In the Matter of             )
the Appeal of                )
SILVER LINING, INC.          )   Docket No. GPOBCA 09-01
SPA 960                      )
Work Order 23902             )

                     RULE 32 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On October 5, 2001, Appellant Silver Lining, Inc., filed an appeal with the U.S.
Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals (GPOBCA) challenging a
Contracting Officer's decision to terminate its contract for default.  By
Acknowledgment and Scheduling Order, dated October 9, 2001, the Board ordered
Appellant to file, within 30 days of the docketing of the appeal, a Complaint
"setting forth simple, concise, and direct statements of each claim, alleging
the factual basis of the claim, with appropriate reference to the contract
provisions for each claim, and stating the dollar amount claimed."  Appellant
did not file a Complaint within 30 days.

By Order dated April 11, 2002, the Board ordered Appellant to file its Complaint
with the Board within seven days of receipt of the Order.  The Board's Order was
returned by the U.S. Postal Service marked "refused."  The Board's April 11,
2002, Order was then served on Appellant by telefacsimile on April 18, 2002.  In
response, the Board received a fax from Silver Lining Graphics Ltd. stating that
Silver Lining Inc. had filed for bankruptcy protection and that the person to
contact about the status of the appeal was Edith M. Griffin, 1736 Upshur St.
N.W., Washington, DC 20011.

The Board mailed another copy of its April 11, 2002, Order to Ms. Griffin on
June 18, 2002, by Certified Mail.  The Board received an undated return receipt
signed by Ms. Griffin.  Despite leaving multiple messages on Ms. Griffin's
voicemail inquiring about the status of the appeal, the Board has not received a
return telephone call from Ms. Griffin. To date, the Board has not received
Appellant's Complaint.

Board Rule 32 allows the Board to dismiss an appeal whenever the record
indicates a party's intention not to continue the orderly prosecution or defense
of an appeal.  GPOBCA Rules, Rule 32.  The record in this appeal amply
demonstrates that the Appellant has ignored the Board's directives with respect
to the filing of a Complaint, thus indicating an intention not to continue the
orderly prosecution of its appeal. See Rosemark, GPOBCA 30-90 (April 22, 1994),
slip op. at 4, 1994 WL 275076; Bedrock Printing Company, GPOBCA 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).

In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered carefully Appellant's pro
se status.  Quincey Carpenter v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 576 (1997).
However, formal legal training is not necessary for responding to simple
deadlines or for otherwise prosecuting an appeal.  See, Airborne Industries,
Inc., ASBCA Nos. 45491 et al., 95-1 BCA  27,496, aff'd on recon. at   27,311.
The Board has also considered its obligation to litigants to manage its docket
in an efficient and expeditious manner.  The record in this case demonstrates
Appellant's intent to abandon prosecution of this appeal through its repeated
failure to file a Complaint and its failure to communicate with the Board.

Accordingly, the above-captioned appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

It is so Ordered.

August 15, 2002
                                          KERRY L. MILLER
                                          Administrative Judge