ASBCA 60647

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) LKJ Crabbe Inc. ) ASBCA No. 60331 ) Under Contract No. W9124E-15-D-0002 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Kevin Crabbe President APPEARNCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. Army Chief Trial Attorney Harry M. Parent III, Esq. Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On November 28, 2018, appellant timely moved for reconsideration of the Board's October 29, 2018 opinion. LKJ Crabbe Inc., ASBCA No. 60331, 18-1 BCA i1 37,193. In its motion for reconsideration, LKJ Crabbe contends that the Board erred when it concluded that the government had no obligation to notify appellant of an alleged clerical error in appellant's bid. DISCUSSION In deciding a motion for reconsideration, we examine whether the motion is based upon newly discovered evidence, mistakes in our findings of fact, or errors of law. Precision Standard, Inc., ASBCA No. 58135, 16-1 BCA ,i 36,504 at 177,860. A motion for reconsideration does not provide the moving party the opportunity to reargue its position or to advance arguments that properly should have been presented in an earlier proceeding. See Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The moving party must show a compelling reason why the Board should modify its decision. ADT Construction Group, Inc., ASBCA No. 55358, 14-1 BCA ,i 35,508 at 174,041. LKJ Crabbe argues that the contracting officer (CO) violated FAR 14.407-2 when he failed to seek verification of LKJ Crabbe's bid based on an alleged clerical error in the pricing of the bid (mot. at 3). I. Failure to Seek Bid Verification Based on Alleged Clerical Error It is unclear from appellant's motion what "clerical error" would have triggered the CO's obligation pursuant to FAR 14.407-2 to seek verification of appellant's bid pricing. In our opinion, we understood LKJ Crabbe as alleging that rounding up appellant's bid price from $0.0095 per sq. ft. to $0.01 per sq. ft. "increased appellant's total price by an additional $282,150, which would have prevented LKJ Crabbe from being the lowest bidder." 18-1 BCA ,r 37,193 at 181,068. We made this statement based on appellant's post-hearing brief, which stated that "[t]he error associated with the pricing for routine project cleaning would have added an additional $282,150.00 to the bid price by simply moving the decimal over two spots where it was intended and where the government systems can accept bid pricing" (app. post-hearing br. at 24). However, according to LKJ Crabbe, we misstated appellant's original contention regarding the alleged clerical error in appellant's bid (mot. at 2). In its motion for reconsideration, LKJ Crabbe maintains that rounding up its unit prices "would only have increased the total price by $150 per contract year." Appellant also challenges our mathematical calculations regarding the rounding up of appellant's unit prices (mot. at 3). However, other than alluding to "faulty math of the decision in paragraph two of#3 discussion point," appellant does not explain why our conclusions are factually incorrect. Confusingly, LKJ Crabbe states that "[e]ven if the rounding of the .0095 price were to be allowable it still has to be preceded by a call or some form of communication with the bidder" (mot. at 3). Instead, LKJ Crabbe argues that the CO's failure to seek verification of the bid price "kept the appellant from realizing a clerical error that would have increased its total price by $282,150 which would have caused the appellant[']s bid to be well out of contention for this award" (id.).* LKJ Crabbe does not identify the alleged clerical error that would have increased its bid price by $282,150. We conclude that appellant's main concern is the CO's failure to request price verification, not the magnitude of the alleged clerical error. II. Discussion For two reasons, we find no merit to appellant's contention that the CO possessed a duty, pursuant to FAR 14.407, to notify appellant of the alleged clerical error in its bid. First, there was no apparent error in LKJ Crabbe's bid.