_________________________________________________ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: October 15, 1992 _________________________________________________ GSBCA 11104-COM PROTECH INTERNATIONAL, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Respondent. Eugene Jackson, President, Protech International, Rochester, NY, appearing for Appellant. Jerry A. Walz and Steven Carrara, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BORWICK, DANIELS, and HYATT. HYATT, Board Judge. This appeal, filed by Protech International on February 8, 1991, seeks recovery of the sum of $ 63,975 in costs disallowed by respondent under a cost-reimbursable contract for the analysis, design, system integration, and testing of an information system for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For the reasons stated, we grant respondent's motion, filed on October 7, 1992, to dismiss for failure to prosecute. On March 25, 1992, respondent served written discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for the production of documents, on appellant. In an order dated April 28, 1992, the Board extended the time to reply to the discovery request to May 15, 1992. Appellant did not serve its responses by that date, and still had not done so by the time respondent filed its motion to compel. In several status conferences held with the parties to discuss the progress of the case, the Board indicated to appellant that its pro se status did not exempt it from discovery and that a good faith effort to respond to the Government's discovery requests was expected. To date, no effort of any kind has been made by appellant to provide any of the information sought by respondent or, alternatively, to explain why particular requests may be burdensome or unreasonable. On September 9, 1992, the Board granted respondent's motion to compel discovery. In its order, the Board directed appellant either to respond to respondent's written discovery requests or to show cause as to why its appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Appellant was to respond no later than September 21, 1992. In its motion filed on October 7, 1992, respondent states that no discovery responses have been forthcoming despite the Board's order. Nor has appellant undertaken to show cause as to why it is unable to comply with the Board's order such that its appeal should not be dismissed. Accordingly, respondent moves that the appeal now be dismissed. Decision Respondent's motion to dismiss this appeal for appellant's failure to prosecute is GRANTED. The appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Rule 28(b)(1). ___________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge We concur: ___________________________ ___________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge Board Judge