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

In the Matter of                      )
                                      )
the Appeal of                         )
                                      )
GRAPHIC IMAGE, INC.                   )  Docket No. GPO BCA 42-92
Program 2703-S                        )
Purchase Order K-0106                 )
Print Orders 70000, 70007 thru 70017  )


   DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

   By Notice of Appeal dated October 20, 1992, Graphic Image,
   Inc. (Appellant or Contractor), 561 Boston Post Road, Milford,
   Connecticut 06460, appealed the July 22, 1992, final decision
   of Contracting Officer Richard W. Wildbrett, of the U.S.
   Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO), Dallas
   Regional Printing Procurement Office, United States Courthouse
   and Federal Office Building, 1100 Commerce Street, Room 304,
   Dallas, Texas 75242, terminating the Appellant's contract,
   identified as Program 2703-S, Purchase Order K-0106, Print
   Orders 70000, and 70007 through 70017, for default.  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 30, 1992.
   Board Rules, Rule 3.  By letter the same date, the Board
   notified the Appellant that its appeal had been docketed and
   provided it with a copy of the Board Rules.  Id.  Among other
   things, the Board's letter specifically directed the
   Contractor's attention to Rule 6(a) of the Board Rules, which
   requires 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).

   On March 5, 1993, Counsel for GPO filed Respondent's Motion to
   Dismiss (Motion) with the Board seeking dismissal of this case
   on the ground that the Contractor 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 five (5) 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 March 24, 1993, the Board contacted the Appellant by
   telephone to inquire about the status of this case, and in
   particular to ascertain its position on the Motion.  During
   this conversation, the Contractor informed the Board that it
   could not locate the docketing letter, and asked for another
   copy of the letter along with the Board Rules.  The Appellant
   further stated that it had not abandoned the appeal and would
   file its Complaint with the Board, along with a response to
   the Motion, immediately upon receipt of the docketing letter
   and the Board Rules.  Accordingly, on March 25, 1993, the
   Board sent another copy of the docketing letter and the Board
   Rules to the Contractor by facsimile transmission.  However,
   the Appellant never filed a Complaint or its response to the
   Motion.

   After ten (10) months had elapsed, on January 27, 1994, the
   Board telephoned the Appellant again, and asked about the
   status of this case.  Specifically, the Board wanted to know
   when it could expect the Complaint and a reply to the Motion.
   The Contractor said it would submit those documents within
   three (3) days; i.e., by the end of January 1994.  However, no
   Complaint or response to the Motion was received by the Board
   within the promised time.
   Therefore, on March 28, 1994, 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), and sent it to the Appellant
   by certified mail.1  Board Rules, Rule 31.  In the Rule to
   Show Cause, the Board  specifically noted that, as indicated
   in the appeal record, the Board's originally docketing letter
   along with the Board Rules, had been received by the Appellant
   on November 3, 1992.  Rule to Show Cause, p. 3.  Furthermore,
   in response to the Contractor's claim that it could not locate
   the docketing letter, the Board sent second copies of letter
   and the Board Rules to the Appellant on March 25, 1993, by
   facsimile transmission.  Id.  The Board also observed that
   notwithstanding the its patience and efforts to facilitate the
   appeal, the Appellant has never filed the required Complaint
   and response to the Respondent's Motion.2  Rule to Show Cause,
   pp. 3-4.  Therefore, in accordance with the procedures set
   forth in Rule 31 of the Board Rules, the Appellant was given
   fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the Rule to Show Cause
   to provide reasons, in writing, why the appeal should not be
   dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.  Rule to
   Show Cause, p. 4.  The appeal record shows that the United
   States Postal Service delivered the Rule to Show Cause the
   Appellant on April 5, 1994.

   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.  Rosemark, GPO BCA 30-90 (April 22, 1994),
   Sl. op. at 6.  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.  However, the Appellant has not responded to the
   Rule to Show Cause in this case, nor has it asked the Board,
   in writing, for an extension of time in which to respond.
   Board Rules, Preface to Rules,  III.C.

   THEREFORE, since the time for receipt of the Appellant's
   written reasons showing why the appeal should not be dismissed
   with prejudice for failure to prosecute has now expired
   without any response from the Contractor, the Respondent's
   Motion is GRANTED, the appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice for
   failure to prosecute, and the case is closed.  Bedrock
   Printing Company, GPO BCA 05-91 (April 10, 1992), Sl. op. at
   8; Rosemark, supra, Sl. op. at 7.

It is so Ordered.

April 22, 1994                          STUART M. FOSS
                                        Administrative Judge
_______________

1 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, . . .".
2 In the Rule to Show Cause, the Board expressly held that the
Appellant's Notice of Appeal did not sufficiently define the
Contractor's claim or identify the issues in the case, so as to
be deemed a Complaint within the meaning of Rule 6(a) of the
Board Rules.  Rule To Show Cause, p. 4.