In the Matter of              )
the Appeal of                 )
THE PRINTING PRESS            )      Docket No. GPOBCA 16-98
Jacket No.655-223             )
Purchase Order J-1533         )


Appellant, The Printing Press, filed a notice of appeal with the Board following the contracting
officer's default termination of Program 4611-S for, inter alia, Appellant's failure to meet
required delivery dates.
Following receipt of the appeal, the Board provided Appellant a copy of the Board's rules of
procedure, and advised Appellant that it was required by Board rules to file a complaint within 30
days of receipt.  Appellant failed to file a complaint, or request additional time in which to
On November 3, 1998, pursuant to Rule 31 of the Board Rules, the Board issued a  Rule  to Show
Cause Why Appeal Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute (Rule To Show Cause), directing
the Appellant to state its reasons for not complying with the requirements of the Board Rules, and
in particular, by not submitting its Rule 6(a) Complaint.

The Rule to Show Cause directed the Appellant to submit a written response to the Board within five
(5) 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.  The Board sent the Rule to Show Cause by
certified mail to the Appellant at its address of record. 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 November 12, 1998.
On November 17, 1998, Appellant called and asked if the Board had received a 15 or 16-page document
it sent to the Board.  He was told that the Board had no record of receiving the document.  The
Appellant was then asked to send another copy as soon as possible.  The Board has yet to receive
any such document from the Appellant.
On December 7, 1998, the Board received by telefacsimile an unsigned four-page letter from
Appellant which failed to respond to the Board's Rule to Show Cause.
Rule 31 allows the Board to dismiss an appeal whenever the record discloses, inter alia, that a
party has:  (1) failed to file documents required by the rules; (2) failed to 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.  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 record in this appeal amply demonstrates that the Appellant has ignored the Board's
rules and directives with respect to pleadings, has failed to respond in a timely manner to the
Board's correspondence, and has otherwise indicated an intention not to continue the orderly
prosecution of its appeal.  No other conclusion is warranted by its failure to file a Complaint or
to timely respond to the Rule to Show Cause.  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); and cases cited therein.  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 demonstrates Appellant's intent to abandon
prosecution of this appeal through its failure to respond to the Board's Rule to Show Cause within
the time required.   Appellant has not otherwise made any showing that the appeal should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Accordingly, the above-captioned appeal is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

It is so Ordered.

March 29, 1999                     KERRY L. MILLER
Administrative Judge