WASHINGTON, DC  20401

In the Matter of            )
the Appeal of               )
PIP PRINTING                )    Docket No. GPO BCA 24-94
Jacket No. 536-286          )
Purchase Order F-6236       )


   On April 29, 1994, the above-referenced contract was awarded
   to PIP Printing (Appellant or Contractor), North Clayton
   Village Shopping Center, 5421 Riverdale Road, College Park,
   Georgia 30349, by the U.S. Government Printing Office's
   (Respondent or GPO), Atlanta Regional Printing Procurement
   Office (ARPPO), 2 Park Place, Suite 110, 1888 Emery Street,
   NW., Atlanta, Georgia 30318-2542 (R4 File, Tab A).1  The
   contract was for the printing and delivery of 500 books
   entitled "41st National Security Forum 31 May 1994-3 June
   1994," for the U.S. Air Force's Air War College (AWC) at
   Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.  Since the books were needed
   for a conference, the contract required that the complete
   order be delivered to AWC by May 5, 1994.  On May 11, 1994,
   when Contractor failed to fulfill that delivery requirement,
   Contracting Officer Douglas M. Faour of the ARPPO, terminated
   the contract for default (R4 File, Tab F).  GPO Contract
   Terms, Solicitation Provisions, Supplemental Specifications,
   and Contract Clauses, GPO Publication 310.2, Effective
   December 1, 1987 (Rev. 9-88),  20(a)(1)(i) (Default) (GPO
   Contract Terms).

   By letter dated June 21, 1994, the Appellant filed a timely
   appeal with the Board from the Contracting Officer's final
   decision defaulting the contract.  Board Rules, Rules 1(a), 2.
   The Board received and docketed the appeal on July 21, 1994.2
   Board Rules, Rule 3.  That same day, pursuant to Rule 3 of the
   Board Rules, the Board notified the Appellant that its appeal
   had been docketed, and enclosed a copy of the Board Rules with
   its docketing letter.  Id.  The Board's docketing letter
   expressly invited the Appellant's attention to its obligations
   under Rules 4(b), 6(a) and 8 of the Board Rules.  Board Rules,
   Rules 4(b), 6(a), and 8.  In particular, Rule 6(a) required
   the Appellant to file an original and two copies of a detailed
   Complaint with the Board within 30 days after receipt of the
   docketing letter.3  The docketing letter was mailed to the
   Contractor at its address of record, and the Board's records
   show that it was received by the Appellant on July 29, 1994.
   However, the Appellant did not file it Rule 6(a) Complaint
   within the time frame set forth in the Board Rules.

   On May 26, 1995, Counsel for GPO filed Respondent's Motion to
   Dismiss (Motion) with Board seeking dismissal of this case on
   the ground that the Appellant had abandoned its appeal.  The
   Motion was based, inter alia, on the ground that the Appellant
   had not yet submitted its Complaint, even though more than ten
   (10) months had elapsed since the Contractor had received the
   Board's docketing letter.  A copy of the Motion was also
   simultaneously served on the Appellant.  Board Rules, Rule 16.

   Since, in the Board's judgment, the Appellant's letter dated
   June 21, 1994, did not sufficiently define the issues so that
   it could be deemed a Complaint under the Board Rules, it tried
   to reach the Contractor by telephone to ask about the status
   of this case, and in particular to ascertain its position on
   the Motion.  However, its call to the Appellant's telephone
   number of record-(404) 997-5677-was answered by a prerecorded
   announcement stating that the number had been disconnected and
   no additional information was available about a new telephone
   number.  Furthermore, when the Board also spoke to the
   Contracting Officer about locating the Contractor, he was
   unable to provide any current information.  Accordingly, on
   June 7, 1995, 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).4  Board Rules, Rule 31.  The Rule to Show Cause was
   sent by certified mailed to the Appellant at its address of

            Mr. Robert Robinson
            PIP Printing
            North Clayton Village Shopping Center
            5421 Riverdale Road
            College Park, GA 30349

However, on July 12, 1995, the Rule to Show Cause was returned to
the Board by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as

