Al Barih for General Contracting Ltd.
Docket: ASBCA 57148, ASBCA 57149, ASBCA 57599
Decision date: 2014-07-07

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
Al Barih for General Contracting Ltd. ) ASBCA Nos. 57148, 57149, 57599 
) 
Under Contract No. W91GDW-07-D-2012 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Naseer A. Abdul-Ameer 
President/CEO 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
CPT Tyler L. Davidson, JA 
Trial Attorney 
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAIL URE TO PROSECUTE 
On 18 June 2014, the Board issued an Order To Show Cause why the 
above-captioned appeals should not be dismissed. We stated: 
These consolidated appeals have been on the 
Board's docket for several years. Indeed, Al Barih's 
original appeal, ASBCA 57148, was docketed in March 
2010. During this lengthy period, appellant has engaged a 
series of attorneys who later withdrew their representation. 
Al Barih's most recent representative withdrew on 
22 October 2013. On 30 January 2014, the Board's 
Recorder forwarded a letter to the parties in which he 
stated that "we have not received notice as to whether or 
not new counsel has been retained.'' He stated further: 
Since the withdrawal of counsel, several pretrial 
milestones have passed: expert reports were to be 
exchanged by 15 November 2013, all discovery 
including depositions was to be completed by 
24 January 2014, and mediation, if agreeable was to 
be done by 28 January 2013. Other milestones will 
come due in February 2014. Trial is set to begin on 
5 May 2014 for five days at the Board's offices in 
Falls Church, VA. 

The Board's Recorder ordered the parties to file a 
joint status report on or before 7 February 2014. He also 
stated: 
The report should include at a minimum, the 
progress made on the pretrial milestones and appellant 
should advise if it has new counsel or will appear prose. 
If a joint report is not possible, the Board will accept 
separate reports from the parties. 
On 31January2014, the Army's counsel forwarded 
a letter to appellant in which he recounted recent 
developments and sought Al Barih' s co-operation in 
responding to the Board's order. On 7 February 2014, the 
due date for the joint status report, Al Barih acknowledged 
receipt of the Army's letter dated 31 January 2014. It 
stated: "[W]e would like [sic] inform you that we are in 
the meantime discussing with our previous council [sic] 
(legal representative) to continue again with this case in 
new agreement between our two firms and to prepare to 
the Board all the needed requirements mentioned in your 
above letter." 
Appellant took no further action, and on 7 February 
2014, the government's counsel forwarded "a status 
report without input from the appellant." He also 
discussed 
various pretrial milestones which he had 
attempted to complete but was unable to do so because of a 
lack of co-operation from the appellant. Appellant did not 
forward any submissions; nor did new counsel enter an 
appearance for Al Barih. 
On 7 February 2014, the Army also filed a motion 
to compel discovery, noting that it had unsuccessfully 
attempted to schedule depositions as early as 23 October 
2013. 
Appellant did not respond to the government's 
motion. Accordingly, on 7 April 2014, the Board issued an 
order cancelling 
the hearing scheduled to commence on 
5 May 2014. The Board also ordered appellant to respond 
to the Army's motion to compel on or before 7 May 2014. 
The Board stated: "Any failure to comply with this order 
2 

may result in dismissal of these appeals for failure to 
prosecute." 
On 5 May 2014, appellant forwarded a letter to the 
Board in which it requested a one-month extension in 
which to respond to the government's motion to compel. It 
cited the alleged "severe financial strain on its ability to 
retain and keep counsel." Through an order issued on 
7 May 2014, the Board rejected appellant's request and 
ordered it to respond to the Army's motion on or before 
21 May 2014. The Board also stated: "Any failure on 
appellant's part to comply with this order may result in 
dismissal of these appeals for failure to prosecute." 
Appellant failed to comply with the Board's order. 
Instead on 20 May 2014, it sought a further two-week 
extension. Noting that in our order of 7 May 2014, the 
Board had clearly stated that "no further enlargements will 
be granted," the 
Army opposed appellant's request for 
additional time to respond to the government's motion to 
compel. It also cited appellant's failure either to respond 
to the government's discovery requests or to comply with 
several Board orders. 
As of this date, no new appearance has been entered 
by counsel on Al Barih's behalf. Nor has appellant 
responded to the Army's motion to compel. Accordingly, 
appellant is ordered to show cause on or before 30 June 
2014 as to why these appeals should not be dismissed with 
prejudice for failure to prosecute. 
The Board received appellant's response to our Show Cause 
Order on 
30 June 2014. Al Barih did not include any responses to the 
Army's long-standing 
discovery requests. Nor did it indicate that it had retained counsel. Instead, it stated 
that it was in financial distress; in addition, appellant wrote that it was "still exploring 
all possibilities for retaining counsel to represent us in connection with these 
appeals .... " Al Barih's response is unsatisfactory. Many contractors are represented 
pro se before this Board. They routinely respond to discovery requests and file 
briefing materials. Considering the extended period of time these appeals have been 
on the Board's docket, Al Barih's alleged financial condition does not excuse its 
failure to prosecute these appeals. See Tele-Consultants, Inc., ASBCA No. 58129, slip 
op. (9 June 2014) (Rule 30 Dismissal). 
3 

CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with prejudice under Board Rule 31 
for failure to prosecute. 
Dated: 7 July 2014 
I concur 
~LIAMS 
Administrative Judge 
Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
MICHAEL T. PAUL 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
~J#ef 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 57148, 57149, 57599, 
Appeals of Al Barih for General Contracting Ltd., rendered in conformance with the 
Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals