ASBCA 61

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) JAAAT Technical Services, LLC ) ASBCA No. 61180 ) Under Contract No. W912HN-10-D-0063 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Rickey B. Barnhill Administrator APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq. Engineer Chief Trial Attorney Laura J. Arnett, Esq. Allie E. Vandivier, Esq. Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE OSTERHOUT ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Appellant, JAAAT Technical Services, LLC (JAAAT), has timely filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's decision in JAAAT Technical Services, LLC, ASBCA No. 61180, 19-1 BCA ,J 37,297 at 181,423. 1 In ASBCA No. 61180, we denied appellant's appeal, where appellant requested $392,187.00 and 159 days of compensable time due to a dispute over whether an access control system was required in the contract or if the government requiring the system was an out of scope change to the contract. Id. at 181,424. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. STAND ARD FOR DECIDING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION In order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, JAAAT must demonstrate a compelling reason for the Board to modify its original decision. When deciding a motion for reconsideration, JAAAT must demonstrate that newly discovered evidence, mistakes in our findings of fact, or errors of law warrant us vacating the underlying decision. See Parsons Evergreene, LLC, ASBCA No. 58634, 19-1 BCA ,i 37,251 at 181,310 (citation omitted). Motions for reconsideration are not intended to provide the party with another chance to again argue its position that was previously raised and denied. Id. (citation omitted) On the other hand, if we have made mistakes in the 1 In the course of briefing the motion, the government submitted an additional sur-reply brief on July 3, 2019. The Board did not consider this brief in writing this decision. findings of fact or conclusions of law, or by failing to consider an appropriate matter, reconsideration may be appropriate. Relyant, LLC, ASBCA No. 59809, 18-1 BCA , 37,146. Here, JAAAT essentially points to the same evidence and facts as were presented when deciding this case and argues its position again. As discussed in further detail below, JAAAT did not demonstrate mistakes in our findings of fact, provide any newly discovered evidence, or point to errors of law that warrant us vacating our decision. JAAAT Failed to Demonstrate Any Mistakes In Our Findings of Fact JAAAT took issue with five findings in the Board's decision, findings 7, 15, 16, 20, and 21 (app. mot. for recon. at 1-2). In its response to the government's opposition, JAAAT further added an allegation of mistake in reference to finding 39 (app. reply at 2). All of these findings were based upon facts taken from the record. While JAAAT took issue with these six findings, it did not provide sufficient explanation as to why the findings were in error. Instead, nearly all of JAAAT's statements of mistake exceeded the scope of the finding, in an attempt to change the fact to an entirely different fact and reargue its underlying appeal. Thus, none of the facts that JAAAT raised on reconsideration as mistakes in the decision were actually mistakes in the Board's findings of fact. JAAAT Did Not Produce Any Newly Discovered Evidence In its reply to the government's response to JAAAT's motion for reconsideration, JAAAT provided four tabs of additional evidence for the Board to consider: 1) Chapter 2 Resident Management System (RMS) Manual - Office and Staff Setup; 2) Memorandum for Appointment of Administrative Contract Officer for the contract; 3) RMS Report-All Requests For Information (RFI); and 4) RMS Detail Report- Response to RFI-0097: Electronic Security System (app. reply). While many of these documents were not in the Rule 4 file, none of these documents are newly discovered evidence. They were all part of the administration of the contract and were available to appellant throughout the contract and during the course of this appeal. Appellant could have supplemented the Rule 4 file at any time with any of these documents but did not.