ASBCA 58966

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- ) ) Raytheon Company ) ASBCA No. 57743 ) Under Contract No. N00024-04-C-6 l O1 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Karen L. Manos, Esq. John W.F. Chesley, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Washington, DC APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Arthur M. Taylor, Esq. DCMA Deputy Chief Trial Attorney Stephen R. Dooley, Esq. Senior Trial Attorney Alexander M. Healy, Esq. Kathleen P. Malone, Esq. Trial Attorneys Defense Contract Management Agency Boston, MA OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SCOTT ON THE PARTIES' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION The parties have cross-moved for reconsideration of parts of the Board's decision in Raytheon Company, ASBCA No. 57743 et al., 17-1 BCA ,r 36,724 (Raytheon JI), 1 in which, as pertinent to the instant motion, we denied Raytheon's appeal from the corporate administrative contracting officer's (CACO's) assessment, and non-waiver, of penalties and interest concerning lobbying costs and we sustained Raytheon's appeal from the government's claim for what is sometimes, and herein, referred to as "level one" or "single" penalties and interest under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 42.709-l(a)(l) regarding aircraft fractional lease costs. Raytheon asks the Board to reconsider its ruling that salary costs are part of expressly unallowable lobbying costs. The government moves for reconsideration of the Board's decision that Raytheon's aircraft fractional lease costs were not expressly unallowable and subject to level one penalties and interest. The government also contends that what is sometimes, 1 In the decision the parties have asked the Board to reconsider, the Board denoted its prior decision concerning the parties' motions to strike, Raytheon Company, ASBCA No. 57743 et al., 16-1 BCA ,r 36,335, as "Raytheon 1" and herein, referred to as "level two" or "double" penalties and interest, are appropriate under FAR 42.709-l(a)(2) and other FAR and statutory provisions. Each party alleges that the Board made clear errors of law but each denies the I errors alleged by the other party and asserts that the rulings challenged by the other party were correct. 2 DISCUSSION The Board applies the following standards in deciding a motion for reconsideration: [W]e look to whether the movant has presented newly discovered evidence, mistakes in findings of fact, or errors of law. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 57530, 58161, 16-1 BCA ,r 36,554 at 178,039. A reconsideration motion is not an opportunity to reargue issues previously raised and decided, or to advance arguments that should have been presented in an earlier proceeding. Precision Standard, Inc., ASBCA No. 59116, 15-1 BCA ,r36,155 at 176,445;AvantAssessment, LLC, ASBCA No. 58867, 15-1 BCA ,r 36,137 at 176,384. A party moving for reconsideration "must show a compelling reason" why the Board should alter its decision. Precision Standard, 15-1 BCA ,r 36,155 at 176,445. Supreme Foodservice, GmbH, ASBCA No. 57884 et al., 17-1 BCA ,r 36,740 at 179,092. Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration I. The Parties' Contentions Raytheon alleges that the Board's decision in Raytheon II, that salary costs associated with unallowable lobbying are expr_essly unallowable, is irreconcilable with its prior binding decision in Raytheon Co., ASBCA No.