ABCD 
 
 
 
                                                  
 
               DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: July 8, 1992
                                                  
 
 
                              GSBCA 11550
 
 
                           THERMO-TEMP., CO.,
 
                                           Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Lee  Meinhart, president,  Thermo-Temp., Co.,  Turnersville,
   NJ, appearing for Appellant.
 
        Judith  Bonner, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services
   Administration, Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge.
 
                           ORDER OF DISMISSAL
 
        Thermo-Temp.,  Co. appealed a  decision made by  the General
   Services  Administration (GSA)  relative to  a  contract for  the
   installation of  chiller system valves  in a federal  building in
   Philadelphia.   The decision  is to remove  the valves  that were
   installed by  Thermo-Temp., charge  the contractor  for replacing
   them, and deduct  the cost of this work from the amount due under
   Thermo-Temp.'s  contract.  This action is being taken, the agency
   says, because the  valves supplied by  Thermo-Temp. were made  in
   Japan, so their use  violates the Buy American Act clause  of the
   contract.
 
        Thermo-Temp. initiated  the case  by letter  dated September
   19, 1991, which was  not received by us  until October 29,  1991.
   The  letter  was  transmitted   before  a  contracting  officer's
   decision  had  actually  issued  on  the  matter.   We  suspended
   proceedings  until the decision was made, an event which occurred
   on November 19, 1991.
 
        The parties  agreed to submit  the case for decision  on the
   basis of a record developed without a  hearing.  On July 2, 1992,
   the  day  that  briefs were  due,  respondent  informed  us, "The
   parties have agreed to immediate  dismissal of the appeal without
   prejudice  within thirty  days from  July 2, 1992."   On  July 8,
   appellant's president confirmed by  telephone that this statement
   is correct.
 
 
        The   appeal   is  now   DISMISSED   WITHOUT  PREJUDICE   to
   reinstatement.  Rule 28(a).  This dismissal shall become one with
   prejudice on Monday,  August 3, 1992, unless prior  to that date,
   either party moves for reinstatement.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge