CBCA 4012-R

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: October 21, 2016 CBCA 4012-R, 4013-R, 5083-R UNIVERSAL HOME HEALTH AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Anthony R. Smith, President of Universal Home Health and Industrial Supplies, Inc., Tampa, FL, appearing for Appellant. David G. Fagan, Office of Regional Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Portland, OR, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges GOODMAN, WALTERS, and SULLIVAN. SULLIVAN, Board Judge. In Universal Home Health & Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 4012, et al., 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,370, we decided the appeals filed by appellant, Universal Home Health and Industrial Supplies, Inc. (Universal), following the termination for default and subsequent conversion to termination for convenience of two task orders to provide cardiac monitoring services for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). We dismissed the appeals of the terminations for default (CBCA 4012 and 4013) as moot. Upon finding no evidence of bad faith or an abuse of discretion on the part of agency officials in the decision to terminate the task orders for convenience, we denied Universal’s appeal of the terminations for convenience (CBCA 5083). Familiarity with that decision is presumed. CBCA 4012-R, 4013-R, 5083-R 2 Universal seeks reconsideration of the Board’s decision, based upon twenty alleged “mistakes in critical evidence,” evidence that Universal believes the Board failed to consider or consider fully in rendering its original decision. Universal also describes how these alleged mistakes affected the Board’s decision and, once corrected, how the Board may “amend its decision and grant damages and any and all recoverable costs” to Universal. After careful review of the points raised by Universal in its motion, the Board sees no new evidence and discerns no errors in its original opinion. Universal’s request for reconsideration is denied. Rules 26 and 27 of the Board’s rules set forth the standards by which a motion for reconsideration will be evaluated: [R]econsideration may be granted for any of the following reasons: newly discovered evidence which could not have been earlier discovered, even through due diligence; justifiable or excusable mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect; fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; the decision has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior decision upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, and it is no longer equitable that the decision should have prospective application; the decision is void, whether for lack of jurisdiction or otherwise; or any other ground justifying reconsideration, including a reason establish by the rules of common law or equity applicable as between private parties in the courts of the United States. Oregon Woods, Inc. v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 1072-R, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,063, at 168,431-32, aff’d sub nom. Oregon Woods, Inc. v. Salazar, 355 F. App’x 403 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Reconsideration is not a vehicle for retrying a case or introducing arguments that could have been made previously. See Ryll International, LLC v. Department of Transportation, CBCA 1143-R, 12-1 BCA ¶ 35,029, at 172,144. “Arguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence are not sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration.” Rule 26 (48 CFR 6101.26 (2015)). In its motion, Universal largely presents arguments already made or seeks reinterpretation of the evidence already presented to the Board. For example, Universal challenges the Board’s characterization of an internal email message sent by the contracting specialist before he contacted Universal about the reports of potential service interruptions. Universal notes that the contracting specialist used the phrase “upon termination,” and argues that this phrase is evidence that the agency had already decided to terminate Universal and issue a contract to its subcontractor, MedNet. As detailed in the Board’s decision, the Board fully considered this email message as part of all the CBCA 4012-R, 4013-R, 5083-R 3 evidence of the conduct and communications between the parties and found no evidence that the agency’s termination of Universal was undertaken in bad faith. In its review of Universal’s motion, the Board finds that points numbered 1, 3-7, and 9 all seek reinterpretation of evidence the Board has already considered.