_________________________________________________ DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: February 8, 1993 _________________________________________________ GSBCA 12252 BARDES SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Trudy L. Bardes, President of Bardes Services, Inc., Clifton, VA, appearing for Appellant. Lydia R. Kupersmith, Office of Regional Counsel, National Capital Region, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. HENDLEY, Board Judge. ORDER On January 8, 1993, the Board docketed the appeal of Bardes Service, Inc. (BSI) from a contracting officer's final decision of October 20, 1992, regarding the appellant's wage rate claim for its work under contract number GS11P-90MJD-0044. The respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), awarded the appellant a contract to provide "preventive maintenance services at various locations within the East, South and West Districts of the Washington [DC] Metropolitan Area." In its notice of appeal, dated January 5, 1993, the appellant stated: BSI specifically appeals GSA's decision to use HVAC Mechanic as the position comparable to Licensed Engineer in comparing wage rates for the purpose of revising BSI's option Year I prices. BSI has contended that HVAC Mechanic is in no way comparable to a Licensed Engineer and GSA's misapplication of this wage rate has unfairly resulted in a 17.6% reduction in BSI's option Year I prices. On February 8, before the complaint, answer, and Rule 4 appeal file were due to be filed with the Board, we received appellant's letter of withdrawal of its appeal, which states: Bardes Services, Inc. (B.S.I.) hereby withdraws, without prejudice, its appeal of a final decision rendered by Mr. Joseph O'Hern, GSA Contracting Officer. . . . Our appeal is withdrawn, without prejudice, pending a conformance action determination from the Department of Labor [DOL]. It is our understanding that B.S.I. may reinstate our appeal within three (3) years if either the conformance action determination from D.O.L. is not favorable or if GSA fails to adhere to the determination set forth by the D.O.L. On February 8, the respondent orally informed the Board that it concurs in the appellant's withdrawal of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Rule 28(a). ___________________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge