appears to be an attempt to settle the claim. This offer of settlement was not an appealable final decision. Decision For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. __________________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge We concur: ______________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge _______________________________ 4 CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge