DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  March 31, 1994
                                                            
 
                              GSBCA 12656
 
 
                     SPECTRUM LEASING CORPORATION,
 
                                                     Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                     Respondent.
 
        William  M. Weisberg  and William  Thomas  Welch of  Barton,
   Mountain & Tolle, McLean, VA, counsel for Appellant.
 
        John E.  Cornell and  Michael  D. Tully,  Office of  General
   Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel
   for Respondent.
    
   NEILL, Board Judge. 
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On October 25, 1993, Spectrum Leasing Corporation (Spectrum)
   appealed  the  contracting  officer's  final  decision  demanding
   payment of $40,144.78  for liquidated damages under  contract no.
   GS-00K-84015-5641.  
 
        On November 29, 1993, the  Board issued an order for further
   proceedings requiring  appellant to  file a  formal complaint  or
   designate  documents  to serve  as  a  complaint,  on  or  before
   December  30, 1993.    On  December 29,  however,  the Board  was
   advised by counsel for Spectrum that he was withdrawing from this
   case.  On January  11, 1994, the  Board issued an order  advising
   appellant that its complaint was past due, and set a new due date
   of January 21, 1994, for filing the complaint.
 
        On  February  8,  1994,  the  Board  issued  a second  order
   advising  appellant that its complaint, due January 21, was again
   overdue.   Appellant was  directed to  file its complaint  within
   thirty days of the date of the  Board's order of February 8.  The
   Board also advised appellant that  failure to file its  complaint
   by this date  could result in  the dismissal  of this appeal  for
   failure to prosecute.
 
        On March 15, 1994, respondent  filed a motion to dismiss due
   to appellant's failure to prosecute, failure to comply with Board
   Rules and failure to obey the Board's orders and directives.
 
        On March 25, 1994, respondent, noting appellant's continuing
   failure to  proceed with  this appeal, filed  a second  motion to
   dismiss.
 
        On  March 28,  1994,  new counsel  for  appellant entered  a
   limited  appearance  for  purposes of  informing  the  Board that
   appellant no longer  wished to pursue  this appeal and  requested
   that the Board dismiss it with prejudice.
 
        Accordingly,  pursuant  to   Rule  28(a),  this  appeal   is
   DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
   __________________________
 
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge