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

In the Matter of             )
                             )
the Appeal of                )
                             )
PHOENIX PRINTING, INC.       )      Docket No. GPO BCA 30-95
Jacket No. 636-801           )
Purchase Order F-3759        )



   DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

By letter dated September 26, 1995, Phoenix Printing, Inc.
(Appellant or Contractor), 1053 Polinski Road, Iveyland,
Pennsylvania 18974, appealed the September 13, 1995, final
decision of Contracting Officer Douglas M. Faour, of the U.S.
Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO) Atlanta Regional
Printing Procurement Office, 1888 Emery Street, Suite 110,
Atlanta, Georgia 30318-2542, terminating the Appellant's contract
for partial default because of the Contractor's failure to
fulfill the requirements of the contract.  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 October 5, 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 5,
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. Ronald B. Steiner
Phoenix Printing, Inc.
1053 Polinski Road
Iveyland, PA 18974

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 10, 1996.

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.  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).

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.  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