Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405


             ________________________________________

             DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: April 12, 2005
             ________________________________________


                         GSBCA 16529-NARA


               GRUNLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
                                 
                                         Appellant,

                                v.

          NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,

                                         Respondent.

    Terry L. Salazar of Quilling, Selander, Cummiskey, & Lownds, Dallas, TX, counsel
for Appellant.

    Stephani L. Abramson, Office of the General Counsel, National Archives and Records
Administration, College Park, MD, counsel for Respondent.

NEILL, Board Judge.

                              ORDER

    This case concerns a dispute between the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) and Grunley Construction Company, Inc. (Grunley).  Grunley is the
prime contractor for construction of the National Archives Renovation Project pursuant to
contract no. NAMA-00-SEM-0012.  The parties were in dispute regarding the contracting
officer's unilateral determination on nine pending changes relating to work performed by
Grunley's structural steel subcontractor, Hirschfeld Steel Company, Inc.  



    By letter dated November 29, 2004, counsel for Grunley advised the Board that all
outstanding matters in this case had been settled.  Counsel moved, therefore, that this case
be dismissed.  Because the contract modification embodying the settlement had not been
finally executed, counsel asked that the appeal be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
Board Rule 128(b) (48 CFR 6101.28(b) (2003)).  Counsel for respondent had no objection
to the motion.  Nevertheless, the Board, after conferring with counsel for the parties, deemed
it best to stay proceedings until the terms of the settlement had been fully effectuated and
payment actually made.    

    The Board is now in receipt of a joint motion to dismiss this case with prejudice. 
Counsel advise that the amount agreed to in reaching a settlement of all disputed matters has
been paid by NARA to appellant.      

    Accordingly, pursuant to Board Rule 128(a), this case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
                                 
    
                                 __________________________
                                 EDWIN B. NEILL
                                 Board Judge