DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: January 31, 2014
CBCA 2910
TOMA WEST MANAGEMENT CORP.,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
The case caption as the decision prints it. Every word is kept; the rule the Board draws around it is not text, so it is not repeated here.
Joseph J. Bronesky of Sherman & Howard L.L.C., Denver, CO, counsel for Appellant. Elyssa Tanenbaum and James F. H. Scott, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), STERN, and ZISCHKAU.
STERN, Board Judge.
This is an appeal filed by Toma West Management Corp. (Toma), managing agent for 633 17th Street Operating Company, LLC (17th Street), from the decision of a contracting officer of the General Services Administration (GSA) denying Toma’s claim for additional payments under a lease executed by 17th Street and GSA.
The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) defines a “contractor” as “a party to a Federal Government contract other than the Federal Government.” 41 U.S.C. § 7101 (Supp. IV 2011). Only a contractor may appeal a contracting officer’s decision to the Board. 41 U.S.C. § 7104. We have stated,
The requisite privity of contract needed to permit an appeal under the CDA has generally been limited to prime contractors who have actually contracted with the Government. Attempts by other parties, such as subcontractors and sureties, to extend the concept of privity beyond the prime contractor have typically been rejected. See [Winter v.] Floorpro[, Inc.], 570 F.3d [1367] at 1372-73 [(Fed. Cir. 2009)]; Admiralty Construction, Inc. v. Dalton, 156 F.3d 1217, 1220-21 (Fed. Cir. 1998); United States v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 713 F.2d 1541, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Cosmic Construction [Co. v. United States], 697 F.2d [1389] at 1390 [(Fed. Cir. 1982)]; Wackenhut International, Inc. v. Department of State, CBCA 1235, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,255; Edward W. Scott Electric Co. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 1388, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,181.
Eagle Peak Rock & Paving, Inc. v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 2770, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,146, at 172,521.
Toma had no contractual relationship with GSA and is not a contractor as required by the CDA. We lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
Decision
The appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
JAMES L. STERN
Board Judge
We concur:
STEPHEN M. DANIELS
Board Judge
JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge
This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the Board's own document in Toma West Management Corp, CBCA 2910. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the Board wrote them. What the page shows and the text does not repeat is the pagination furniture: the page numbers and the rules the Board draws around its caption and under its signatures. The signatures are set back into the columns the Board prints them in, each judge under the name he or she signed, and the typed copy of that name the page carries beneath each signature is not repeated.