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



                 ________________________________

                DISMISSED IN PART:  June 23, 2005
                 ________________________________


                           GSBCA 16582


                         BROWN & WEINER,

                                        Appellant,

                                v.

                 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                        Respondent.

     Gary K. Brown, Partner of Brown & Weiner, Woodland Hills, CA, appearing for
Appellant.

     Catherine Crow, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges PARKER, NEILL, and DeGRAFF.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

                              ORDER

     In its response to the complaint, the General Services Administration (GSA) suggested
the Board might lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.  At the request of the Board, the
parties submitted briefs regarding jurisdiction.  As explained below, GSA is correct, in part. 
We dismiss two of appellant's claims.  

                            Background

     On November 2, 2004, Brown & Weiner submitted a certified claim to the GSA
contracting officer in connection with a lease contract.  Brown & Weiner claimed GSA
changed the contract to increase the size of a security barrier, which caused Brown & Weiner
to incur additional costs.  The claim requested reimbursement of $196,401 and an increase
of $660 per month in the rental rate.

     On January 11, 2005, Brown & Weiner submitted an amended claim to the contracting
officer because GSA asked Brown & Weiner to include all of its change order requests as
part of the claim it filed on November 2, 2004.  The January 11, 2005 amended claim
repeated the requests for $196,401 and for a rent increase of $660 per month, which the
amended claim quantified as $79,200.  In addition, Brown & Weiner requested $18,144 for
a change related to cabling and $2274 for a change related to a mail room cabinet.  The
amended claim did not contain a certification. 

     On February 4, 2005, Brown & Weiner appealed to the Board from what it viewed as
the contracting officer's deemed denial of its November 2, 2004 claim, as amended on
January 11, 2005.  In its response to the complaint, GSA suggested the Board might lack
jurisdiction.  

                            Discussion

     The Contract Disputes Act, which provides the Board with jurisdiction to entertain
an appeal, requires a contractor to certify a claim in excess of $100,000.  It also requires a
contractor to allow the contracting officer a minimum of sixty days to consider a claim before
the contractor can file an appeal.  41 U.S.C.   605(c) (2000).  In order to determine whether
these requirements are met, we must determine how many claims a contractor submitted to
the contracting officer and to the Board.  Regardless of the manner in which a contractor
makes its requests to the contracting officer, if a number of disputes are based upon "a
common or related set of operative facts," and if we will have to review "the same or related
evidence" to make our decision, only one claim exists.  Placeway Construction Corp. v.
United States, 920 F.2d 903, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1990).  If, however, there are "independent
dispute[s] not intertwined in the merits of the other claim items," the independent disputes
are separate claims.  Phillips Construction Co., ASBCA 27055, 83-2 BCA   16,618 at
82,659.  

     No matter how Brown & Weiner characterized its two submissions to the contracting
officer, the submissions contain three separate claims.  The first claim was for a change
related to a security barrier which Brown & Weiner asserted caused it to incur additional
costs of $196,401 plus $660 per month.  Brown & Weiner certified this claim and submitted
it to the contracting officer on November 2, 2004.  We have jurisdiction to consider this
claim because Brown & Weiner certified the claim and waited more than sixty days before
it filed an appeal regarding the claim.  

     The second claim was for a change related to cabling which Brown & Weiner claimed
caused it to incur an added $18,144 of costs, and the third claim was for a change related to
a mail room cabinet which Brown & Weiner claimed caused it to incur an added $2274 of
costs.  Brown & Weiner submitted these claims to the contracting officer on January 11,
2005.  These claims do not share common operative facts with one another or with the claim
related to the security barrier.  Each of these two claims is for less than $100,000, so no
certification was required.  However, Brown & Weiner gave the contracting officer fewer
than sixty days to consider these claims before it filed its appeal here at the Board.  Because
Brown & Weiner filed this appeal without allowing the contracting officer sixty days to
consider the claims related to cabling and to a mail room cabinet, we must dismiss them for
lack of jurisdiction.  

                             Decision

     The appeal is DISMISSED IN PART.




                                   __________________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge

We concur:




__________________________________ __________________________________
ROBERT W. PARKER                   EDWIN B. NEILL
Board Judge                             Board Judge