BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
   U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
   WASHINGTON, DC  20401

In the Matter of           )
                           )
the Appeal of              )
                           )
AMERICAN BCD, INC.         )      Docket No. GPO BCA 24-95
Jacket No. 657-736         )
Purchase Order J-4872      )


   DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

By letter dated July 25, 1995, American BCD, Inc. (Appellant or
Contractor), 2616 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45219, appealed
the May 19, 1995, final decision of Contracting Officer Lorraine
B. Horton of the U.S. Government Printing Office's (Respondent or
GPO) St. Louis Regional Printing Procurement Office, Old Post
Office Building, Room 328, 815 Olive Street, St. Louis, Missouri
63101-1597, terminating the Appellant's contract for default
because of the Contractor's failure to produce the job from film
negatives.  GPO Instruction 110.12, Subject: Board of Contract
Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure, dated September 17,
1984, Rules 1(a), 2 (Board Rules).

The appeal was docketed by the Board on August 17, 1995.  Board
Rules, Rule 3.  By letter of 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 Rule 6(a) of the Board's Rules, 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, Rule  6(a).

The Contractor did not file a Rule 6(a) Complaint within the time
frame set forth in the Board Rules.  Therefore, on September 4,
1995, 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 four (4)
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.  The Appellant
did not respond to the Motion.

Subsequently, on September 4, 1996, 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).  Board Rules, Rule 31.  The Rule to Show
Cause directed the Appellant to submit a written response to the
Board within fifteen (15) days from its receipt, showing such
cause as it may have as to why the appeal should not be dismissed
with prejudice for failure to prosecute.  Rule To Show Cause, at
3.  The Board sent the Rule to Show Cause by certified mailed to
the Appellant at its address of record:

Mr. Tony Mamari
Sales Manager
American BCD, Inc.
2616 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45219

The U.S. Postal Service's certified mail receipt was returned to
the Board showing that the Rule to Show Cause was received by the
Appellant on September 12, 1996.  The Appellant did not respond
to the Rule to Show Cause.

Rule 31 allows the Board to dismiss an appeal whenever the record
discloses, inter alia, that a party has: (1) failed to file
documents required by the rules; (2) respond to the Board's
notices or correspondence; or (3) otherwise indicates an
intention not to continue the orderly prosecution or defense of
an appeal.  Board Rules, Rule 31.  Based on the foregoing facts,
it is clear to the Board that dismissal is justified in this case
on one or more of those grounds.  That is, the Board believes
that the record in this appeal amply demonstrates that the
Appellant, has disregarded the Board's rules and directives, and
has indicated an intention not to continue the orderly
prosecution of its appeal; i.e., simply stated, the Appellant has
made no meaningful effort to prosecute the case.  See Rosemark,
GPO BCA 30-90 (April 22, 1994), slip op. at 4, 1994 WL 275076;
Bedrock Printing Company, GPO BCA 05-91 (April 10, 1992), slip
op. at 5-6 (citing David M. Noe, AGBCA No. 88-155-1, 89-1 BCA 
21,560; Leonard V. West, PSBCA No. 1443, 86-3 BCA  19,060).

Since the Appellant has failed to respond to the Board's Rule to
Show Cause within the time allowed, and has not otherwise made
any showing that the appeal should not be dismissed for failure
to prosecute, the Respondent's Motion is GRANTED.  ACCORDINGLY,
the above-captioned appeal is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice and
the case is closed.  Board Rules, Rule 31.  See Rosemark, supra,
slip op. at 7; Bedrock Printing Company, supra, slip op. at 8.

It is so Ordered.

September 27, 1996                     STUART M. FOSS
Administrative Judge