________________________________________________ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: October 20, 1992 ________________________________________________ GSBCA 11757, 11780 EDER FLAG MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. William E. Hughes III, of Whyte & Hirschboeck, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, counsel for Appellant. Tenley A. Carp, Personal Property Division, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. HENDLEY, Board Judge. ORDER These two appeals involve contract number GS-07F-42850, which was awarded to the appellant, Eder Flag Manufacturing Company, Inc., by the respondent, the General Services Administration, for delivery of "FSC class 8345 Flags and Accessories," for specified unit prices to various cities. The contract period covered from November 30, 1990, to April 30, 1992. On March 9, 1992, the Board docketed an appeal from a contracting officer's decision of December 12, 1991, terminating for default the appellant's right to proceed with the performance of specific purchase orders under the contract for the appellant's alleged failure to deliver in a timely fashion. The appeal was docketed as GSBCA 11757. On March 27, 1992, the Board docketed an appeal from a con- tracting officer's decision of January 27, 1992, terminating for default the appellant's right to proceed with additional purchase orders under the contract for the appellant's alleged failure to deliver in a timely fashion. The appeal was docketed as GSBCA 11758. We consolidated the appeals for further proceedings before this Board. All pleadings were filed in each appeal, and the appellant elected a hearing for December 1992. The parties then engaged in discovery. In a letter to the Board dated August 24, 1992, the appellant requested a stay of proceedings in these appeals and stated, "[T]he parties have reached a settlement regarding the referenced appeals subject to the execution of a written agreement incorporating the terms of the settlement." We then granted a stay of proceedings pending execution of the settlement agreement by the parties. On October 14, 1992, the Board received from the parties an executed settlement agreement and a motion to dismiss in both appeals. The motion to dismiss, dated September 22, states: Pursuant to Board Rule 28(a), Appellant, joined by Respondent, moves the Board to dismiss [these] case[s] with prejudice, as Appellant and Respondent have entered into a settlement agreement resolving all of these disputes. Accordingly, the joint motion to dismiss is granted. The appeals are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Rule 28(a). _______________________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge