Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: July 21, 2000 GSBCA 15363 TMD U.S.A., INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Vincent Schickler, President of TMD U.S.A., Inc., Smithtown, NY, appearing for Appellant. Robert Hoff, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), NEILL, and HYATT. DANIELS, Board Judge. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction a case filed by TMD U.S.A., Inc. On July 10, 2000, the Board received a "Notice Of Appeal and Complaint" from appellant. We docketed this matter on July 11 as GSBCA 15363. The "Notice Of Appeal" appears to be from the deemed denial of a claim submitted to a General Services Administration contracting officer, dated November 26, 1997. This claim is for Equal Access to Justice Act costs ($18,794.28) and "In Business Damages due to wrongful suspension and debarment" ($253,515.52). A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) must file its application "within thirty days of a final disposition in the adversary adjudication." 5 U.S.C. 504(a)(2) (1994). The adjudication to which this application pertains is the Board's decision in TMD U.S.A., Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12296, 96-2 BCA 28,613. That decision was issued on October 31, 1996, and became a final disposition when it was not appealed within one hundred twenty days of each party's receipt of a copy of it. See 41 U.S.C. 607(g)(1). Because July 10, 2000, is plainly more than thirty days after the date that the Board's decision in GSBCA 12296 became a final disposition, we ordered appellant to show cause why the claim for EAJA costs should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In response to our order, appellant stated that on November 26, 1997, it submitted to the General Services Administration, respondent, a claim for EAJA costs in the amount now sought. For two reasons, this statement, even if true, does not help appellant's position. First, the asserted date of filing is more than thirty days after the date on which the Board's decision in GSBCA 12296 became a final disposition. Second, EAJA applications relating to adversary adjudications made by this Board must be filed with the Board itself; submission of an application to someone else, even if that individual is employed by the agency involved in the adjudication, does not constitute a proper filing. S. A. Ludsin & Co. v. Small Business Administration, GSBCA14175-C(13777-SBA), 97-2 BCA 29,185. The Board does not have jurisdiction to consider appellant's EAJA claim, which is forever time-barred. For each claim of more than $100,000, "the contractor shall certify that the claim is made in good faith, that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief, that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the government is liable, and that the certifier is duly authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor." 41 U.S.C. 605(c)(1). The Board does not have jurisdiction over appeals involving claims for more than $100,000 which have not been certified. Keydata Systems, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 14281-TD, 97-2 BCA 29,330, at 145,824. The claim for "In Business Damages due to wrongful suspension and debarment" is plainly for more than $100,000. Because the claim did not appear to have been certified, we ordered appellant to show cause why the claim for "In Business Damages" should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In response, appellant stated that its claim was made in good faith, rationally calculated, notarized, dated, and signed. Appellant's president also offered to certify the claim. Like the statement regarding the EAJA claim, this one does not help appellant's position. The response does not provide any indication that the "In Business Damages" claim was certified when it was submitted or at any time since then; to the contrary, it admits that no certification has ever been made. Consequently, we currently have no jurisdiction to consider this claim. In the event that appellant submits a proper certification to the contracting officer, and the contracting officer issues a decision on the claim (or allows so much time to lapse without issuing a decision that a denial of the claim may be deemed), appellant may timely appeal that decision to us. The appeal would be docketed separately from this case.[foot #] 1 Decision Because the Board has jurisdiction over neither of the matters raised in this appeal, we DISMISS THE CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 In allowing an appeal from a contracting officer's decision on a certified claim, we make no comment on whether the Board could award the kind of damages appellant seeks. In the interest of judicial economy, we leave that issue for another day, to be decided if and when it is presented.