BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, DC 20401 In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) ) ROSEMARK ) Docket No. GPO BCA 30-90 Jacket No. 776-611 ) Purchase Order T-8306 ) DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL By letter dated August 24, 1990, Rosemark (Appellant or Contractor), 111 W. 12th Street, Oak Grove, Missouri 64075, filed an appeal with the Board from the July 23, 1990, final decision of an unnamed Contracting Officer of the U.S. Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO), Denver Regional Printing Procurement Office, Building 53, Room D-1010, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225-0347, partially terminating its contract, identified as Jacket No. 776-611, Purchase Order M-9379. 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 Board received and docketed the appeal on August 30, 1990. Board Rules, Rule 3. However, the Board was unable to issue its customary docketing letter because the Appellant had referenced the wrong Jacket Number and GPO Regional facility in its appeal letter. On September 6, 1990, Counsel for GPO informed the Contractor of its error. As a consequence, by letter dated September 6, 1990, the Appellant asked the Board to disregard its earlier appeal letter, and changed its challenge instead to the default termination decision of July 23, 1990, issued by an unnamed Contracting Officer in the Respondent's Charleston Satellite Printing Procurement Office, 334 Meeting Street, L. Mendel Rivers Federal Building, Room 122, Charleston, South Carolina 29403-6417, for Jacket No. 776-611, Purchase Order T-8306. However, because the Contractor still referred to the incorrect Jacket Number-Jacket No. 776-611-this second letter also failed to meet the requirements of a proper notice of appeal under the Board Rules.1 Board Rules, Rule 2. Accordingly, on September 18, 1990, Counsel for GPO telephoned the Appellant once again and advised it that its appeal continued to cite the wrong Jacket Number. The Contractor has never responded to the Respondent's second telephone call, and has not corrected the misinformation in its appeal letter. Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that the Appellant has furnished a copy of its appeal letter to the Contracting Officer who terminated the contract. Therefore, as of this date, the Appellant has not filed a proper notice of appeal under the Board Rules. Board Rules, Rules 1(a) and 2. On August 3, 1992, after nearly two years had elapsed without a response from the Contractor, Counsel for GPO filed Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Motion) with Board seeking dismissal of this case on the ground that the Appellant had abandoned its appeal. A copy of the Motion was also served on the Contractor by regular mail that same day. Board Rules, Rule 16. Therefore, on September 2, 1992, 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).2 Board Rules, Rule 31. The Rule to Show Cause was sent by certified mailed to the Appellant at its address of record: Mr. Mark E. Hall Rosemark 111 W. 12th Street Oak Grove, Missouri 64075 However, the Rule to Show Cause was returned to the Board by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as unclaimed. The Board's subsequent attempt to ascertain a correct address from the Appellant by calling the two telephone numbers on its letterhead-(816) 625-4433 and 1-800-248-9388 (toll free)-was equally unsuccessful, because they were no longer in service. Subsequently, Counsel for GPO informed the Board that the last known address for the Appellant indicated in his records was: Rosemark 601 James Rocco Court Grain Valley, Missouri 64029 Accordingly, the Board sent the Rule to Show Cause by certified mailed to the Appellant at that address, but it, too, was returned to the Board by the USPS as unclaimed. The Board has indicated that Rule 31 allows it 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.3 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. Bedrock Printing Company, GPO BCA 05-91 (April 10, 1992), Sl. 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).4 Indeed, the Board finds the Appellant's failure to advise the Board of its current address particularly persuasive in reaching the conclusion that the Appellant has abandoned its appeal. Bedrock Printing Company, supra, Sl. op. at 6 (citing, Rodger Roose, AGBCA No. 85-231-1, 86-1 BCA ¶ 18,566; Leonard V. West, supra, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,060). As the Board explained in Bedrock Printing Company: Inherent in the Appellant's responsibilities under the Board Rules, was the simple duty to keep the Board apprised of any new address so that the Board can contact it. The Board had no obligation under its rules to undertake extensive efforts to trace and locate the Appellant in order to communicate with it. Id., Sl. op. at 6. The Appellant's last contact with the Board was nearly a four years ago; i.e., its letter dated September 6, 1990. Since then, the Board has made two attempts to serve the Rule to Show Cause on the Contractor by certified mail, sent first to the address of record and next to the address in Counsel for GPO's files. In each instance, the Board was unsuccessful and the Rule to Show Cause was returned to the Board by the USPS, as unclaimed. As the Board made clear under similar circumstances in Bedrock Printing Company, any contractor who is interested in pursuing an appeal would, at a minimum, keep the Board apprised of any new address, instead of leaving it in the dark concerning his/her whereabouts. Id., Sl. op. at 7, fn. 6. The Appellant has not done so, and the Board's attempts to locate it by means of the USPS mail system have been unavailing because no delivery could be made. On these facts, it is clear to the Board that the Appellant has frustrated the orderly prosecution of its own appeal. The Board has an ever-increasing work load. Consequently, it is not in a position, and is unwilling any longer, to expend its limited resources on continued efforts to locate the Appellant, particularly since it has no assurance that the contractor remains interested in the outcome of the appeal. 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. Here, the Appellant's failure to notify the Board of its current address is clear evidence of its "intention not to continue the orderly prosecution . . . of [its] appeal." Bedrock Printing Company, supra, Sl. op. at 7. The Board has attempted to give 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. Through no fault of the Board's, the Appellant has not responded to the Rule to Show Cause in this case. Consequently, the Appellant has not made a showing that the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 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, supra, Sl. op. at 8. It is so Ordered. April 22, 1994 STUART M. FOSS Administrative Judge _______________ 1 Rule 2 states, in pertinent part: "A notice of appeal should indicate that an appeal is being taken, and should identify the contract (by number), the decision from which the appeal is taken, and the amount in dispute, if known. . . ". [Emphasis added.] 2 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 indicated an intention not to continue the orderly prosecution or defense of an appeal, . . .". 3 Note 2 supra. 4 In Leonard V. West the USPS Board of Contract Appeals (PSBCA) dismissed a contractor's appeal with prejudice for failure to prosecute under facts similar to this case, including the failure of the appellant to provide the PSBCA with a current address. 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,060, at 96,264.