WASHINGTON, DC  20401

In the Matter of              )
the Appeal of                 )
Jacket No. 544-807            )
Purchase Order T-0995         )


By letter dated November 29, 1994, Southern California Graphics
(Appellant or Contractor), appealed the November 10, 1994, final
decision of Contracting Officer James R. Wainscott, of the U.S.
Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO), Charleston
Satellite Printing Procurement Office, terminating the
Appellant's contract for partial default because of the
Contractor's alleged shorted delivery of a total of 1,367
pamphlets from among 6 of 12 titles.  GPO Instruction 110.12,
Subject: Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and
Procedure, dated September 17, 1984, Rules 1(a), 2 (Board Rules).
The appeal was docketed by the Board on December 21, 1994.  Board
Rules, Rule 3.  By letter of the same date, the Board notified
the Contractor that its appeal had been docketed and provided the
Appellant with a copy of the Board Rules.  Id.  Among other
things, the Board's letter specifically directed the Appellant's
attention to Rule 6(a) of the Board's Rules, which provides that
within 30 days after receipt of the notice of docketing the
appeal, the Appellant shall file with the Board an original and
two (2) copies of a Complaint containing the information
described in that rule.  Board Rules, Rule  6(a).

The Contractor did not file a Rule 6(a) Complaint within the
timeframe set forth in the Board Rules.  Therefore, on October 3,
1995, Counsel for GPO filed Respondent's Motion to Dismiss
(Motion) with the 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
submitted its Rule 6(a) Complaint, even though over three (3)
months had elapsed since the Contractor had received the Board's
notice of docketing.  A copy of the Motion was simultaneously
served on the Appellant.  Board Rules, Rule 16.

On April 11, 1996, the Board contacted the Appellant by telephone
to inquire about the status of this case, and in particular to
ascertain its reasons for not filing the Complaint.  During this
conversation, the Contractor told the Board that it wish to "wash
its hands" of this matter.  Accordingly, the Appellant was asked
to put its wish to withdraw its appeal in writing, and send it to
the Board.    However, no further communication was received from
the Appellant.

Therefore, on June 6, 1996, 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).  Board Rules, Rule 31.  The Rule to Show Cause
directed the Appellant to submit a written response to the Board
within fifteen (15) 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.  Rule To Show Cause, p. 3.
The Board sent the Rule to Show Cause by certified mailed to the
Appellant at its address of record:

Mr. Tim Toomey
Southern California Graphics
8432 Steller Drive
Culver City, CA 90232

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 June 16, 1996.

As indicated, Rule 31 allows it 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.1  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 Board believes
that the record in this appeal amply demonstrates that the
Appellant, has disregarded the Board's rules and directives, and
has indicated an intention not to continue the orderly
prosecution of its appeal; i.e., simply stated, the Appellant has
made no meaningful effort to prosecute the case.  See Rosemark,
GPO BCA 30-90 (April 22, 1994), Slip op. at 4, 1994 WL 275076;
Bedrock Printing Company, GPO BCA 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).

Since the Appellant has failed to respond to the Board's Rule to
Show Cause within the time allowed, and has not otherwise made
any showing that the appeal should not be dismissed for failure
to prosecute, the Respondent's Motion is GRANTED.  ACCORDINGLY,
the above-captioned appeal is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice and
the case is closed.  Board Rules, Rule 31.  See Rosemark, supra,
Slip op. at 7; Bedrock Printing Company, supra, Slip op. at 8.

It is so Ordered.

July 29, 1996                        STUART M. FOSS
Administrative Judge


1 Specifically, 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, . . .".