ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
ORDER OF DISMISSAL 
 
 On December 18, 2020, the Board received a notice of appeal and notice of 
appearance submitted by the law firm PilieroMazza PLLC on behalf of appellant.  On 
April 29, 2021, the Board received a separate notice of appearance from the law firm 
Bowles Rice, LLP.  PilieroMazza PLLC withdrew from the appeal on June 9, 2021, 
noting that appellant retained counsel with Bowles Rice, LLP.  On August 31, 2021, 
Bowles Rice, LLP also withdrew from the appeal, stating that it was unable to contact 
appellant’s owner for several weeks.   
 
 By Order dated September 13, 2021, the Board directed Bowles Rice, LLP to 
provide contact information for appellant’s owner.  Bowles Rice, LLP identified 
Mr. Vipul Patel as appellant’s owner and provided contact information for Mr. Patel.  
The Board also granted appellant a 60-day stay of proceedings to allow time for appellant 
to retain new counsel.  The Board received a joint status report from the government and 
Mr. Patel on November 12, 2021, requesting to extend the stay of proceedings until 
December 1, 2021.  Thereafter, on December 2, 2021, the Board received a status report 
from the government indicating that it was unable to obtain an update from Mr. Patel.   
 
 By Order dated December 6, 2021, the Board directed appellant to show that it 
was represented by a person meeting the requirements of Board Rule 15(a).  Appellant 
did not respond to that Order.  On December 28, 2021, the Board directed appellant to 
respond to the Board’s December 6, 2021 Order.  Again, appellant did not respond.  On 
January 21, 2022, the government submitted a motion to order show cause, noting 
appellant’s failure to respond to multiple Board Orders.  
 
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Pranam Global Tech, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62761 
 )  
Under Contract No. W912L7-18-C-7005 )  
   
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Vipul Patel 
    Livonia, MI 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq. 
    Army Chief Trial Attorney 
 CPT Timothy M. McLister, JA 
MAJ Weston E. Borkenhagen, JA 
    Trial Attorneys  

2 
 By Order dated January 24, 2022, the Board again directed appellant to show that 
it is represented by a person meeting the criteria of Board Rule 15(a), and informed 
appellant that if it did not comply with the Board’s Order, the Board may dismiss the 
appeal without further notice to the parties.  Appellant did not respond to the Board’s 
January 24, 2022 Order.   
 
 A representative meeting the requirements of Board Rule 15(a) did not enter a 
notice of appearance.  Without a representative meeting the requirement of Board Rule 
15(a), the Board is unable to proceed.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.   
 
 Dated:  February 24, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
 
 
 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 I concur 
 
 
 
 J. REID PROUTY 
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. 62761, Appeal of Pranam Global 
Tech, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  February 24, 2022   
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals