In the Matter of                  )
the Appeal of                     )
ACE BUSINESS GIFTS, INC.          )    Docket No. GPOBCA 26-98
Jacket Nos. 684-903, 684-905      )
Purchase Order P-4936             )


At an August 31, 1999, Status Conference, Appellant agreed to
supplement the record by providing the Board with certain
documents in its possession.  By Scheduling Order dated September
1, 1999, the Board ordered Appellant to produce those documents
by September 24, 1999.  The Board also ordered the parties to
file briefs by October 29, 1999. 1  At Respondent's request, that
deadline was extended to November 23, 1999.

Appellant did not file its brief or provide the requested
documents.  By facsimile transmission dated November 23, 1999,
the Board sought information from Appellant on whether is had
filed its brief.  The Board's correspondence stated that the
appeal might be dismissed for failure to prosecute should
Appellant fail to file a brief.  On November 24, 1999, Mr. James
Jeffries, Appellant's corporate President, informed the Board
that he had faxed Appellant's brief to the Board one week
earlier.  The Board informed Mr. Jeffries that it had not
received a brief from Appellant.  Mr. Jeffries stated that he
would re-fax the brief to the Board by November 26, 1999.

As of this date, the Board has not received Appellant's brief or
the supplemental materials listed in the earlier Scheduling

Board Rule 31 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.  Board Rules, Rule 31.  The
record in this appeal amply demonstrates that Appellant has
ignored the Board's directives with respect to the submission of
briefs and supplemental documents, 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 brief and its failure to produce the previously
requested supplemental documents.

Accordingly, the above-captioned appeal is hereby DISMISSED with

It is so Ordered.

December 1, 1999
Administrative Judge

1 The Scheduling Order was sent to Appellant by Certified mail.
The envelope containing the Order was returned to the Board
marked "UNCLAIMED."  Thereafter the Order was re-mailed via first
class mail.  That envelope has not been returned to the Board.