_______________________________________________ RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED IN PART: January 26, 1996 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 13452-TD UNITED MANAGEMENT INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent. Gail Burkhalter, President of United Management Inc., Glennville, GA, appearing for Appellant. David H. Brunjes, Office of Legal Counsel, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Department of the Treasury, Glynco, GA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), WILLIAMS, and DeGRAFF. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Respondent moves to dismiss a portion of this case for lack of jurisdiction. The motion is granted in part, as explained below. Findings of Fact On March 11, 1994, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) awarded a contract to United Management, Inc. (United) to provide grounds maintenance services at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. The contract contains some indefinite quantity line items. The contract also contains a term of six months and gives Treasury the option to extend the contract term for three one-year periods. Exhibit 8.[foot #] 1 On August 17, 1995, United submitted a claim for $509,933 to the contracting officer. This amount is the sum of $125,000 (debt owed to a bank), $60,000 (debt owed to an individual), $47,000 (debt owed to others), $118,521 (anticipated profit for the second option year), and $159,412 (anticipated profit for the third option year). In its claim, United explains that Treasury extended the contract term only for the first one-year option period. United asserts that Treasury was obligated to extend the term of the contract for the second and third one-year option periods as well, unless United failed to perform. Exhibit 19. The contracting officer denied United's claim on October 13, 1995. Exhibit 23. United filed this appeal, GSBCA 13452-TD, on October 25, 1995, and subsequently filed its complaint. On December 22, 1995, Treasury moved to dismiss paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28 of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Paragraph 20 states, "United Management requested compensation because the Government did not order all of the services that were contracted for." Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28 challenge the accuracy of Treasury's estimate of its indefinite quantities, and complain about the amount of indefinite quantities ordered by Treasury. Complaint at 3, 4. On October 11, 1995, United submitted another claim to the contracting officer. The claim, which is for $61,292.48, seeks to recover the difference between the amount Treasury paid United, and the amount Treasury would have paid if United had performed all of the work that it expected to perform, including 100% of the estimated indefinite quantities. Exhibit 65. The contracting officer denied this claim on December 8, 1995, United appealed to the Board, and we docketed the case as GSBCA 13515- TD. Discussion Before a contractor can pursue a claim at this Board, the contractor must first present the claim to a contracting officer for a decision. Otherwise, we lack jurisdiction. 41 U.S.C. 601-613 (1994). This appeal, GSBCA 13452-TD, resulted from the contracting officer's decision denying United's August 17, 1995 claim, and so our jurisdiction is limited to the issues presented in that claim. We deny the motion to dismiss paragraph 20 of the complaint. As we read this paragraph, it challenges Treasury's decision not to extend the contract term for the second and third option ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 All exhibits are contained in the appeal file. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- years. We possess jurisdiction to consider the issue presented in paragraph 20 because this issue was presented to the contracting officer in the August 17, 1995 claim. We grant the motion to dismiss paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28 of the complaint. These paragraphs challenge Treasury's indefinite quantity estimates and complain about the amount of indefinite quantities ordered by Treasury. We lack jurisdiction to consider the issues presented in paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28 because these issues were not presented to the contracting officer in the August 17, 1995 claim. It appears that United can pursue at least part of the allegations contained in these paragraphs in its other appeal, GSBCA 13515-TD. Decision The motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART. Paragraph 20 of the complaint is not dismissed. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 28 are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ______________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: _____________________________ _____________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge Board Judge