DISMISSED: October 31, 1995 GSBCA 12589-COM, 13032-COM DATACHRON, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Respondent. Christian M. Dillon of Dana Point, CA, counsel for Appellant. Jerry A. Walz and Fred Kopatich, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. GOODMAN, Board Judge. ORDER On January 14, 1993, appellant, Datachron, Inc., entered into a contract with respondent, the United States Department of Commerce, to supply eleven Global Positioning Satellite Time Transfer Receivers at a total cost of $90,750. On September 17, 1993, appellant's contract was terminated for default. On October 7, 1993, Datachron filed an appeal with this Board, which was docketed as GSBCA 12589-COM. Respondent reprocured the receivers from other sources. On July 13, 1994, the contracting officer submitted to Datachron a demand for excess reprocurement costs in the amount of $23,485. On September 6, 1994, the contracting officer issued a final decision asserting the Government's claim for excess reprocurement costs and denying Datachron's claim for damages in the amount of $90,750, which was asserted in GSBCA 12589-COM. On October 7, 1994, Datachron appealed that decision to this Board. That appeal was docketed as GSBCA 13032-COM and the two cases were consolidated. The Board convened the parties in a telephonic conference and established further proceedings. The parties were authorized to conduct written discovery and depositions, with a close date of December 16, 1994. On March 21, 1995, respondent filed a motion for summary relief, to which appellant filed a reply on April 17. During a conference call with the parties on May 23, 1995, the parties expressed a willingness to enter into settlement discussions. The Board, therefore, suspended proceedings for thirty days to allow the parties to discuss settlement. A status conference was scheduled for June 23. On June 6, the Board denied respondent's motion for summary relief. On June 30, counsel for appellant requested an extension of the status conference in order to decide whether or not to accept respondent's settlement offer. On July 24, 1995, during a status conference with the parties, appellant's counsel stated that appellant would accept respondent's offer to settle these appeals. The Board directed the parties to file a motion to dismiss upon execution of the settlement agreement. On October 26, 1995, the parties filed a joint motion for dismissal which states, in part: "Datachron, Inc. and the United States Department of Commerce hereby jointly move for dismissal with prejudice . . . the parties have reached final settlement of the matters that were the subject of this proceeding." Accordingly, these consolidated appeals are DISMISSED. Rule 28(a). _____________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge