September 27, 1989

Appeal of

MARVIN R. ISEMINGER

Under Contract No. HCR 65669

PSBCA No. 2537

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT

Marvin R. Iseminger

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT

Maria R. Fuhrmann, Esq.

OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss this appeal on the ground that the Board has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. Appellant did not respond to the Motion to Dismiss, although he was provided an opportunity to do so.

Appellant, the contractor for highway transportation contract no. 65669, which provided service between Gainesville, Missouri, and Oakland, Arkansas, was sent a notice of non-renewal, dated May 8, 1989, from the Manager, St. Louis, Missouri, Transportation Management Service Center. The notice stated that Appellant's contract renewal offer was excessive and that Appellant's contract would not be renewed. Appellant appealed the non-renewal decision to higher authority. His appeal was denied by letter dated June 1, 1989 (Appeal File, Tabs C and D). Prior to receipt of the June 1, 1989, letter of denial Appellant filed an appeal with this Board. The appeal requested the Board to review his contract proposal and reconsider the decision not to renew his contract.

In a subsequent letter to counsel for Respondent, a copy of which is attached to Respondent's Motion, Appellant stated that he no longer wished to pursue his appeal for reconsideration. However, he stated in the letter that he may wish to pursue a future claim for overtime pay, as well as one for gasoline price increases.

It is established that this Board has no authority to grant relief from Contracting Officers' decisions not to renew contracts where no implied-in-fact contract has been alleged. Erwin Melvie, PSBCA No. 1744, 87-3 BCA ¶ 20,158; Janie Marie Winkle, PSBCA No. 1548, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,255. Therefore, even if Appellant continues to pursue relief based on the refusal to renew, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss must be granted.

In regard to the possible claim for additional compensation the matter is premature and is not before the Board. Accordingly, Respondent's uncontested Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

James D. Finn, Jr.

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

I concur

James A. Cohen

Administrative Judge

Chairman

I concur

Joan B. Thompson

Administrative Judge

Board Member