ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of--
Pinnacle Construction & Supply Company 
Under Contract No. H92237-12-M-0160 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
) 
) 
) ASBCA No. 61173 
) 
) 
Mr. Ali Behroz Aziz 
President 
Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 
Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 
Lt Col Kevin P. Stiens, USAF 
Trial Attorney 
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 
On 19 May 2017, Pinnacle Construction & Supply Company (Pinnacle or 
appellant) filed a notice of appeal. On 30 June 2017, appellant filed its complaint 
pursuant to Board Rule 6(a) after being informed that its submission was overdue. 
In August and September 2017, the Board held teleconferences to discuss the 
government's proposed protective order. The Board attempted unsuccessfully to reach 
appellant's prose representative, Mr. Ali Behroz Aziz, prior to both calls. 
Following the first teleconference, the Board issued a memorandum of 
teleconference, giving Mr. Aziz until 23 August 2017 to notify the Board of any 
objections to the proposed protective order and stating that we would convene a second 
conference call to discuss any objections. On 12 August 2017, Mr. Aziz responded via 
email, stating that he was "totally dissatisfied with the board decision and it's one sided 
and based on flimsy excuses." He further stated that he is "now ready for a telephone 
conference to take place at any date." 
On 18 September 2017, the Board held a second teleconference to address the 
pending motion for protective order, but again was unable to reach Mr. Aziz. On 
20 September 2017, we granted the government's motion for entry of a protective order, 
and on 22 September 2017, the government filed its Rule 4 file. 
On 6 October 2017, the government filed a motion for summary judgment. 
Pursuant to Board Rule 7(d), appellant's response was due on 6 November 2017. 

On 16 November 2017, the Board issued an order directing appellant to respond to 
the government's motion by no later than 6 December 2017. In our order, we warned 
that granting the government's motion would result in a denial of the appeal. We further 
stated that, if appellant did not respond by the 6 December 2017 deadline, we would rule 
upon the government's motion as submitted. Appellant did not respond. 
On 13 March 2018, the government filed a motion for show cause order, asking 
the Board to issue an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for 
failure to prosecute. 
On 14 March 2018, the Board issued an order to show cause why the appeal 
should not be dismissed. In our order, we gave Pinnacle until 13 April 2018 to either 
submit its brief responding to the government's motion for summary judgment or request 
an extension of time to submit it's brief. We further stated that if we receive no response 
by 13 April 2018, "we may dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute without providing 
any further notice to Pinnacle." 
The 13 April 2018 deadline has come and gone with no response, whatsoever, 
from appellant. Thus, in accordance with Board Rule 17, this appeal is dismissed with 
prejudice for failure to prosecute. 
Dated: 9 May 2018 
I concur 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
2 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 
Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61173, Appeal of Pinnacle 
Construction & Supply Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals