BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, DC 20401 In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) ) HOROWITZ/RAE BOOK ) Docket No. GPOBCA 14-98 MANUFACTURERS, INC. ) Jacket No. 431-619 ) Purchase Order 73791 ) DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL UNDER RULE 31 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE On March 30, 1999, pursuant to Rule 31 of the Board Rules, the Board issued a Rule to Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute (Rule to Show Cause), directing the Appellant to state its reasons for not complying with the requirements of the Board Rules, and in particular, by not responding to the Board's request of August 4, 1998, to report back to the Board with regard to its bankruptcy status and its efforts to obtain an attorney. The Rule to Show Cause directed the Appellant to submit a written response to the Board within fifteen (15) 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. The Board sent the Rule to Show Cause by certified mail to the Appellant at its address of record: Mr. John Ball President Horowitz/Rae Book Manufacturers, Inc. 300 Fairfield Road Fairfield, New Jersey 07004-1974 The U.S. Postal Service's certified mail receipt was returned to the Board showing that the Rule to Show Cause was received by the Appellant on April 6, 1999. The Appellant did not respond to the Rule to Show Cause. 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) 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 notices and 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 respond to the Rule to Show Cause. See Rosemark, GPOBCA 30-90 (April 22, 1994), slip op. at 4, 1994 WL 275076; 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). Accordingly, since the Appellant has not responded to the Rule to Show Cause and consequently has not made a showing that the appeal should not be dismissed, the appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. It is so Ordered. April 22, 1999 RONALD BERGER Ad Hoc Chairman