ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of --
Phoenix Systems, Inc. 
Under Contract No. NOO 18-1 O-C-Z002 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 60852 
Ms. Andrea Reyes 
CEO/President 
Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 
Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
James J. Gross, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
NA VSUP FLC Norfolk 
Philadelphia, PA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE YOUNGER 
Appellant Phoenix Systems, Inc. (appellant or Phoenix) brought this appeal 
under a contract for specified administrative services by notice of appeal dated 
October 20, 2016. In its appeal, Phoenix seeks $6,116.33 for additional work under 
one contract line item, and $3,344 under another. 
By date of October 21, 2016, we issued our notice of docketing and scheduling 
under Board Rule 12.2 directing Phoenix to file its complaint by or before November 7, 
2016. Phoenix thereafter failed to do so. Following multiple attempts by the Board to 
contact Phoenix by telephone, appellant sent an email to the recorder by date of 
December 1, 2016 stating that ·'[h]ere is what we submitted as a 'complaint letter.'" 
Attached to the email was a copy of a March 29, 2016 letter to the contracting officer. 
which predated the filing of the appeal. 
By order dated December 19, 2016 the Board revoked appellant's Rule 12.2 
election. We concluded that "appellant has failed to meet the deadlines specified in 
the Board's 21 October 2016 notice of docketing and scheduling under Rule 12.2.'' 
The following day, the Navy filed a motion for summary judgment. The Board also 
cancelled a hearing set for January 12, 201 7. 
By date of May 18, 2017, we issued an order to show cause, noting that 
appellant's response to the motion for summary judgment was due to be filed and 
served on January 19, 2017. By date of May 31, 2017, Phoenix submitted a letter 
stating that it is entitled to $9,460.33 and requesting that its appeal be sustained in that 
amount. 

Phoenix has not responded, in its May 31, 2017 letter or otherwise, to the 
Navy's December 19, 2016 motion for summary judgment. In its motion, the Navy 
takes the position that Phoenix has been paid in full. Under Rule 7( d), the response to 
the motion for summary judgment was due to be filed and served on January 19, 2017. 
By date of July 18, 2018, the Board noted the above history and issued a 
supplemental order to show cause to afford Phoenix a further opportunity to show 
cause by or before August 31, 2018, why the appeal should not be dismissed. 
Board Rule 17 reads: 
Whenever the record discloses the failure of either 
party to file documents required by these Rules, respond to 
notices or correspondence from the Board, comply with 
orders of the Board, or otherwise indicates an intention not 
to continue the prosecution or defense of an appeal, the 
Board may, in the case of a default by the appellant. issue 
an order to show cause why the appeal should not be 
dismissed with prejudice with prejudice for failure to 
prosecute.... If good cause is not shown, the Board may 
take appropriate action. 
Phoenix has failed to respond to the second order to show cause. Accordingly, 
this appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. 
Dated: February 21, 2019 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
2 
Administrative Ju g 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 

I ! 
1 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60852, Appeal of Phoenix 
Systems, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
----- ------··----~--
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals