BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, DC 20401 In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) ) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRAPHICS ) Docket No. GPO BCA 39-94 Jacket No. 544-807 ) Purchase Order T-0995 ) DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 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, . . .".