Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                   __________________________________
 
                  DISMISSED IN PART: January 28, 2000
                   __________________________________
 
 
                              GSBCA 14705
 
 
                  SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.,
 
                                             Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                             Respondent.
 
        David  S.  Cohen  and  John   J.  O'Brien  of  Cohen   Mohr,
   Washington, DC;  and George  J. Affe and  Anthony L.  Cogswell of
   Sprint Communications  Company, L.P.,  Herndon,  VA, counsel  for
   Appellant.
 
        John E.  Cornell, Michael J.  Ettner, and Michael  D. Tully,
   Office  of  General  Counsel,  General  Services  Administration,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges BORWICK, NEILL, and GOODMAN.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
        The Government's  motion to  dismiss Count  II (raising  the
   filed rate doctrine) of the  complaint filed in this case remains
   before the Board.  The Board  addressed this motion in detail  in
   its order of October  14, 1999.  At that time,  we concluded that
   the underlying claim in  Count II is, in fact, distinct  from the
   Government   claim  which  is  the  subject  of  the  contracting
   officer's  decision from which this appeal arises.  Nevertheless,
   we  found that  the record for  this case contains  evidence of a
   broadly based certified  claim filed by the  contractor on August
   25,  1998.   This claim  clearly  embraces the  issues raised  in
   Counts  I and  II.   The  Board deferred  ruling on  respondent's
   motion  pending a response from appellant clarifying its position
   regarding this second claim.  Appellant advised the Board that it
   was appealing from a deemed denial of this contractor claim.  The
   Board, therefore, docketed the appeal as GSBCA  15139.  Appellant
   also  moved that  this new appeal,  GSBCA 15139,  be consolidated
   with the instant case (i.e.  GSBCA 14705).  For reasons discussed
   in a status  conference held with counsel on  Friday, October 29,
   1999,  the  Board  denied,  for  the   present,  this  motion  to
   consolidate the two cases.  See Board Conference Memorandum (Nov.
   1, 1999).    
 
 
        Counsel  have since  filed pleadings  in GSBCA  15139.   The
   issue  regarding the filed  rate doctrine is  now squarely before
   the Board in that case.  In addition, a motion for summary relief
   based upon that doctrine and  previously filed in GSBCA 14705 has
   been transferred  to GSBCA  15139 and briefing  of the  motion is
   close to completion.
 
        The Board is  satisfied that it has jurisdiction  to rule on
   the issue of  relief under the filed rate doctrine  as that issue
   has  been raised  in  conjunction  with the  claim  which is  the
   subject  of GSBCA 15139.   Nevertheless,  the question  raised by
   respondent regarding  our authority  to examine  that same  issue
   under GSBCA 14705  remains.  For the reasons set out in our order
   of October  14, we conclude that we do  not have the authority to
   consider the issue in this  appeal.  Accordingly, for the record,
   Count II  of the complaint  filed by appellant in  GSBCA 14705 is
   DISMISSED but  without prejudice  to our consideration  of it  in
   GSBCA 15139.   Further, pending the Board's ruling  on the motion
   for   summary  relief  under  GSBCA  15139,  all  further  action
   regarding GSBCA 14705 is stayed.  
 
 
 
                                      _____________________
                                      EDWIN B. NEILL
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
   ______________________                ______________________
   ANTHONY S. BORWICK                    ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                        Board Judge