ASBCA 6

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of - ) ) Sayar Development Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 63871, 63894 ) 64191, 64227 ) Under Contract No. W90U42-11-P-2062 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Shamsullah Sayar President APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Dana J. Chase, Esq. Army Chief Trial Attorney CPT Sana H. Daniell, JA Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE D’ALESSANDRIS ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Pending before the Board is the motion for reconsideration filed by appellant, Sayar Development, Inc. (SDI). As detailed in our August 6, 2025 decision, the Army entered into two contracts with SDI, one in 2010 referred to as the D-2006 contract, and a second in 2011 referred to as the P-2062 contract. The D-2006 contract was an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for material handling equipment (MHE). We granted the government’s motion to dismiss with regard to ASBCA No. 63894, appellant’s claim that the government failed to order the minimum quantities on the D-2006 contract because SDI did not first submit a claim to the contracting officer (CO). We denied the government’s motion to dismiss, and in the alternative for summary judgment with regard to ASBCA No. 63871, appellant’s claim alleging unpaid amounts on the P-2062 contract. We also granted the government’s motion to dismiss with regard to ASBCA No. 64191 alleging Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPAR) violations, misconduct, immigration and civil rights violations with regard to the P-2062 contract, again for failure to submit a claim to the CO. Additionally, we held that we lacked jurisdiction to entertain SDI’s challenge to the termination for default of the P-2062 contract (ASBCA No. 64227). SDI timely filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking to relitigate a host of issues already decided, as well as raising new and irrelevant claims, many of which are beyond the limited jurisdiction of this Board. We grant SDI’s motion for reconsideration with regard to the D-2006 contract (ASBCA No. 63894), and dismiss on the alternative ground that SDI’s claim was over $100,000 and was not certified.  DECISION A motion for reconsideration is not the place to present arguments previously made and rejected. “[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.” Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Official Comm. of the Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir. 2003)). Moreover, “[m]otions 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, 741 F.3d at 1378; see also Avant Assessment, LLC, ASBCA No. 58867, 15-1 BCA ¶ 36,137 at 176,384. On the other hand, if we have made mistakes in the findings of fact or conclusions of law, or by failing to consider an appropriate matter, reconsideration may be appropriate. See Robinson Quality Constructors, ASBCA No. 55784, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,171 at 168,911; L&C Europa Contracting Co., ASBCA No. 52617, 04-2 BCA ¶ 32,708. The Board summarized the standard for reconsideration stating “[i]n short, if we have made a genuine oversight that affects the outcome of the appeal, we will remedy it.” Relyant, LLC, ASBCA No. 59809, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,146 at 180,841. SDI filed a 215 page motion for reconsideration, a 53 page reply brief and a host of additional, cumulative, irrelevant, and frivolous filings. These filings, all submitted after the Board’s August 6, 2025 decision, include inter alia, Sayer’s “Formal Rejection and Return” of the Board’s August 6, 2025 decision (dkt. 129); “Motion to Challenge False Statement and Judicial Misconduct” (dkt. 132); “Motion to Challenge 2nd False Statement and Judicial Misconduct” (dkt. 133); “Motion to Challenge 3rd False Statement . . . and Motion for Judge Disqualification” (dkt. 134); “Litigation Hold and Spoliation Warning” (dkt. 138); “Challenge to the Authenticity of Judge D’ALESSANDRIS’ Decision as Contrary to the Record” and “Wrongdoing: Judge’s Bad Faith and Specific Intent to Injure SDI by Judge D’ALESSANDRIS” (dkt. 142); “Complaint to the U.S.