________________________________________
 
                DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: August 4, 1995
                ________________________________________
 
 
                              GSBCA 12906
 
 
                              TEEMS, INC.,
 
                                        Appellant, 
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                        Respondent.
 
        Fadlo Mousalam and Brett A. Alcala of Mousalam & Alcala, Los
   Altos, CA, counsel for Appellant.
 
        David  L.  Frecker, Personal  Property  Division, Office  of
   General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On  July 12,  1994, the  Board received  from Teems,  Inc. a
   notice  of appeal  involving  a  termination  for  default  of  a
   particular item under a contract with the respondent, the General
   Services Administration.   Teems  requested that  the termination
   for default  be converted to  a termination  for convenience  and
   noted:  "matter   of  Termination   Settlement  Proposal   to  be
   determined."
 
        With  an effective date  of June  28, 1995,  the contracting
   officer issued a unilateral contract modification  which converts
   the termination  for default  to a  termination for  convenience.
   The agency  also has  indicated through a  cover letter  to Teems
   that Teems may submit a termination  settlement proposal no later
   than one year from June 28, 1995.
 
        On August 3, 1995, a  telephone conference was held with the
   parties.  In  light of the contract modification,  the agency had
   submitted a motion to dismiss with prejudice the appeal, pursuant
   to Rule 28.  Teems stated during  the conference that it does not
   object to such  a dismissal.  Teems noted that it intends to file
   an application to  recover costs pursuant to the  Equal Access to
   Justice Act, and that it intends to  file a claim with the agency
   seeking additional payment under the Changes clause.
 
 
        Given  that  the  agency's motion  is  unopposed,  the Board
   DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this appeal.  Rule 28.
 
                                        ____________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge