Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________ DISMISSED IN PART: June 22, 2000 ________________________________ GSBCA 15266 MARITIME EQUIPMENT & SALES, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. William M. Moore, Mobile, AL, counsel for Appellant. Judith A. Bonner, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), WILLIAMS, and DeGRAFF. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Pending is respondent s motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion, in part, because appellant never submitted a claim to the contracting officer and because specific performance is not available at the Board. Appellant's challenge to the cancellation of its contract remains before the Board. Background Maritime Equipment & Sales, Inc. submitted a bid for a vessel advertised for sale by the General Services Administration (GSA), and GSA awarded Maritime a contract for the vessel. Appeal File, Exhibits 1-7. Two days later, on December 17, 1999, GSA s contracting officer sent a letter to Maritime stating that the award was canceled because it had been made in error. Id., Exhibit 10. The contracting officer s letter stated that his decision was final and that Maritime could appeal his decision to this Board, which Maritime did. In its complaint, Maritime asks that we countermand the decision to cancel its contract. It also requests either monetary damages, a vessel comparable to the one for which it submitted a bid, or specific performance. Discussion We lack jurisdiction to entertain Maritime s request for monetary damages because it never submitted a claim for money to the contracting officer. Before a contractor can come to a board of contract appeals, it must submit a written claim to the agency s contracting officer and obtain a decision upon that claim. If a contractor fails to follow these procedures, we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 41 U.S.C. 605, 606, 607 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998); Executive Construction, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 15224 (June 9, 2000). In opposing GSA s motion to dismiss, Maritime does not contend that it submitted a claim to the contracting officer. Instead, Maritime says that the contracting officer s December 17, 1999 letter constitutes a decision that provides us with jurisdiction to consider its claim for money. It is well established, however, that a contracting officer lacks the authority to waive a requirement that is imposed by statute, and so cannot issue a decision unless the contractor first submits a proper claim. Without such a claim being presented, no decision is possible and any action taken by the contracting officer is a nullity. D.L. Braughler Co., Inc. v. West, 127 F.3d 1476, 1480-81 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Skelly and Loy v. United States, 685 F.2d 414, 419 (Ct. Cl. 1982); Paragon Energy Corp. v. United States, 645 F.2d 966, 971 (Ct. Cl. 1981). Because Maritime never submitted a claim for money to the contracting officer, the contracting officer s December 17, 1999 letter cannot constitute a decision upon such a claim. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to entertain Maritime s request for monetary relief. For the same reason that we lack jurisdiction to entertain Maritime s claim for money damages, we also lack jurisdiction to entertain its request for damages in the form of a vessel comparable to the one for which it bid. Maritime never submitted a claim to the contracting officer for a vessel and therefore the contracting officer s December 17, 1999 letter cannot constitute a decision upon such a claim. In the absence of a claim and a contracting officer s decision, we lack jurisdiction over Maritime s request for relief in the form of a substitute vessel. We also lack jurisdiction to grant Maritime s request for specific performance. In Western Aviation Maintenance, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 14165, 98-2 BCA 29,816, we concluded that because Congress has not waived the Government s immunity from suits for specific performance in the Court of Federal Claims, such relief is not available at the Board. In support of its position, Maritime directs our attention to Veda, Inc. v. United States Department of the Air Force, 111 F.3d 37 (6th Cir. 1997). There, the issue before the court of appeals was whether the action was one for monetary relief, in which case jurisdiction would have been proper in the Court of Federal Claims, or for injunctive relief, in which case jurisdiction would have been proper in the district court. In its opinion, the court noted that the Court of Federal Claims does not have the power of a district court to grant prospective, equitable relief. 111 F.3d at 40. Maritime takes this comment to mean that the Court of Federal Claims (and, derivatively, the Board) has the authority to order some type of equitable relief. While this may be true, the observation in Veda does not convince us that specific performance is available in the Court of Federal Claims. In fact, after our decision in Western Aviation, the court reaffirmed its lack of jurisdiction over such claims. Rig Masters, Inc. v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 369 (1998). Because specific performance is not available at the Board, we lack jurisdiction to consider Maritime s claim for such relief. The only portion of the appeal over which we have jurisdiction is Maritime's request that we overturn the decision of the contracting officer, set out in his December 17, 1999 letter, to cancel the contract. If Maritime is successful, it will receive a decision from us stating that GSA breached its contract, but we will not be able to consider any request for damages because Maritime has not taken the steps necessary to put such a request before us. Maritime can, of course, submit a proper claim for damages to the contracting officer, and if he decides to deny the claim, Maritime can challenge that decision by filing an appeal here. Decision The appeal is DISMISSED IN PART. __________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: _________________________________ ______________________________ ____ STEPHEN M. DANIELS MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge Board Judge