Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _____________________________________________ DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: February 5, 2004 ______________________________________________ GSBCA 16320 THOMAS F. D'ALBENZIO, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Thomas F. D'Albenzio, pro se, Warrenton, VA. A.R. Dattolo, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, BORWICK, and HYATT. HYATT, Board Judge. This appeal arises from the purchase by appellant, Thomas F. D'Albenzio, of a surplus vehicle on the General Services Administration's (GSA's) internet online auction, GSAAuctions.gov. GSA moves the Board to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We agree that the appeal was untimely filed and, accordingly, grant GSA's motion. Background On May 31, 2003, Mr. D'Albenzio purchased a 1996 Jeep Cherokee through the GSA Auctions web site. On June 26, 2003, appellant, by e-mail, informed the cognizant contracting officer that a dispute had arisen with respect to the aforementioned vehicle. He stated that the vehicle had been misdescribed as to its condition and that various repairs had been required since he had completed the purchase. Appellant proposed that GSA split the cost of the repairs on a fifty-fifty basis. In his e-mail communication with the contracting officer, Mr. D'Albenzio asked her to provide him with the appropriate "appeal procedures" in the event his request for an adjustment to the contract price was denied. [Foot # 1 ] Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 2. ****************** Footnote Begin ********** [Foot # 1 ] The Federal Acquisition Regulation defines the term "in writing" to include electronically transmitted information. 48 CFR 2.101 (2002). ****************** Footnote End ************ In response, by letter dated July 17, 2003, the contracting officer issued her decision denying Mr. D'Albenzio's claim and informing him of his appeal rights under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), including the right to appeal to the Board within ninety days from the date the decision was received. The Government has submitted a copy of a certified mail return receipt signed by Mr. D'Albenzio to show that the decision was received on July 23, 2003. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Exhibits 3, 4. The subject appeal was filed at the Board on November 14, 2003. GSA filed a motion seeking to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. D'Albenzio responded that personal circumstances delayed his appeal and that he is not a legal expert and did not understand all the nuances of the documents sent to him by GSA. He asks for the Board's understanding and requests that the appeal be permitted to proceed notwithstanding the timeliness issue raised by GSA. Discussion The CDA provides that an appeal to a board of contract appeals of a contracting officer's decision is timely only if it is filed within ninety days of the contractor's receipt of the decision. 41 U.S.C. 606 (2000). GSA has provided a copy of a signed return mail receipt indicating that the contracting officer's decision was received by appellant on July 23, 2003. To be timely, an appeal of the contracting officer's decision should have been filed, at the very latest, by October 21, 2003. Because the CDA's time limitation is part of a statute waiving sovereign immunity, it must be strictly construed. We have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed more than ninety days after receipt of the contracting officer's final decision. D. L. Braughler Co. v. West, 127 F.3d 1476, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Cosmic Construction Co. v. United States, 697 F.2d 1389, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1982); accord, e.g., DePonte Investments, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA15601, 01-2 BCA 31,571; CWI Consultants & Services v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11889, 98-1 BCA 29,343 (1997), reconsideration denied, 98-1 BCA 29,476. This jurisdictional bar means that the Board may not consider personal circumstances or equity, or in any other way exercise discretion as to acceptance of an appeal filed later than the statutory deadline. E.g., Mid-South Metals, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 15702, 02-1 BCA 31,723; Gateway El Paso Business Center Associates, L.P. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 13883, 97-1 BCA 28,777; D. L. Woods Construction, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 13882, 97-2 BCA 29,009 (1996). Decision Accordingly, this appeal must be DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. __________________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge We concur: ___________________________________ __________________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge Board Judge