ASBCA 61775

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of - ) ) Raytheon Company and Raytheon Missile ) ASBCA Nos. 59435, 59436, 59437 Systems ) 59438, 60056, 60057 ) 60058, 60059, 60060 ) 60061 ) Under Contract Nos. W15P7T-07-C-P207 ) W31P4Q-07-C-0159 ) 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 Chief Trial Attorney Alexander M. Healy, Esq. Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Hanscom AFB, MA OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SCOTT ON GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) moves the Board to reconsider its February 1, 2021 post-hearing decision in Raytheon Company and Raytheon Missile Systems, ASBCA Nos. 59435, 59436, 59437, 59438, 60056, 60057, 60058, 60059, 60060, and 60061, and asks the Board to refer its motion to the Board’s Senior Deciding Group. Appellants Raytheon Company and Raytheon Missile Systems (Raytheon) oppose the motion and the request. DISCUSSION Senior Deciding Group Request Under the Board’s Rules, the Chairman may refer an appeal to the Senior Deciding Group if the appeal is of unusual difficulty, of significant precedential importance, or if the appeal has occasioned serious dispute within the normal division decision process. ASBCA Rules, Preface, Part II (c), 48 C.F.R. Chapter 2, App’x A, Part 2, Preface, Part II(c). The Chairman has determined that the decision in question does not meet any of these criteria and he declines to refer DCMA’s motion for reconsideration to the Senior Deciding Group. Motion for Reconsideration 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 ¶ 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 ¶ 36,155 at 176,445; Avant Assessment, LLC, ASBCA No. 58867, 15-1 BCA ¶ 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 ¶ 36,155 at 176,445. Supreme Foodservice, GmbH, ASBCA No. 57884 et al., 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,740 at 179,092. A motion for reconsideration is not for bolstering contentions that the Board has already rejected or for expressing disagreements with the trier of fact over the weight to be accorded evidence and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Potomac Electric Corp., ASBCA No. 61371, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,663 at 182,862. Our appellate court advises that “long-established and salutary precepts” governing motions for reconsideration include the principles that: [W]here litigants have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again . . . . Motions for reconsideration do not afford litigants the opportunity to take “a second bite at the apple” or to advance arguments that properly should have been presented in an earlier proceeding. Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). We have reviewed DCMA’s extensive motion, Raytheon’s opposition, and DCMA’s reply. Contrary to DCMA’s contention, we have not ignored its proffered 2 evidence or its arguments.