DISMISSED:  November 27, 1996
                                                      


                            GSBCA 13344, 13579 


                  UNIVERSAL WATERPROOFING SERVICE, INC.,

                                             Appellant,

                                    v.

                     GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                             Respondent.

     William N. Coggins of Coggins, Harman & Hewitt, Silver Spring,
MD, counsel for Appellant.

     Robert C. Smith, Office of General Counsel, General Services
Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

GOODMAN, Board Judge. 

                                   ORDER

     On October 29, 1993, respondent, the General Services
Administration (GSA), awarded a contract to appellant, Universal
Waterproofing Service, Inc. (Universal), for roof masonry and
sidewalk repairs at Jackson Place Complex in Washington, DC.  On
May 18, 1995, the contracting officer terminated appellant s
contract for default,alleging that appellant failed to complete the
work within the time frame specified in the contract and all time
extensions.  Appellant disputed the finding by GSA and contended
that any delays in contract completion were the fault of GSA.  It
is from that decision that Universal appealed to this Board on
July 17, 1995. 

     On March 22, 1996, the contracting officer issued another
final decision to Universal charging against its account the costs
of reprocurement to complete the project.  Universal filed an
appeal of that decision on April 12, 1996, and requested that the
two cases be consolidated.  The Board issued an order of
consolidation on April 15, 1996.

     After several months of unsuccessful attempts to settle the
dispute between themselves, the parties agreed to participate in an
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceeding conducted by the
presiding Board Judge.  The proceeding took place on April 24,
1996, in Washington, DC.  The parties were able to  settle the
dispute shortly after the ADR proceeding and advised the Board that
a motion to dismiss would be filed upon completion and execution of
a settlement agreement.  On November 21, 1996, appellant filed a
consent motion to dismiss with prejudice both appeals.  The motion 
stated that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement
and mutual release and ask for dismissal of the appeals.

     The parties  request is granted.  Pursuant to Rule 128(a), the
above-captioned consolidated appeals are DISMISSED.





                                   _________________________
                                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                   Board Judge