ASBCA 61784

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Parsons Evergreene, LLC ) ASBCA No. 58634 ) Under Contract No. FA8903-04-D-8703 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Douglas S. Oles, Esq. James F. Nagle, Esq. Adam K. Lasky, Esq. Howard W. Roth III, Esq. Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, LLP Seattle, WA APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney Lori R. Shapiro, Esq. Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CLARKE ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The Board issued its decision in this appeal on September 5, 2018. Parsons Evergreene (PE) received the decision on September 10, 2018, and timely filed its motion for reconsideration on October 10, 2018. PE requests reconsideration of the Board's decision concerning Structural Brick, Triarch and Claim Preparation/REA Modification Costs (app. mot. at 1). We will deal with each separately. We have jurisdiction pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. We deny the motion. DISCUSSION Standard/or Reconsideration Parsons Evergreene (PE) must demonstrate a compelling reason for the Board to modify its decision. JF. Taylor, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 56105, 56322, 12-2 BCA ,i 35,125. The standard we apply for reconsideration is "[t]o prevail on reconsideration, the moving party must generally establish that the underlying decision contained mistakes in our findings of facts or errors of law or that newly discovered evidence warrants vacating our decision." DODS, Inc., ASBCA No. 57667, 13 BCA ,J 35,203 at 172,711. Motions for reconsideration are not intended to provide a party with an opportunity to reargue issues previously raised and denied. Cl2, Inc., ASBCA No. 56257, 15-1 BCA ,i 35,829 at 175,194. Structural Brick Claim Contentions of the Parties PE contends that the Board made a mistake of fact and error of la,v when it failed to use Mr. Tengler's estimate of the cost PE would have avoided had it been allmved to use its single-wall structural brick design rather than the double-wall (8-inch CMU 1 block and 4-inch brick veneer). Parsons Evergeene, LLC. ASBCA No. 58634. 18-1 BCA ~ 37.137 at 180. 734. finding 6. More specifically PE writes: [TJhe Board has made a mistake in fact where it finds: .. we are unable to calculate the amount PE is entitled to .. for the added costs due to Government rejection of the "Structural Brick .. Design. Moreover. the Board has made an error of law by applying a legal standard that rejects use of an estimate in circumstances that effectively require reliance on an estimate. (App. mot. at 10) PE seeks $2,195.588 (id. at 15). In its opposition the Air Force (AF) presents a table with a side-by-side comparison of sections in PE's motion and PE's post-hearing brief (gov·t resp. at 13-14). The AF argues that this comparison proves that the structural brick argument in PE· s motion is ··an attempt to re litigate the issues already heard and decided by the Board'' (id. at 13 ). The AF also contends that PE "fails to cite any testimony or evidence that ,vas overlooked in the Board's Opinion." Additionally there was .. no legal error in denying the costs claimed by Appellant based on the Estimate:· (Id. at 15) Discussion PE's argument misses the point we clearly made in our decision. PE apparently believes the Board found entitlement for the total increased cost of having to build to the double-wall design rather than the structural-brick design. That is not what we held. We held ...The AF is responsible for the additional design and construction costs incurred to change the Baker 35% design to resist progressive collapse.'' Parsons. 18-1 BCA ~ 37.137 at 180,794. The entirety of PE's basis for reconsideration is PE's mischaracterization of the Board's structural brick decisions. The decision dealt with structural brick in two parts - design and construction. We found the AF liable for the additional costs PE incurred to design changes required to make the Baker 35% design resist progressive collapse.