__________________________________________________ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE: July 16, 1992 ___________________________________________________ GSBCA 11634 MOCHAN SUPPLIES, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Max Lebowitz, President, and Eugene Schwartz of Mochan Painting Supplies, Brooklyn, NY, appearing for Appellant. Michael D. Tully, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. PARKER, Board Judge. On December 12, 1991, the Board received this appeal filed on behalf of Mochan Supplies. The appeal concerns a contracting officer's decision dated October 30 which terminated for default appellant's contract with the General Services Administration for failure to meet delivery dates for tool boxes. On January 31, 1992, the Board received appellant's complaint, and respondent's Rule 4 appeal file. On February 21 the Board received Respondent's answer to the complaint in this appeal. On March 13, respondent filed a supplemental appeal file. The Board's scheduling order dated April 7 required procedural elections by May 7 and directed appellant to respond to respondent's interrogatories, request for production of documents and request for admissions - Series I. No response was received from appellant. Respondent's letter to the Board dated May 8 stated that respondent could not provide the Board with proper elections for the processing of the appeal until appellant furnished answers to discovery. On April 21, the Board issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. That order to show cause granted respondent's motion dated April 20 to compel appellant to answer interrogatories - Series I, dated March 12, 1992. Appellant's counsel notified the Board on April 29 that he had not been able to contact his client. He requested, and the Board granted, an extension of time to May 15 to respond to respondent's request for interrogatories. On May 15 the Board received a letter from appellant's counsel stating that he has had no response to his requests to his client and that he had cautioned his client about the effect that failure to respond would have. Appellant's counsel asked to withdraw as counsel on this case. On June 1, the Board issued an order to show cause by June 15 why the Board should not dismiss this appeal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. This time, the order was addressed directly to Mochan Painting Supplies. No response was received to that order. On June 25 the Board received a letter from respondent that stated: This letter is in reference to the Board's Orders to Show Cause, dated April 21, 1992 and June 1, 1992, in the subject appeal. To date, in spite of specific directions by the Board and the efforts of counsel, Appellant has failed to respond to said Board orders. In the order, dated April 21, 1992, the Board granted Respondent's motion to compel discovery and ordered Appellant by close of business (COB) on April 30, 1992 to: (1) file its answers to Respondent's discovery request or (2) show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Board Rule 28(b). Subsequently, Appellant's counsel notified the Board of his unsuccessful efforts to get his client to assist in the prosecution of its appeal. See Letter from Mr. Gdanski to the Board, dated May 14, 1992, see also Order Granting Extension of Time, dated May 11, 1992. Most recently, the Board ordered Appellant to show cause by COB, June 15, 1992, as to why this appeal should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Order to Show Cause, dated June 1, 1992. To date, Appellant has failed to respond. Appellant initiated this appeal, yet is doing nothing to prosecute its case. Moreover, Appellant has failed to comply with Board rules 3 regarding discovery and has also failed to comply with various Board orders previously issued. Consequently, Respondent requests that the Board dismiss this appeal with prejudice pursuant Board Rule 28(b). Decision For the above stated reasons, this appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Board Rule 28(b). ____________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge We concur: __________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge ___________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge