BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, DC 20401 In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) ) AMERICAN BCD, INC. ) Docket No. GPO BCA 24-95 Jacket No. 657-736 ) Purchase Order J-4872 ) DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL By letter dated July 25, 1995, American BCD, Inc. (Appellant or Contractor), 2616 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45219, appealed the May 19, 1995, final decision of Contracting Officer Lorraine B. Horton of the U.S. Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO) St. Louis Regional Printing Procurement Office, Old Post Office Building, Room 328, 815 Olive Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1597, terminating the Appellant's contract for default because of the Contractor's failure to produce the job from film negatives. 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 August 17, 1995. 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 time frame set forth in the Board Rules. Therefore, on September 4, 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 four (4) 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. The Appellant did not respond to the Motion. Subsequently, on September 4, 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, at 3. The Board sent the Rule to Show Cause by certified mailed to the Appellant at its address of record: Mr. Tony Mamari Sales Manager American BCD, Inc. 2616 Vine Street Cincinnati, OH 45219 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 September 12, 1996. The Appellant did not respond to the 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) 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 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. September 27, 1996 STUART M. FOSS Administrative Judge