DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  May 5, 1995
                                                          
 
 
                              GSBCA 13255
 
 
                         9TH & D JOINT VENTURE,
 
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Brett  D. Orlove  of  Grossberg,  Yochelson,  Fox  &  Beyda,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant.
 
        Scarlett  Orenstein,  Office  of  General  Counsel,  General
   Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        Appellant was  awarded a  contract on  October 30,  1992, by
   respondent,  the General Services Administration, for the leasing
   of  116,206  net  usable  square  feet with  an  option  for  the
   Government to  lease up to  an additional 40,000 square  feet for
   the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Appellant has requested payment
   by  respondent  for  energy and  maintenance  costs  and expenses
   incurred  with  respect  to  Government-owned  equipment  located
   within  the premises  that it  alleges  are not  the contractor's
   obligation.  The  estimated costs are approximately  $104,000 per
   year for energy and $25,000 to $50,000 annually for maintenance.
 
        On January 9, 1995, appellant's counsel sent a letter to the
   contracting  officer espousing  his client's  opinion  as to  the
   contracting officer's  responsibilities under the  contract.  The
   letter was  forwarded to respondent's assistant  regional counsel
   for a  response, which was  dated January 27,  1995.  It  is from
   that response that appellant appeals to this Board.
 
        On  May 4,  1995, the  Board  convened the  parties to  this
   appeal  in a conference  call to discuss  possible jurisdictional
   problems, namely,  appellant's lack of a certified  claim and the
   lack  of a  contracting  officer's final  decision.   During  the
   conference,   appellant  advised  the  Board  that  there  is  no
   certified claim and respondent advised that its letter of January
   27, 1995,  is not a  contracting officer's  decision.   Appellant
   therefore  made an  oral motion  to  withdraw its  appeal without
   prejudice.   Respondent's counsel  stated that respondent  has no
   objection to the  motion.  Accordingly, this  appeal is DISMISSED
   WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Rule 28(b).   This dismissal shall convert to
   one with prejudice  one year from  the date of  this order if  no
   further action is taken by either party.
 
                                      ______________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge