DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  November 1, 1995
                                                           
 
 
                              GSBCA 13217
 
 
                            RAJEN CHOVATIA,
                       
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Rajen Chovatia, pro se, Union City, CA.
 
        Thomas Hawkins, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services
   Administration, San Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge. 
 
                                ORDER
 
        On October 29, 1994, appellant, Rajen Chovatia, entered into
   contract  number GS-09F-95FBE-1213  with respondent,  the General
   Services  Administration, for  the purchase  of  a 1986  Plymouth
   Reliant at a contract price of  $1,600.  On October 31, appellant
   filed a claim with the  contracting officer alleging that the car
   contained many defects  and requested  that he  be authorized  to
   return the vehicle to respondent.  A modification to the contract
   was issued  on  November 30,  1994,  giving appellant  a  partial
   refund  of $100  due  to  a typographical  error  in the  vehicle
   description.  On December 14, 1994, appellant filed another claim
   with the contracting officer again  alleging many defects in  the
   vehicle and requesting that he either be authorized to return the
   vehicle or  be provided with  a refund, including  purchase price
   and repair costs.   On March 9, 1995,  appellant filed an  appeal
   with this Board for failure  of the contracting officer to render
   a timely decision on his claim.
 
        On  March 16, 1995, the  Board suspended proceedings in this
   appeal  and directed  the contracting  officer to  issue a  final
   decision  on  appellant's  claim.   The  Board  was  advised that
   appellant's claim was denied by the contracting officer on  March
   3, 1995.  On March 18, appellant notified the Board of its intent
   to  appeal  the  contracting officer's  decision,  and  the Board
   established a schedule for the  normal processing of appeals.  On
   June  28, 1995,  during a  conference  call with  the Board,  the
   parties  expressed a desire to enter into settlement discussions.
   The Board therefore  suspended proceedings for  thirty days.   On
   August  2,  the  Board  granted  an  extension  of  the  stay  of
   proceedings up to and including  September 15, 1995.  Counsel for
   respondent then advised the Board that a settlement agreement and
   motion to dismiss had  been telecopied to appellant on  September
   26, 1995.  
 
 
        On  October 30,  the Board  contacted  appellant to  inquire
   about the status of the settlement agreement.  Appellant informed
   the Board that he was not  sure when the settlement agreement was
   going to be  finalized, but that he did not oppose a dismissal of
   the appeal without prejudice.  Respondent's counsel also does not
   oppose a dismissal  without prejudice.  Accordingly,  this appeal
   is DISMISSED  WITHOUT PREJUDICE, to become one with prejudice 120
   days from  the date of this  order unless either party  moves for
   reinstatement  prior to  the expiration  of  the 120-day  period.
   Rule 28(b).
 
                                           ____________________
                                           ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                           Board Judge