U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

In the Matter of         )
the Appeal of            )
ACE GRAPHICS             )   Docket No. GPOBCA 14-03
Jacket No. 569-040       )

                        RULE 32 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On September 29, 2003, Appellant Ace Graphics filed an appeal with the U.S.
Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals (GPOBCA).  By
Acknowledgment and Scheduling Order, dated September 30, 2003, the Board ordered
Appellant to file 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" within 30 days of receipt of the Acknowledgment and
Scheduling Order.  The Board sent the Acknowledgment and Scheduling Order by
Certified Mail and the return receipt shows Appellant received the Order on
October 14, 2003.  However, Appellant did not file a Complaint within 30 days.

By Order dated November 20, 2003, the Board ordered Appellant to file its
Complaint with the Board within seven days of receipt of the Order.  The Board
served the order on Appellant by Certified Mail. The return receipt shows
Appellant received the Order on November 24, 2003.  However, Appellant never
responded to the Order.

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 respond to orders from the Board.

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

It is so Ordered.

December 18, 2003                                KERRY L. MILLER
                                                 Administrative Judge