_______________________________________________ RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPELLANT'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT DENIED: April 29, 1997 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 13525 CAFRITZ COMPANY, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Rebecca L. Kehoe and Grace Cavelli of Cotten & Selfon, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant. Kevin S. Anderson, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BORWICK, HYATT and DeGRAFF. BORWICK, Board Judge. Respondent, General Services Administration (GSA), moves to dismiss a purported appeal by Cafritz Company (Cafritz or appel- lant), and to deny appellant's motion to amend its complaint. For the reasons that follow, we grant respondent's motion to dismiss and deny appellant's motion to amend the complaint. Cafritz leased a building to the Government through GSA. Toward the end of its lease with GSA, Cafritz discovered and removed from the building hazardous substances which Cafritz alleges accumulated during the Government's tenancy. Cafritz submitted a claim to the contracting officer seeking $810,493.70 for alleged holdover rent, $526,803 for the costs of removing the hazardous materials and making the building leasable for other tenants, and $8,562 for remediation of silver recovery pits. We refer to the $526,803 part of the claim as re-lease costs. The contracting officer denied the first two parts of the claim, but granted the third part. The parties do not dispute that Cafritz appealed the denial of the holdover rent part of the claim to this Board; whether it also appealed the re-lease costs part of the claim is the issue we decide here. Earlier, we held the holdover rent appeal to be beyond our jurisdiction as sounding in tort or implied-in-law contract. Cafritz Co. v. General Services Adminis tration, GSBCA 13525, 97-1 BCA  28,860, appeal filed, 97-1295 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 1997). In that opinion, we reserved ruling on the re-lease costs issue. Cafritz maintains that when it filed an appeal from the contracting officer's denial of the holdover rent portion of the claim, it also filed an appeal from the denial of the claimed re-lease costs. GSA moves to dismiss the purported appeal from the denial of the re-lease costs portion of the claim, and to deny appellant's motion to amend its complaint to raise the re-lease cost issue. GSA maintains that Cafritz never appealed the contracting officer's denial of its claimed re-lease costs, but had appealed only from the contracting officer's denial of its claimed holdover rent. We grant respondent's motion to dismiss the purported appeal of the re-lease costs portion of the claim; we deny as untimely Cafritz's motion to amend its complaint to raise the re-lease costs issue. We conclude that Cafritz's notice of appeal was limited to the contracting officer's denial of the holdover rent part of the claim. Cafritz did not file a timely appeal from the denial of the re-lease costs portion of its claim. The claim for re-lease costs arose from Cafritz's discovery of allegedly hazardous material on its site, four months before the end of its lease with the Government. Appeal File, Exhibit 16. The Government questioned whether the hazardous materials were caused by the Government's tenancy. Id., Exhibit 17. After another environmental assessment, see id., Exhibit 27, appellant advised the Government that, upon the Government's termination, appellant would hold it liable for all damages resulting from appellant's inability to rent the space at comparable rent and occupancy. Appellant claimed the damages would include all costs necessary to remove or remediate improvements the Government had installed during its tenancy. Id., Exhibit 29. In its certified claim to the contracting officer, appellant sought $810,493.70 for holdover rent, $536,803 for the demolition and testing required to prepare the premises for the receipt of new tenants--the re-lease costs--and $8,562 for removal and remediation of silver recovery pits. Appellant claimed that all remediation and improvement work was the Government's responsibility. Appeal File, Exhibit 42. On October 26, 1995, the contracting officer issued a decision on appellant's alternate claim for $536,803: Regarding the building's construction materials, i.e.[,] asbestos and PC ballasts would be the responsibility of the Cafritz Company. The Government commenced occupancy of the premises from 1962 through 1966. Prior to the Government's occupancy, a private corporation occupied the premises. The construction materials referenced were typical construction materials for buildings the same age and construction type. There is no reason to believe the Government's occupancy of the space had any influence on the building's construction materials. Therefore, your claim of $526,803 for the demolition and testing of construction materials on the premises is denied. Appeal File, Exhibit 43. He also denied that portion of the claim seeking holdover rent, but agreed to pay the remediation costs for the silver recovery pits. Id. By letter of January 24, 1996 (received by the Board on January 26, 1996), Cafritz filed the following notice of appeal: The Lessor for the above referenced GSA Lease hereby appeals [the] GSA Contracting Officer's final decision dated October 26, 1995[,]regarding Lessor's claim for holdover rent. (See Attachment "A", Contracting Offi- cer's Final Decision signed by Marc Rappaport). The General Services Administration has damaged the Lessor for the subject lease by holding over in the Lessor's property from November 26, 1994 to September 30, 1995, and paying less than the market rental rate. The amount of damage suffered by the Lessor is $810,493.70 or $81,049.37 for month of holdover. A copy of this appeal has been provided to the Contract ing Officer by certified mail. Notice of Appeal (emphasis supplied). Cafritz attached the contracting officer's decision to the notice of appeal. The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA) limits jurisdiction of boards of contract appeals to timely appeals from final decisions of contracting officers. 41 U.S.C.  605-607 (1994); Transco Contracting Co. ASBCA 28620, 85-2 BCA  17,977. Generally, the notice of appeal, not the appeal complaint, establishes the bounds of jurisdiction for the Board. Crawford Technical Services, ASBCA 36,732, 89-2 BCA  21,783. In a pre-CDA case, we held that where the notice of appeal does not clearly and unambiguously limit appellant's intention to appeal a portion of the final decision of the contracting officer, the Board will read the appeal to be of all matters covered by the final decision. Kleen-Rite Corp., GSBCA 4767, 77-2 BCA  12,828, at 62,439. However, where an appellant has limited its appeal, the portions which are not covered by the notice of appeal must be dismissed. See BURCO Systems Development, AGBCA 91-228-1, 93-1 BCA  25,346 (appellant appealed overhead rates for 1988 and 1989, appeal for overhead rates for 1990 dismissed); Monmouth Recycling Corp., ASBCA 38506, 90-1 BCA  22,416, aff'd, 928 F.2d 410 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(Table) (claim for price adjustment not before board since notice of appeal only covered claim for storage costs, and did not cover claim for price adjustment). Here, Cafritz's notice of appeal covered only the holdover rent issue, which is different from the re-lease costs issue. Holdover rent deals with reimbursement allegedly due for the Government's occupancy of the space; re-lease costs concerns reimbursement of costs resulting from the Government's leaving the space. Therefore, we cannot, as appellant urges, consider its attaching the contracting officer's decision to its notice of appeal as an indication of its intention to appeal every aspect of that decision. Appellant limited its appeal only to the contract ing officer's denial of the holdover rent portion of the claim. Appellant was obliged to appeal its claim for re-lease costs no later than ninety days from the date of receipt of the con- tracting officer's decision. 41 U.S.C.  606 (1994). The contract- ing officer's decision was issued on October 26, 1995. Assuming three days for mail delivery, and receipt of the decision on October 30, 1995, appellant was required to appeal this issue no later than January 30, 1996. Appellant knew of the time con- straints; it filed its holdover rent appeal to this Board on January 26, 1996. Appellant did not file a timely notice of appeal on the re-lease claim and its motion to amend its complaint to raise this claim must be denied. Decision Respondent's motion to dismiss the purported appeal as to re- lease costs is GRANTED and appellant's motion to amend its complaint is DENIED. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: _________________________ __________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge Board Judge