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.