BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) ) ACE BUSINESS GIFTS, INC. ) Docket No. GPOBCA 26-98 Jacket Nos. 684-903, 684-905 ) Purchase Order P-4936 ) DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL UNDER RULE 31 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE At an August 31, 1999, Status Conference, Appellant agreed to supplement the record by providing the Board with certain documents in its possession. By Scheduling Order dated September 1, 1999, the Board ordered Appellant to produce those documents by September 24, 1999. The Board also ordered the parties to file briefs by October 29, 1999. 1 At Respondent's request, that deadline was extended to November 23, 1999. Appellant did not file its brief or provide the requested documents. By facsimile transmission dated November 23, 1999, the Board sought information from Appellant on whether is had filed its brief. The Board's correspondence stated that the appeal might be dismissed for failure to prosecute should Appellant fail to file a brief. On November 24, 1999, Mr. James Jeffries, Appellant's corporate President, informed the Board that he had faxed Appellant's brief to the Board one week earlier. The Board informed Mr. Jeffries that it had not received a brief from Appellant. Mr. Jeffries stated that he would re-fax the brief to the Board by November 26, 1999. As of this date, the Board has not received Appellant's brief or the supplemental materials listed in the earlier Scheduling Order. Board Rule 31 allows the Board to dismiss an appeal whenever the record indicates a party's intention not to continue the orderly prosecution or defense of an appeal. Board Rules, Rule 31. The record in this appeal amply demonstrates that Appellant has ignored the Board's directives with respect to the submission of briefs and supplemental documents, thus indicating an intention not to continue the orderly prosecution of its appeal. See Rosemark, GPOBCA 30-90 (April 22, 1994), slip op. at 4, 1994 WL 275076; Bedrock Printing Company, GPOBCA 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). In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered carefully Appellant's pro se status. Quincey Carpenter v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 576 (1997). However, formal legal training is not necessary for responding to simple deadlines or for otherwise prosecuting an appeal. See, Airborne Industries, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 45491 et al., 95-1 BCA ¶ 27,496, aff'd on recon. at ¶ 27,311. The Board has also considered its obligation to litigants to manage its docket in an efficient and expeditious manner. The record in this case demonstrates Appellant's intent to abandon prosecution of this appeal through its repeated failure to file a brief and its failure to produce the previously requested supplemental documents. Accordingly, the above-captioned appeal is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. It is so Ordered. December 1, 1999 KERRY L. MILLER Administrative Judge ____________ 1 The Scheduling Order was sent to Appellant by Certified mail. The envelope containing the Order was returned to the Board marked "UNCLAIMED." Thereafter the Order was re-mailed via first class mail. That envelope has not been returned to the Board.