_______________________________________________
 
             DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  September 20, 1993
            _______________________________________________
 
 
 
                              GSBCA 12480
 
 
                     DAWSON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
 
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Patrick A. Thompson of Smith, Currie & Hancock, Atlanta, GA,
   counsel for Appellant.
 
        Gerald  L.  Schrader,  Office  of  General Counsel,  General
   Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DEVINE, HYATT, and DeGRAFF.
 
   HYATT, Board Judge.
 
        This appeal is  of a contracting officer's  decision denying
   appellant's claim for  an equitable adjustment under  the Changes
   clause of a contract for construction work in the U.S. Courthouse
   in  Denver, Colorado.   The  contract giving  rise to  the claim,
   GS-07P-91-JXC-0117,  has not  yet been completed,  and additional
   claims are expected  to be asserted by appellant.   Completion of
   contract work  is not expected  to take place until  some time in
   the early spring of  1994.  Both  parties would like to  postpone
   the pursuit  of this appeal until  such time as  the contract has
   been completed and Dawson's claims  can be considered as a whole.
 
 
        The parties differ, however, in their proposed approaches to
   this objective.   Respondent  has filed a  motion to  dismiss the
   appeal without prejudice.  The basis for this request is that the
   contracting  officer has  formally rescinded  his  decision in  a
   letter explaining  that the merits of Dawson's  claim should more
   properly be  considered upon  contract completion  when the  full
   effect of alleged delays can be ascertained.[foot #] 1
 
 
        Appellant  opposes respondent's  motion, expressing  concern
   that its rights  may nonetheless be affected by  dismissal of the
   appeal  at this  time.   Appellant  would prefer  that the  Board
   suspend  the appeal  until such  time  as the  contract has  been
   completed and all claims arising out of it have been presented to
   the contracting officer for decision.[foot #] 2
 
        After  considering the stated  concerns of the  parties, and
   the  Board's  interest  in judicial  efficiency  and  economy, we
   conclude that it  is appropriate to follow the  approach taken in
   PRC, Inc. v.  Department of Commerce,  GSBCA 11979-COM (Sept.  1,
   1993), and dismiss  this action with prejudice.   We believe that
   neither  respondent nor appellant will suffer any disadvantage as
   a consequence of  this action.  Respondent's  contracting officer
   has pledged  in writing that he will reconsider appellant's claim
   in light of more complete and accurate information expected to be
   available  after  contract  completion  and  will  issue  another
   decision at that time.  When the contracting officer issues a new
   decision, and if appellant does  not agree with the new decision,
   appellant  may  appeal  from  the  new  decision.    Under  these
   circumstances, we  believe it  is proper  to dismiss  this appeal
   with prejudice.
 
                                Decision
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1    Respondent urges  that the  rescission of  the
   contracting  officer's decision  which  prompted Dawson's  appeal
   avoids any concerns that might properly be raised by appellant in
   light of the  decision in Inslaw, Inc., DOT BCA 1609 et al., 92-1
                             ____________
   BCA    24,550  (1991).    In  that  decision, the  Department  of
   Transportation Board observed, in dicta, that a dismissal without
   prejudice  might  have  the  effect  of  forever  terminating  an
   appellant's right  to litigate at  the board once the  ninety day
   appeal period  established under  the Contract  Disputes Act  had
   passed.  92-1 BCA at 122,501-02.
 
        [foot #] 2    On  September 9,  1993, the  Board  convened a
   telephonic conference of  the parties in an  attempt to reconcile
   their positions.   The Board  informed counsel that in  a similar
   matter,  the parties  were  willing  to  dismiss an  appeal  with
   prejudice as  a result of the contracting officer's withdrawal of
   his decision.  This was because the appellant would still be able
   to appeal any subsequent contracting officer's decision involving
   its claim.  PRC, Inc.  v. Department of Commerce, GSBCA 11979-COM
               ____________________________________
   (Sept. 1, 1993).  Counsel  for appellant indicated that, while he
   understands the  Board's position,  he still  could not agree  to
   dismissal, either with or without  prejudice.  He added, however,
   that  he would appreciate  inclusion of language  recognizing the
   right to appeal  a new  decision, similar  to that  used in  PRC,
                                                                ____
   Inc., should the Board elect to adopt this approach here.
   ____
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        Accordingly,  this appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  Rule
   28(b).  This  dismissal does not operate as  an adjudication upon
   the merits of the underlying claim, however.  
 
                                      ___________________________
                                      CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   __________________________         ___________________________
   DONALD W. DEVINE                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
   Board Judge                        Board Judge