Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405


       ___________________________________________________

        DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  March 6, 2003
       ___________________________________________________


                           GSBCA 16068


                           SHANE FAST,

                                        Appellant,

                                v.

                 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                        Respondent.

     Shane Fast, pro se, Kennewick, WA.

     Thomas F. Linn, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration,
Denver, CO, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, and DeGRAFF.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     The General Services Administration (GSA) moves the Board to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction an appeal filed by Shane Fast.  We grant the motion, because Mr. Fast filed his
appeal too late for us to hear it.

                            Background

     According to Mr. Fast's notice of appeal, he purchased an item at a GSA auction. 
Dissatisfied with his purchase, he submitted a claim to GSA's contracting officer.  In a
decision dated October 7, 2002, the contracting officer denied Mr. Fast's claim.  The
contracting officer told Mr. Fast that if he wished to appeal her decision to this Board, he
would have to file a notice of appeal within ninety days from the date that he received the
decision.  Notice of Appeal.  

     Mr. Fast received the contracting officer's decision on October 11, 2002.  Motion to
Dismiss, Exhibit B.  Mr. Fast sent his appeal to us by United States Postal Service mail. 
According to the postmark on the envelope, he mailed his notice of appeal on February 1,
2003.  Notice of Appeal.  

                            Discussion

     The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 provides:  "Within ninety days from the date of
receipt of a contracting officer's decision . . . , the contractor may appeal such decision to an
agency board of contract appeals. . . ."  41 U.S.C.   606 (2000). As we recently explained:

     The deadline for filing an appeal is unforgiving; it has been strictly construed
     by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the authorization to
     make the filing is a waiver of sovereign immunity.  As that court has held, "If
     no appeal to the Board is taken within the ninety day statutory period set forth
     in section 606, the Board has no jurisdiction to hear the claim."  D. L.
     Braughler Co. v. West, 127 F.3d 1476, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Cosmic
     Construction Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1982)).  The
     Board has consistently followed the court's directive by dismissing for lack of
     jurisdiction appeals which are filed more than ninety days after the filers
     received the subject contracting officer decisions.  E.g., Mid-South Metals,
     Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 15702, 02-1 BCA   31,723
     (2001); D. L. Woods Construction, Inc. v. General Services Administration,
     GSBCA 13882, 97-2 BCA   29,009 (1996); Wood & Co. v. Department of the
     Treasury, GSBCA 12452-TD, 94-1 BCA   26,395 (1993).

Ray Communications, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16056, slip op. at
2 (Feb. 24, 2003).

     Mr. Fast received the contracting officer's decision on October 11, 2002.  Ninety days
after October 11, 2002, was January 9, 2003.  Mr. Fast's notice of appeal would have been
timely only if it had been filed by that date.  Mr. Fast mailed his notice of appeal to us in an
envelope postmarked February 1, 2003.  According to our rules of procedure, the postmark
is prima facie evidence of the mailing date, and because the item mailed was a notice of
appeal, the mailing date is the filing date.  Rule 101(b)(5)(i) (48 CFR 6101.1(b)(5)(i) (2001)). 
Thus, Mr. Fast filed his notice of appeal on February 1, 2003.   

     Because Mr. Fast did not file his notice of appeal within ninety days from the date he
received the contracting officer's decision, it is untimely, and we have no jurisdiction to
consider the appeal.

                             Decision

     The case is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.




                                   __________________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge

We concur:




________________________________        __________________________________
STEPHEN M. DANIELS                 ROBERT W. PARKER
Board Judge                             Board Judge