BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) ) TELESTAR CORPORATION ) Docket No. GPOBCA 09-99 ) Jacket No.774-959 ) Program 3871-S ) DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL UNDER RULE 31 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Appellant, Telestar Corporation, filed a notice of appeal with the Board on April 27, 1999, following the contracting officer's denial of the company's request for an equitable adjustment on Program 3871-S. Following receipt of the appeal, the Board provided Appellant a copy of the Board's rules of procedure, and advised Appellant that it was required by Board rules to file a complaint within 30 days. Appellant failed to file a complaint, or request additional time in which to file. On July 15, 1999, the Board advised Appellant that its appeal letter of April 27, 1999, did not sufficiently define the matters at issue so as to meet the requirements of a complaint under Board Rule 6. The Board issued an order requiring Appellant to file a compliant within seven days after receipt of the order. Appellant received the order by certified mail on July 19, 1999. However, Appellant did file a complaint. On August 9, 1999, pursuant to Rule 31 of the Board Rules, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute (Order To Show Cause), directing the Appellant to state its reasons for not complying with the requirements of the Board Rules, and its reasons for not submitting its Rule 6(a) Complaint. The Order to Show Cause directed the Appellant to file a written response to the Board within five (5) 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. On August 12, 1999, the Board received a letter from Appellant which failed to address the issues raised in the Board's Order to Show Cause. Instead, the letter addressed a subsequent decision of the Contracting Officer which terminated Program 3871-S for default. 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) failed to 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 record in this appeal amply demonstrates that the Appellant has ignored the Board's rules and directives with respect to pleadings, has failed to respond to the Board's correspondence, and has otherwise indicated an intention not to continue the orderly prosecution of its appeal. No other conclusion is warranted by its failure to file a Complaint or to provide a substantive response to the Order to Show Cause. See Printing Press, GPOBCA No. 16-98 (Mar. 29, 1999), 1999 GPOBCA LEXIS 30; Bedrock Printing Company, GPOBCA 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). In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered carefully Appellant's pro se status. See, Quincey Carpenter v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 576 (1997); and cases cited therein. However, formal legal training is not necessary for responding to simple deadlines or for otherwise prosecuting an appeal. See, Airborne Industries, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 45491 et al., 95-1 BCA � 27,496, aff'd on recon. at � 27,311. The Board has also considered its obligation to litigants to manage its docket in an efficient and expeditious manner. The record demonstrates Appellant's intent to abandon prosecution of this appeal. Appellant has not otherwise made any showing that the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, the above-captioned appeal is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. However, Appellant's August 12, 1999, letter does constitute a timely appeal of the Contracting Officer's May 5, 1999, termination of Program 3871-S for default. Accordingly, this new appeal will be docketed by the Board under a separate order. It is so Ordered. August 26, 1999 KERRY L. MILLER Administrative Judge