DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: March 30, 1993 GSBCA 12123 PACO CONTRACTORS, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Patricia A. Michel, Partner, Paco Contractors, Pikesville, MD, appearing for Appellant. Kenneth E. Kendell, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and NEILL. NEILL, Board Judge. Paco Contractors (Paco) was the awardee of General Services Administration (GSA) contract GS-03P-91-DXC-0008 for construction of the Internal Revenue Service Physical Fitness Center at the George H. Fallon Federal Building in Baltimore, Maryland. Paco submitted a "delay" claim on June 18, 1992, for $28,588.56. The claim was denied by a GSA contracting officer. Additionally, liquidated damages were assessed against Paco by GSA, in the amount of $55 for each day Paco failed to complete the required work after the contract's completion date. Paco contested both the denial of its delay claim and the assessment of liquidated damages. A final decision was issued on August 13, confirming the Government's actions. Paco has appealed this decision. On October 13, 1992, the Board docketed this appeal. The Board subsequently issued an order on further proceedings establishing December 14 as the due date for appellant to submit a complaint or to designate documents to serve as a complaint. Appellant failed to meet this deadline. On January 13, 1993, respondent filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to file a complaint. On January 25, the Board issued an order to show cause why a complaint had not been filed. The Board ordered appellant to respond to the show cause order within thirty days of receipt. This order was served via certified mail, and on February 9, the Board received return receipt number 493472 indicating that service of the show cause order had been made on February 1, as acknowledged by an agent of appellant. Appellant failed to respond to the Board's order. Notwithstanding appellant's failure to respond in writing to the Board's orders, appellant's representative did advise a member of the Board's administrative staff that she was seriously ill and unable for this reason to respond formally. On March 11, the Board convened a conference of the parties. At that time, the Board, after discussing the case and of appellant's representative state of health, nevertheless concluded that the motion to dismiss was justified. However, in view of the physical condition of appellant's representative, the Board noted that any dismissal of the case would be without prejudice to its reinstatement during the next six months, in the event the representative recovers sufficiently or elects to retain counsel. Only after the expiration of that period will the dismissal be deemed to be with prejudice. Appellant posed no objection to this course of action. DECISION Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal without prejudice. The dismissal shall become one with prejudice six months from the date of this decision, unless one of the parties prior to the expiration of that period, i.e., on or before September 30, 1993, moves for the reinstatement of this appeal. _______________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge We concur: ______________________ ________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge Board Judge