DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: December 7, 2009 
CBCA 1712 
GEO-IMAGING CONSULTING, INC.,
                                                                           Appellant, 
v. 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
                                                                                               Respondent. 
William H. Gammon of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Raleigh, NC, 
counsel for Appellant. 
Sara E. McGraw, Office of General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges VERGILIO , STEEL , and SHERIDAN . 
SHERIDAN , Board Judge. 
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it was filed more than ninety 
days after the contractor received the contracting officer’s final decision denying the 
contractor’s claim for reimbursement of certain outstanding expenses.  Appellant has not 
demonstrated that it timely mailed its notice of appeal to the Board; rather, the record shows 
that appellant timely sent, in separate envelopes, the original notice and a copy to the 
contracting officer. 

  
    
      
 
 
 
  
    
  
    
    
 
 
 
2 CBCA 1712 
Findings of Fact 
Respondent, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), issued task order EP-06-H­
001513 to Geo-Imaging Consulting, Inc. (Geo-Imaging) on April 18, 2006.  Work was to 
commence on April 18, 2006, and conclude on October 30, 2007.  Appellant filed an undated 
claim in the amount of $84,029.53, which the contracting officer received on January 3, 
2009. The contracting officer issued a final decision denying the claim in its entirety.  The 
final decision was delivered to appellant on May 18, 2009, using United States Postal Service 
(USPS) certified mail, with return receipt service.
1  The receipt of the final decision started 
the clock on the statutorily mandated ninety days during which appellant could file an appeal 
with the Board.  An appeal to the Board was to be filed no later than close of business on 
August 17, 2009. 
When it did not receive a notice of docketing, appellant contacted the Clerk of the 
Board on September 1, 2009, to inquire about the status of docketing.  At that time, appellant 
was informed by the Clerk that the Board had no record of receiving its appeal.  On that same 
day, appellant submitted, by facsimile and mail, a copy of its appeal dated August 6, 2009. 
The appeal was docketed as CBCA 1712 on September 1, 2009, 105 days after Geo-Imaging 
received the contracting officer’s final decision.  
Appellant asserts that it submitted a timely appeal to the Board on August 6, 2009, and 
that “it is either the fault of the USPS or the CBCA that it was not received or was misplaced 
by the CBCA.”  Appellant sought guidance from the Board on the question of the appeal’s 
timeliness and whether jurisdiction was vested by its original August 6 submission.  The 
Board issued an order to show cause, requiring the parties to brief whether appellant’s 
alleged August 6 submission provided jurisdiction to the Board. 
In support of its position that the Board has jurisdiction, appellant proffers the 
affidavits of the administrative assistant who prepared the appeal and its photocopy for 
mailing, the site manager who retrieved the envelopes, and the customer service 
representative who personally applied postage to the envelopes.  Appellant relies on these 
affidavits to support the assertion that it properly addressed and mailed two envelopes 
pursuant to a consistent, systematic, inter-office model.  Specifically, appellant alleges that 
the two envelopes were properly addressed and mailed; one envelope contained the original 
1 
The EPA examined the USPS return receipt on the contracting officer’s final decision and 
found the delivery date to be unclear in that different dates appear on the return receipt, some 
of which are illegible.  For purposes of this decision we have used the latest delivery date, 
May 18, 2009, which is based on the date stamp that appears on the USPS return receipt. 

    
  
 
  
 
  
 
   
   
 
    
 
 
      
  
 
    
   
   
  
   
3 CBCA 1712 
appeal and was directed to the Board, and the other envelope contained a photocopy of the 
appeal which was directed to the contracting officer.  Following an exhaustive search, 
appellant asserts, no envelope containing the August 6 filing has been returned undelivered 
or has been found to be misplaced.  While appellant cannot affirmatively state that the 
original was delivered to the Clerk of the Board, and subsequently misplaced by the Board, 
it alleges that all facts that can be ascertained seem to point in that direction. 
The EPA received two identical envelopes from appellant on or about August 12, 
2009; one envelope contained the notice of appeal and showed an original blue ink signature, 
while the other envelope contained a photocopy of the notice with a photocopy signature in 
black ink.  Both envelopes were postmarked August 6, 2009, and both were addressed to the 
contracting officer.  In its response to the Board’s order to show cause, EPA posits that the 
only viable conclusion is that appellant addressed both envelopes to the contracting officer. 
Once it became apparent that two envelopes had been delivered to the contracting officer, 
one containing the original notice of appeal, appellant attempted to explain that its 
administrative assistant had a business practice of using 8½ x 11” envelopes for Board 
submissions and it was likely that the Board was sent one of the additional copies. 
Respondent argues that however unintentional the oversight might have been, the 
August 6 appeal was not timely submitted to the Board and appellant’s appeal submitted on 
September 1, 2009, was filed more than two weeks after the statutory deadline for the appeal 
had passed.  The EPA maintains that the Board lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 
The Clerk of the Board represents that she did not receive the notice of appeal until 
a copy of the August 6 notice was transmitted to her via facsimile and by mail on 
September 1, 2009.  
Discussion 
The Board raised the issue of jurisdiction in response to appellant’s inquiry of 
September 1, 2009, as to why its appeal had not been docketed earlier.  
The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA) permits a contractor to contest a 
contracting officer’s decision in either of two fora.  Within ninety days from the date of the 
contractor’s receipt of the contracting officer’s final decision, a contractor may file its appeal 
with a board of contract appeals. 41 U.S.C. § 606 (2006).  Alternatively, within twelve 
months from the date of the contractor’s receipt of the contracting officer’s final decision, 
a contractor may file its appeal with the United States Court of Federal Claims.  41 U.S.C. 
§ 609(a).  

   
   
   
   
   
  
  
 
  
  
    
  
 
4 CBCA 1712 
The timing provisions are jurisdictional and the boards and the Court of Federal 
Claims do not have authority to waive them.  See Cosmic Construction Co. v. United States , 
697 F.2d 1389 (Fed. Cir. 1982). 
Deadlines for filing appeals have “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.” Hallwood Plaza, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16808, 06-2 
BCA ¶ 33,299.  The Board has consistently followed Federal Circuit precedent by dismissing 
for lack of jurisdiction appeals filed more than ninety days after the contractor received the 
contracting officer’s final decision.  
The Board’s rules of procedure also reflect its adherence to the Federal Circuit’s 
directive. Pursuant to Board Rule 1(b)(5)(i), “[a] notice of appeal . . . is filed upon the earlier 
of its receipt by the Office of the Clerk of the Board or if mailed, the date on which it is 
mailed” to the Board.  48 CFR 6101.1(b)(5)(i) (2008). In sum, a late filing precludes 
jurisdiction to consider a case on its merits.  D. L. Braughler Co. v. West , 127 F.3d 1476, 
1480 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Cosmic Construction Co. , 697 F.2d at 1390. 
The Board is an independent institution and the contracting officers of the various 
agencies whose disputes it reviews are not agents of the Board.  As such, and as expressly 
stated in the rule above, an appeal sent only to the contracting officer is not filed with the 
Board.  Charles T. Owen v. Agency for International Development , CBCA 694, 07-2 BCA 
¶ 33,638.  
In the instant case, the Clerk of the Board, the intended recipient of appellant’s original 
notice of appeal, did not receive the August 6 notice.  At the same time, the contracting officer 
received two notice of appeals which were identical in substance and in form to the notices 
appellant alleges were mailed to different recipients.  Appellant’s additional attempts to 
convince the Board that a properly addressed envelope containing counsel’s copy of the 
original notice of appeal was delivered to the Office of the Clerk was not compelling.  Based 
on the evidence, the Board finds that the original August 6 notice was not timely mailed to 
the Board. 
Ultimately, the onus is on the appellant to make certain that the appeal is timely and 
properly filed with the Clerk of the Board.  The untimely appeal to this Board does not 
preclude the contractor from filing a timely suit in the Court of Federal Claims.  Olsberg 
Excavating Co. v. United States , 3 Cl. Ct. 249 (1983). 

                                                        
                                                                                                                 
 
5 CBCA 1712 
Decision
 
This appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION .
 
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
JOSEPH A. VERGILIO CANDIDA S. STEEL 
Board Judge Board Judge