   As noted, 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)
   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 all of those grounds.
   The record amply demonstrates that the Appellant has
   disregarded the Board's rules and directives, has not
   responded to the Board's notices or correspondence, and has
   clearly indicated an intention not to continue an orderly
   prosecution of its appeal; i.e., simply stated, the Contractor
   has made no meaningful effort to prosecute the case.  Indeed,
   the Board finds the Appellant's failure to advise the Board of
   its current address and telephone number particularly
   persuasive in reaching the conclusion that the Appellant has
   abandoned its appeal.  See Rosemark, GPO BCA 30-90 (April 22,
   1994), Slip op. at 6, 1994 WL 275076; Bedrock Printing Co.,
   GPO BCA 5-91 (April 10, 1992), Slip op. at 5-6.  Accord, David
   M. Noe, AGBCA No. 88-155-1, 89-1 BCA  21,560; Leonard V.
   West, PSBCA No. 1443, 86-3 BCA  19,060; Rodger Roose, AGBCA
   No. 85-231-1, 86-1 BCA  18,566.  As the Board explained in

      Inherent in the Appellant's responsibilities under the
      Board Rules, was the simple duty to keep the Board apprised
      of any new address so that the Board can contact it.  The
      Board had no obligation under its rules to undertake
      extensive efforts to trace and locate the Appellant in
      order to communicate with it.

Bedrock Printing Co., supra, Slip op. at 6.  See also Rosemark,
supra, Slip op. at 6-7 ("[A]ny contractor who is interested in
pursing an appeal would, at a minimum, keep the Board apprised of
any new address, instead of leaving it in the dark concerning
his/her whereabouts").

   The Appellant's last contact with the Board was more than a
   year ago; i.e., its letter dated June 21, 1994.  Since then,
   the Board's attempts to contact the Contractor by telephone,
   and its effort to serve the Rule to Show Cause by certified
   mail sent to the Appellant's address of record, have been
   unsuccessful because of the Appellant's failure to keep the
   Board informed of its new address and telephone number.  As a
   consequence, the Board has no way of communicating or
   corresponding with the Contractor at the present time.
   Clearly, the Appellant's failure to meet its minimal
   responsibilities to the Board under the rules has frustrated
   the orderly prosecution of its own appeal.

   The Board has an ever-increasing work load.  Consequently, it
   is not in a position, and is unwilling any longer, to expend
   its limited resources on continued efforts to locate the
   Appellant, particularly since it has no assurance that the
   contractor remains interested in the outcome of the appeal.
   Under Rule 31 of the Board Rules, an appellant who has
   disregarded the Board's rules and directives, ignored its
   notices and correspondence, 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.  Here, the Appellant's failure to notify the Board
   of its current address is clear evidence of its "intention not
   to continue the orderly prosecution . . . of [its] appeal."
   See Rosemark, supra, Slip op. at 6; Bedrock Printing Co.,
   supra, Slip op. at 7.

   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.  Through no
   fault of the Board, the Appellant has not responded to the
   Rule to Show Cause in this case.  Consequently, the Appellant
   has not made a showing that the appeal should not be dismissed
   for failure to prosecute.  THEREFORE, the Respondent's Motion
   is GRANTED, the appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure
   to prosecute, and the case is closed.  See Rosemark, supra,
   Slip op. at 7; Bedrock Printing Co., supra, Slip op. at 8.

It is so Ordered.

July 17, 1995                               STUART M. FOSS
                                            Administrative Judge

    1 The Contracting Officer's appeal file, assembled pursuant
    to Rule 4 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, was
    delivered to the Board on August 25, 1994.  GPO Instruction
    110;12, Subject: Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice
    and Procedure, dated September 17, 1984, Rules 4(a) (Board
    Rules).  It will be referred to hereafter as the R4 File,
    with an appropriate Tab letter (and a page number for Tab A)
    also indicated.  The R4 File consists of nine documents
    identified as Tabs A through I.
    2 The delay was caused by the fact that the Contractor sent
    its appeal letter to the Contracting Officer at the ARPPO,
    and he had to forward it to the Board.
    3 Insofar as Rule 4(b) was concerned, it required the
    Appellant to supplement the R4 File with any missing
    documents within 30 days after the receipt of its copy of the
    file.  As for Rule 8, the Appellant was charged with telling
    the Board, after the Respondent answered the Complaint,
    whether it desired a hearing or wished to have the appeal
    decided on the record.
    4 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, . . .".