CBCA 7891-R

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: April 9, 2026 CBCA 7891-R KING & GEORGE, LLC, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Edward T. DeLisle and Andrés M. Vera of Thompson Hine LLP, Washington, DC, and Jamar T. King of Thompson Hine LLP, Miamisburg, OH, counsel for Appellant. Alexander C. Vincent, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BEARDSLEY (Chair), O’ROURKE, and KANG. O’ROURKE, Board Judge. Respondent seeks reconsideration of our decision in King & George, LLC v. General Services Administration, CBCA 7891, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,833, asserting that the Board’s failure to address two of respondent’s arguments constitutes clear error and was unjust. Because respondent has not stated grounds for reconsideration, we deny the motion. Background On June 5, 2025, the Board issued a decision denying the agency’s motion for summary judgment, granting appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment, and granting CBCA 7891-R 2 the appeal. We presume familiarity with the facts of that decision but summarize them here as background for deciding the instant motion. The underlying appeal involved a facilities maintenance contract which required appellant to provide janitorial services and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) maintenance for nine federal buildings in Florida. The contract contained three provisions relevant to the dispute: a deductions clause, a minimum staffing requirement, and a commercial items clause, Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items (OCT 2018), 48 CFR 52.212-4 (2020) (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.212-4). The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment asking the Board to interpret whether the deductions clause permitted the agency to reduce monthly payments based solely on staffing vacancies, regardless of the performance-based, firm-fixed-price structure of the contract and appellant’s satisfactory performance record. In our decision, the Board found that the deductions clause pertained to deficient and omitted tasks but not to vacant positions. We further noted that substandard work resulting from those vacancies could have warranted deductions being taken, but the agency did not link the vacancies to poor performance. Instead, the agency erroneously determined that staffing was the type of performance requirement for which deductions could be taken—a construction that belied the plain language of the contract’s terms. The Board further found that the termination for cause provision of the commercial items clause provides the proper remedy when a contractor fails to meet minimum staffing requirements. See FAR 52.212-4(l). Shortly after the Board issued its decision, respondent moved for reconsideration of the decision under Board Rule 26 (48 CFR 6101.26 (2024)). In its motion, respondent contends that the Board, in its decision, “did not take into account GSA’s argument that subsections (a), (g)(1), and (i) of [the commercial items clause] fully support GSA’s decision not to pay K&G for those minimum staff positions that were required to be, but were not, filled.” Motion for Reconsideration at 2. Respondent also argues that the decision failed to address respondent’s theory that “under the common law of contracts, there is no duty to pay for any part of a bargained-for performance that was not rendered.” Id. Appellant urges the Board to deny respondent’s motion since it “merely restates arguments previously considered and rejected by the Board,” which is not a proper basis for granting reconsideration. Appellant’s Response to Motion for Reconsideration at 1. For the reasons that follow, we deny the motion. CBCA 7891-R 3 Discussion I. Standard of Review “[T]here are three primary grounds that justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent injustice.” BES Design/Build, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 6453-R, et al., 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,471, at 186,998 (2023) (citing Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC, 597 F.3d 1374, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). It is well established that “[a] motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for a litigant to reargue its case.” Y2Fox, Inc. v. Department of State, CBCA 7805-R, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,647, at 187,873.