DISMISSED: March 20, 1997
                                                  


                                GSBCA 12945


                          H & A ENGINEERS, INC.,

                                        Appellant,

                                    v.

                     GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                        Respondent.

     David W. Mockbee and Danny A. Drake of Mockbee Hall & Drake,
Jackson, MS, counsel for Appellant.

     Nora A. Huey, Office of General Counsel, General Services
Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

                                   ORDER

     On September 10, 1993, appellant, H & A Engineers, Inc.
(H & A), was awarded a contract by respondent, the General Services
Administration (GSA), for the installation of a new energy
management system in the United States Courthouse and Customhouse
in Toledo, Ohio.  In February 1994, appellant made its submittal to
GSA which contained the description of the equipment that it was
proposing to install.  On March 17, 1994, appellant was notified by
the project architect that certain alleged deficiencies existed in
its submittal, specifically, the failure to offer to supply
"specified" brand equipment.  Appellant responded to the deficiency
letter, but its submittal was rejected on March 22, 1994.  H & A
submitted a certified claim to the contracting officer on May 3,
1994, for additional costs, costs of delays, and the increase in
time to procure the "specified" brand equipment and requested that
the contracting officer either meet with H & A to discuss and
approve its submittal or issue a final decision.  The contracting
officer responded to H & A s claim on May 18, 1994, but appellant
asserts that the letter did not advise H & A of its appeal rights
and was therefore not an appealable final decision.

     Appellant ultimately supplied the "specified" brand equipment
and on May 20, 1994, submitted a revised claim to the contracting
officer seeking an adjustment to the contract price for a
constructive change.  H & A never received a final decision from
the contracting officer or a response to its revised claim of
May 20, 1994, and filed this appeal of a deemed denial of its claim
on August 23, 1994.

     On June 6, 1996, the panel chair convened an alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) proceeding which resulted in an agreement
between the parties to settle the appeal.  On March 19, 1997, the
parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal which stated that
all issues in dispute have been fully compromised and settled
between the parties.  Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.  Rule
128(a).





                                   _________________________
                                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                   Board Judge