Pranam Global Tech, Inc.

• Court: Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
• Decided: February 24, 2022
• Docket: ASBCA No. 62761
• Status: Published

Opinion

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 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

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. 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 I concur

OWEN C. WILSON J. REID PROUTY Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Vice Chairman Armed Services Board Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 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.

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals