CBCA 3258-R

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: June 16, 2015 CBCA 3258-R COLUMBIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Reginald M. Jones and Alexa A. Santora of Fox Rothschild LLP, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant. James F. H. Scott and Claire O’Donnell, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges STERN, POLLACK, and SHERIDAN. SHERIDAN, Board Judge. Respondent seeks reconsideration of the Board’s decision in Columbia Construction Co. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 3258, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,856. Familiarity with that decision is presumed. For the reasons below, we deny reconsideration. Background This appeal arose when the General Services Administration (GSA) required Columbia Construction Company (Columbia) to install the security system wiring in EMT conduit, instead of allowing its planned method of installation in cable trays under the raised CBCA 3258-R 2 access flooring system and above the drop ceilings. The Board concluded that, “[c]onsidering the contract as a whole, appellant’s plan to conceal the security cabling in wire trays in the raised flooring system and above the drop ceilings was reasonable. GSA unreasonably stopped appellant’s planned installation of the security cabling and now must pay the increased price for demanding that the security cabling be installed in conduit.” We granted appellant’s claim for $491,450.81. In its motion GSA argues that, in making our decision, we failed to focus on the “discordant interplay” of the language in the specification in division 01 (General Requirements), 010900.1.2.A, and the specification in division 28 (Security Systems), 281001.07.L. The language of each is: 010900.1.2.A Where there appear to be overlapping or conflicting requirements in the drawings and specifications, the order of precedence established by the clauses “Specifications and Drawings for Construction” and “Specification and Drawings” of the contract clauses shall govern.[1] . . . . 281001.07.L It shall be understood that the specifications and drawings are complementary and are to be taken together for a complete interpretation of the security systems work. Where there are conflicts between the drawings and specifications or within the specifications or drawings themselves, the items of higher standard shall govern. Discussion Board Rule 26(a) (48 CFR 6101.26(a) (2014)) provides in pertinent part: Grounds. Reconsideration may be granted, a decision or order may be altered or amended, or a new hearing may be granted, for any of the reasons stated in Rule 27(a) and the reasons established by the rules of common law or equity applicable as between private parties in the courts of the United States. 1 Division 01 (General Requirements), 010900.1.2.C provides: Except for overlapping or conflicting requirements, where more than one set of requirements are specified for a particular unit of work, option is intended to be contractor’s regardless or whether or not it is specifically indicated as such. CBCA 3258-R 3 Reconsideration or a new hearing may be granted on all or any of the issues. Arguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence are not sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration, for altering or amending a decision, or for granting a new hearing. Respondent seeks reconsideration, asserting: The January 20, 2015, decision reflects no consideration of the Security System Order of Precedence established uniquely for security systems. GSA concurs with the Board’s observation on page 12 of the January 20, 2015 decision that “[r]easonable meaning must be given to all parts of the agreement so as not to render any portion meaningless . . .