DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE:  January 22, 2009 
CBCA 1322 
CORNERS AND EDGES, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 
Respondent. 
John E. Larson, Secretary of Corners and Edges, Inc., Hamilton, MT, appearing for 
Appellant. 
Daniel J. Barry and Mogbeyi E. Omatete, Office of General Counsel, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges BORWICK, SHERIDAN , and KULLBERG. 
BORWICK, Board Judge. 
Appellant refuses to prosecute this appeal until the Board provides it with a no-cost 
or nominal-cost copy of the hearing transcript of two consolidated earlier appeals--related 
to this appeal--that were decided adversely to appellant. The Board has refused to provide 
appellant with a copy of the transcript, since it is appellant’s responsibility under the Board’s 
Rules of Procedure to pay for its own copy of the transcript.  The General Services 
Administration (GSA)--the executive branch administrative agency in which the Board is 
located--has also denied appellant’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for a copy 

   
     
 
 
 
 
     
  
   
 
 
  
 
 
   
2 CBCA 1322 
of the transcript.  In view of appellant’s refusal to prosecute this appeal unless the Board 
accedes to appellant’s demand for the transcript, we consider, sua sponte , whether we should 
dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute.  In these unusual circumstances we conclude that 
dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted.  
Background 
This appeal, docketed on August 26, 2008, involves a claim for damages of 
$3,551,770, plus interest, arising from alleged increased risk of bodily injury and the loss of 
appellant’s patents due to the contracting officer’s alleged breach of a courier contract 
entered into by appellant and respondent, the Department of Health and Human Services. 
Notice of Appeal. 
1 The appeal resulted from the contracting officer’s decision of May 28, 
2008, denying appellant’s claim of April 2, 2008.  The presiding judge’s docketing order 
required appellant to submit a complaint no later than September 26, 2008.  
On September 23, 2008, the Board issued its decision in Corners and Edges, Inc. v. 
Department of Health and Human Services , CBCA 693, et al., 08-2 BCA ¶ 33,961.  The 
claims in those appeals presented the same issues as the claim in this appeal, all involving 
a courier contract.  In the two decided appeals, as well as this one, appellant claimed that 
respondent wrongfully reduced the number of courier work hours in a bi-lateral modification, 
breached the contract by restricting the van use of appellant’s Secretary, Mr. John Larson, 
and wrongfully terminated the contract for convenience.  After conducting a three-day 
hearing, we concluded that respondent did not breach the contract and that appellant was not 
entitled to recover any damages, including damages for alleged risk of bodily injury or the 
alleged loss of patents, the latter of which appellant had included at the last moment in its 
brief.  Corners and Edges , 08-2 BCA at 168,020.  
1 Appellant alleges that the breach deprived appellant of sufficient funds to enable 
appellant to pay fees to domestic and foreign patent offices that were necessary to maintain 
the patents.  

   
       
  
 
 
     
     
 
     
    
     
     
3 CBCA 1322 
After the Board issued its decision in Corners and Edges , on October 3, 2008, 
appellant asked the presiding judge’s senior legal staff assistant to provide appellant with a 
copy of the transcript in the those appeals. On October 6, 2008, appellant requested a one-
month extension to submit its complaint in order to obtain a transcript of the hearing in those 
appeals.  The Board granted the extension.  
Appellant’s request for the transcript was referred to board counsel. The deputy chief 
counsel denied appellant’s request on November 5, 2008.  She stated that Board Rule 22 
provides that each party is responsible for paying for the cost of its transcript if one is 
prepared.  In this way, she stated, court reporting companies are able to charge fair and 
reasonable rates, anticipating recovery of their costs by direct sale of their work product to 
all of the parties.  A later FOIA request was also denied by GSA.  
On November 5, 2008, with appellant not having filed a complaint in this matter, the 
Board issued an order requesting appellant to either file a complaint or to state whether it was 
proceeding with the appeal.  
On November 19, 2008, appellant responded, stating: 
Appellant is not continuing, in the venue of the Civilian Board of Contract 
Appeals, the prosecution of any claims docketed under CBCA 1332, [until] it 
has received, and has had [thirty] days to review the complete May 5-8, 2008 
Hearing Transcript of CBCA Cases 693 and 762, then at which time appellant 
will file a complaint.  Appellant’s review of this transcript is as crucial to the 
outcome of CBCA 1322 as it was for CBCA 693 and 762.  
Appellant’s Response to Board Order.  
On November 21, 2008, the Board issued an order for appellant to show cause by 
December 1, 2008, why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.  As of 
the date of this opinion, appellant has neither responded to the show cause order nor 
submitted a complaint in this case.  

 
  
 
      
 
     
  
 
     
  
   
     
  
 
   
     
4 CBCA 1322 
Discussion 
It is apparent that appellant has no intention of proceeding with this case unless the 
Board either changes its established policy regarding payment for transcripts, or makes a 
special exception for appellant, actions which the Board has repeatedly advised appellant it 
will not take.  Board Rule 22 puts potential litigants at the Board on explicit notice that each 
party is responsible for purchasing its copy of the transcript. 
Appellant questions the legitimacy of Rule 22. Appellant asks: “Did Congress really 
grant to the [Board] the power to contract out for the exclusive holding and sale of public 
documents to a single private enterprise...?”  Appellant’s Response.  
Board Rule 22 has the force of law.  The Board’s Rules of Procedure are part of the 
regulatory scheme for handling Contract Disputes Act (CDA) appeals.
2   They are published 
at 73 Fed. Reg. 26947-52 (May 12, 2008) (referencing 72 Fed. Reg. 36,794-819 July 5, 
2007)(to be codified at 48 CFR Part 6101)).  Regulations have the force and effect of law 
when they are substantive rules affecting the rights and obligations of parties and are 
authorized by statute.  Chrysler Corp. v. Brown , 441 U.S. 281, 301-02 (1979).  Although part 
of a set of rules of procedure, Board Rule 22 affects individuals’ rights and obligations as it 
requires each litigant to pay for its copy of the transcript.  The Board’s rules are also 
authorized by statute. 41 U.S.C. § 608 (referencing the “rules of each agency board”).
3 
It has now been over one month since the Board issued its show cause order, with 
appellant failing to respond or to comply with earlier Board orders requiring the filing of a 
complaint.  We can only take appellant’s contumacy and resulting inaction in complying with 
2 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 (2000).  
3  Appellant contrasts Board Rule 22 with Armed Services Board Rule 24, which 
unlike Board Rule 22, provides that an ordinary copy of a transcript shall be supplied to the 
appellant at an amount no greater than the cost of duplication.  This difference simply reflects 
the exercise of reasonable and allowable regulatory policy choices in filling in a gap when 
the authorizing statute is otherwise silent.  See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources 
Defense Council , 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984).  

   
   
_____________________________ 
_______________________________ _____________________________ 
5 CBCA 1322 
previous orders as an abandonment of this litigation.  Sykes Communications, Inc ., ASBCA 
54641, 06-1 BCA ¶ 33,188; Todd M. Hueckman, AGBCA 2000-128-1, 01-1 BCA ¶ 31,238 
(2000).  The Board will not permit litigants to dictate to the Board the terms under which 
they will proceed with the litigation.  
Decision 
This appeal is DISMISSED  for failure to prosecute.  
ANTHONY S. BORWICK 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN H. CHUCK KULLBERG 
Board Judge Board Judge