In the Matter of          )
the Appeal of             )
Program 2955-S            )
Purchase Order P-7326     )


   By letter dated May 25, 1993, Olympus Printing Company
   (Appellant or Contractor), 5234 Mission Street, San Francisco,
   California 94112, appealed the April 20, 1993, final decision
   of Contracting Officer John J.  O'Connor, of the U.S.
   Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO), San
   Francisco Regional Printing Procurement Office, Treasure
   Island, Building 99, San Francisco, California 94130-9991,
   terminating the Appellant's contract, identified as Program
   2955-S, Purchase Order P-7326, for default.  GPO Instruction
   110.12, Subject: Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice
   and Procedure, dated September 17, 1984, Rules l(a), 2 (Board

   The appeal was docketed by the Board on June 4, 1993.  Board
   Rules, Rule 3.  By letter the same date, the Board notified
   the Contractor that its appeal had been docketed and provided
   the Appellant with a copy of the Board Rules.  Id.  Among
   other things, the Board's letter specifically directed the
   Appellant's attention

to: (1) Rule 4(b) of the Board Rules. which requires that within
30 days after receipt of a copy of the appeal file from the
Contracting Officer, the Appellant shall transmit to the Board
any documents not contained therein which it considers relevant
to the appeal; and (2) Rule 6(a), which provides that within 30
days after receipt of the notice of docketing the appeal, the
Appellant shall file with the Board an original and two (2)
copies of a Complaint containing the information described in
that rule.  Board Rules, Rules 4(b) and 6(a).

   By letter dated, June 30, 1993, the Appellant informed the
   Board that it had no documents which it considered relevant to
   the appeal.  Board Rules, Rule 4(b).  However, the Contractor
   never filed a Rule 6(a) Complaint within the timeframe set
   forth in the rules.

   On January 25, 1994, Counsel for GPO filed Respondent's Motion
   to Dismiss (Motion) with the Board seeking dismissal of this
   case on the ground that the Appellant had abandoned its
   appeal.  The Motion was based, inter alia, on the ground that
   the Appellant had not submitted its Rule 6(a) Complaint, even
   though over six (6) months had elapsed since the Contractor
   had received the Board's notice of docketing.  A copy of the
   Motion was simultaneously served on the Appellant.  Board
   Rules, Rule 16.

   On January 27,  1994, the Board contacted the Appellant by

telephone to inquire about .the status of this case, and in
particular to ascertain its position on the Motion.  During this
conversation, the Contractor advised the Board that it was
considering withdrawing its appeal, provided the Contracting
Officer did not hold the Appellant liable for any reprocurement
costs.  The Appellant further stated that it planned to talk to
the Contracting Officer about the matter, and would file its
response to the Motion immediately after these discussions were
concluded.  Thereafter, by letter dated February 7, 1994, the
Appellant, informed the Board that: (1) it was unaware of the
full nature of the job at the time it submitted its bid, so it
should not be held responsible; (2) it did not understand the
meaning of the term "default"; and (3) the Contracting Officer
never furnished it with a copy of the contract.  However, the
Appellant did not file its Rule 6(a) Complaint or respond to the

   Accordingly, on April 6, 1994, the Board, exercising its
   authority under Rule 31 of the Board Rules, issued a Rule To
   Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure To
   Prosecute (Rule to Show Cause), and sent it to the Appellant
   by certified mail.1: Board Rules, Rule 31.  In the Rule to
   Show Cause. the Board specifically noted that the appeal
   record showed the Board's original docketing letter, along
   with the Board Rules, had been

received by the Appellant on June 12, 1993.  Rule to Show Cause.
p.  3.  The Board also observed that notwithstanding its patience
and efforts to facilitate the appeal, the Appellant has never
filed the required Complaint and response to the Respondent's
Motion.  Rule to Show Cause, pp. 3-4.  Furthermore, the Board
expressly held that the Appellant's appeal letter of May 25,
1993, and subsequent correspondence of June 30, 1993, and
February 7, 1994, neither individually nor taken together,
sufficiently defined the Contractor's claim or identify the
issues in the case, so as to be deemed a Complaint within the
meaning of Rule 6(a) of the Board Rules.  Rule To Show Cause, p.
4.  Moreover, the Board indicated that it had been waiting for
two months for a proper response from the Appellant to the
Motion.  Id.  Therefore, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in Rule 31 of the Board Rules.  the Appellant was given
fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the Rule to Show Cause to
provide reasons, in writing, why the appeal should not be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.  Id.

   The appeal record shows that the Rule to Show Cause was
   received by the Appellant on April 11, 1994.  On April 25,
   1994, within the calendar period afforded for a response, the
   Board received the Appellant's response to the Rule to Show
   Cause.  In its reply, the Appellant, inter alia, referred to a
   letter the Contractor mailed to the Board in "the week of July
   1993", which was somehow "lost or misplaced" because the Board
   never received it.  The Appellant stated that the reason it
   had not pursued this

matter was that it was "under the impression that [the] case [had
been] dismissed."2 In the opinion of the Board, while the
Contractor's letter of April 25, 1994, might explain its long
silence and failure to adhere to the requirements of the Board
Rules, it is not specifically the requested Rule 6(a) Complaint,
or the answer to the Motion, nor is it an adequate response to
the Rule to Show Cause.

   Under Rule 31 of the Board Rules, an appellant who has
   disregarded the Board's rules and directives, and otherwise
   indicates an intention not to continue the orderly prosecution
   or defense of its appeal, is subject to having the Board
   dismiss the case for failure to prosecute after the appellant
   is given an opportunity to show cause why the appeal should
   not be dismissed.  Rosemark, GPO BCA 30-90 (April 22, 1994),
   Sl. op. at 6; Graphic Image, Inc., GPO BCA 42-92 (April 22,
   1994), Sl. op. at 5.  The Board has given the Appellant an
   opportunity under Rule 31 of the Board Rules to show cause why
   its appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
   As indicated above, the Appellant's letter of April 25, 1994,
   is not a proper response to the Rule to Show Cause.
   Consequently, the Contractor has failed to provide the Board
   with sufficient reasons or justification to warrant
   continuation of this appeal under Rule 31 of the Board Rules.

   THEREFORE, the Respondent's Motion is GRANTED, the appeal is
   DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute, and the
   case is closed.  Bedrock Printing Company, GPO BCA 05-91
   (April 10, 1992), Sl. op. at p.8; Rosemark, supra, Sl. op. at
   7; Graphic Image, Inc., supra, Sl. op. at 5.

It is so Ordered.

April 29, 1994            STUART M. FOSS
                  Administrative Judge


1.Rule 31 states, in pertinent part, that the Board may dismiss
an appeal:  "[w]henever a record discloses the failure of either
party to file documents required by these rules, respond to
notices or correspondence from the Board, comply with an order of
the Board, or otherwise indicates an intention not to continue
the orderly prosecution or defense of an appeal, . . .".

2.The Board is at a loss to explain how the Appellant got the
idea that its appeal had been dismissed.  Prior to this order, no
letter, order or other official correspondence from the Board,
has ever been prepared and served on the contractor, informing it
of the dismissal of its case.