U. S. Government Printing Office Office of the General Counsel Contract Appeals Board Appeal of Harbor Printing & Copy Service, Inc. Jacket 229-626: Program, 404-M, Print Order 67 November 4, 1977 Vincent T. McCarthy, Chairman Samuel Sooper, Member Jay E. Eisen, Member Panel 77-5 Appellant was party to a multiple award term contract for the printing and binding of legal briefs. On February 23, 1977, appellant was awarded Print Order No. 67 under this contract to produce a brief for the United States Justice Department. On March 2, 1977, the contracting officer sent appellant a termination notice on this print order, stating that it was "terminated for default by reason of your inability to produce and deliver this brief by the scheduled deadline." This appeal followed, the contractor contending that the lack of timely performance was due to the Government's negligent failure to inform it as to when the brief was due. Both sides submitted material supporting their positions for a decision on the record. The Board found it necessary to seek further information and on October 12, 1977, issued a Request for Supplementary Information to the contracting officer. On October 18, 1977, before the answer was due to this Request, the contracting officer reevaluated his position and notified appellant that the default was converted to a termination for the convenience of the Government, U.S. Government Printing Office Contract Terms No. 1, Article 16 (1970). To the extent that the appellant was challenging the default termination of the Print Order, the contracting officer's action moots this appeal. To the extent appellant seeks damages for alleged breach of contract by the Government, this Board is without jurisdiction. United States v. Utah Construction and Mining Company, 384 U.S. 394 (1966). There thus being no live dispute before the Board, this appeal is dismissed. See e.g., Wm. Green Construction Co., Inc., GSBCA, 68-1 BCA ¶ 6883 ; William L. Warfield Construction Co., IBCA, 61-1 BCA ¶ 3045. However, if a new dispute arises concerning the settlement under the termination for convenience, the Board will naturally consider it upon a timely appeal from a final decision by the contracting officer.