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

In the Matter of          )
                          )
the Appeal of             )
                          )
TRAVIS PERSON AND         )   Docket No. GPO BCA 34-94
    ASSOCIATES, INC.      )
Purchase Order H-6830     )
Jacket No.552-422         )


   DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

   By letter dated October 18, 1994, Travis Person and Associates
   Inc. (Appellant or Contractor), appealed the July 20, 1994,
   final decision of Contracting Officer Gerard J. Finnegan, of
   the U.S. Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO),
   Columbus Regional Printing Procurement Office, terminating the
   Appellant's contract for default because of the Contractor's
   alleged failure to deliver the product in accordance with the
   contract specifications.  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 27, 1994.
   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
   timeframe set forth in the Board Rules.  Therefore, on May 1,
   1995, the Board contacted the Appellant by telephone to
   inquire about the status of this case, and in particular to
   ascertain its reasons for not filing the Complaint.  During
   this conversation, the Contractor advised the Board that it
   wished to pursue its appeal, and said that it would soon ask
   the Board for an appropriate extension of time to file its
   Complaint.  However, no further communication was received
   from the Appellant.

   On June 22, 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 seven (7) 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.

   On June 26, 1995, the Board again telephoned the Appellant to
   inquire about the status of this case, and in particular to
   ascertain its position on the Motion.  During this
   conversation, the Contractor advised the Board that its
   response to the Motion would be furnished to the Board on June
   27, 1995.  However, the Appellant did not file its Rule 6(a)
   Complaint, nor did it respond to the Motion.

   Therefore, on July 7, 1995, 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, p. 3.    The Board sent the
   Rule to Show Cause by certified mailed to the Appellant at its
   address of record:

            Mr. Travis B. Person
            Travis B. Person and Associates, Inc.
            P.O. Box 40647
            Cincinnati, Ohio 45240-0647,

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 July 12, 1995.

   As indicated, 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.1  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 22, 1995                     STUART M. FOSS
                           Administrative Judge
_______________

     1 Specifically, 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, . . .".