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 th at 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 B owles 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 rec eived 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 Attorneys2 By Order dated January 24, 2022, the Board again direct ed 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