________________________________________
 
                DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: June 27, 1996
                ________________________________________
 
 
                              GSBCA 13138
 
 
                   TLC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION,
 
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Joseph   R.  Debro,   President  of   TLC  Engineering   and
   Construction, Oakland, CA, appearing for Appellant.
 
        M.  Leah Wright, Office of General Counsel, General Services
   Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges PARKER, WILLIAMS, and GOODMAN.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On December 30, 1994, TLC Engineering and Construction (TLC)
   appealed  the final decision of a General Services Administration
   contracting officer denying TLC's claim in the amount of $110,250
   for   additional   overhead   expended   under  contract   number
   GS-09P-90NPC-0001 for asbestos abatement at  the Federal Building
   in Los Angeles, California.  
 
        Because  appellant has failed  to prosecute this  appeal, we
   dismiss the appeal with prejudice.
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
        On August 1,  1995, the Board  granted the parties'  request
   for a ninety-day  stay in these proceedings due to an appeal of a
   related case  pending in the  United States Court of  Appeals for
   the Federal Circuit.
 
        On  November 1,  1995,  respondent  filed  a  status  report
   stating that appellant  notified respondent on October  31, 1995,
   that appellant  wished to withdraw  this appeal.   After  several
   attempts  by  the  Board  to  contact  appellant  via  telephone,
   appellant informed  the Board on  November 7, 1995, and  again on
   November 27, 1995, that appellant  would file a motion to dismiss
   this  appeal.  However,  on December 7,  1995, appellant informed
   the Board via letter that it "would  like to go forward with this
   matter . . . ."
 
        On  December 15,  1995,  the  Board  convened  a  telephonic
   conference to schedule  further proceedings.  The  parties agreed
   that  no hearing  was necessary,  and  that appellant  would have
   thirty  days in which to respond to respondent's interrogatories.
   Appellant did not respond to this discovery.
 
        On  February 20, 1996, the Board granted respondent's motion
   to  compel  appellant   to  answer  respondent's  first   set  of
   interrogatories  and  request  for production  of  documents  and
   established  March 6, 1996,  as  the  due  date  for  appellant's
   response.  Again, appellant failed to respond to this discovery.
 
        On April 16, 1996, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this
   appeal for failure  to prosecute stating that  respondent had not
   received appellant's response.
 
        On  April 17,  1996, the  Board issued  an order  on further
   proceedings allowing appellant  until May 7, 1996,  to respond to
   respondent's motion to  dismiss.  The Board has  not received any
   response from appellant.
 
        On May 20,  1996, the Board ordered appellant  to show cause
   why this appeal should not  be dismissed for lack of prosecution,
   and transmitted  the order  via certified mail.   This  order was
   returned  by the  U.S. Postal  Service on  June 17,  1996, marked
   "unclaimed."
 
                               Discussion
 
        Rule 28(a) provides as follows:
 
        Generally.   A case  may be dismissed  by the  Board on
        motion of any party.  A case may also  be dismissed for
        reasons cited  by the  Board in a  show cause  order to
        which  response has  been permitted.   Every  dismissal
        shall  be with prejudice  to reinstatement of  the case
        unless a dismissal without prejudice has been requested
        by a party or specified in a show cause order.
 
   48 CFR 6101.28.
 
        Appellant has failed to comply  with the Board's orders  and
   has failed  to prosecute  this appeal.   Specifically,  appellant
   failed  to  respond to  any  written  discovery and  the  Board's
   orders.
 
 
        Appellant's  failure  to  comply  with  Board  rules  is  an
   admission  that  the  appeal  will  not  be  further  prosecuted.
   American   Machine    Company,   Inc.    v.   General    Services
   Administration,  GSBCA 12833,  slip op.  (Dec. 13,  1994);  Iowa-
   Illinois  Cleaning  Corp.  v.  General  Services  Administration,
   GSBCA 12030, 93-3  BCA    25,989; Bartron  Technologies Corp.  v.
   General  Services Administration,  GSBCA 10161, et al.,  92-3 BCA
     25,183.  Because  appellant has failed  to prosecute this  case
   and failed to show cause  why this case should not  be dismissed,
   we dismiss this case with prejudice.
 
                                Decision
 
        Appellant's appeal  is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE  for failure
   to  comply with  the Board's  rules  and the  Board's show  cause
   order.  Rule 28(a).
 
 
 
                                      ______________________________
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   ____________________________       ____________________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                        Board Judge