ASBCA 61215

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) The Boeing Company ) ASBCA Nos. 58030, 58593, 58594 ) 58660, 59212,59220 ) 59813,60376,60403 ) 60411,60522,60736 ) Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 et al. ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Seth H. Locke, Esq. Perkins Coie Washington, DC APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Arthur M. Taylor, Esq. DCMA Deputy Chief Trial Attorney Lawrence S. Rabyne, Esq. Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Arlington Heights, IL Robert L. Duecaster, Esq. Kara M. Klaas, Esq. Trial Attorneys Defense Contract Management Agency Chantilly, VA OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE NEWSOM ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Boeing seeks reconsideration ofthe Board's May 23, 2018 decision denying its motion to suspend these 12 Boeing appeals, or in the alternative to dismiss them without prejudice. 1 The Boeing Company, ASBCA No. 58030 et al., 18-1 BCA ,i 37,067. The motion for reconsideration is denied. Boeing also requests that the Board's Senior Deciding Group consider its motion for reconsideration. Under the Board's rules, the Chairman may refer an appeal to the Senior Deciding Group if the appeal is of unusual difficulty, of I 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. The Chairman has reviewed Boeing's motion and, 1 The government declined to respond to either motion (gov't ltr. dtd. July 9, 2018). as the decision does not meet the aforementioned criteria, declines to refer the matter to the Senior Deciding Group. Reconsideration might be appropriate if the request "is based upon newly discovered evidence, mistakes in the findings of fact, or errors of law." Green Valley Co., ASBCA No. 61275, 18-1 BCA ,r 37,044; Alliance Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc., ASBCA No. 59663, 15-1 BCA ,r 36,063. Reconsideration is not intended to "provide a party with the opportunity to reargue its position." Robinson Quality Constructors, ASBCA No. 55784, 09-2 BCA ,I 34,171 at 168,911. Boeing principally contends that the Board imposed an improper, "heightened" legal standard that Boeing asserts is applicable only to "contested" motions for suspension or dismissal under Board Rule 18, rather than what Boeing assumes is a more-relaxed legal standard applicable to uncontested motions (app. mot. at 3). Boeing is incorrect. Rule 18, by its plain terms, does not create different legal standards depending upon whether a motion is, or is not, contested. The Rule allows the Board to grant a stay or dismissal without prejudice on a showing of "good cause." The Rule contains no different standard for uncontested motions. We applied exactly that "good cause" standard in rejecting Boeing's motion. See Boeing, 18-1 BCA ,r 37,067 at 180,426-28. Board case law also does not create a different standard for contested motions. Rather, we make case-by-case judgments as to whether good cause exists, based upon many factors. Public Warehousing Company, ASBCA No. 56116, 08-1 BCA ,r 33,787 at 167,227-29; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 56358, 11-1 BCA ,r 34,614 at 170,603-05. The relative weight ascribed to these factors varies from case to case, but the standard for evaluating the stay request- good cause - remains the same. The Board in its discretion typically considers the impact on the non-moving party, but we are aware of no authority- and Boeing cites none- requiring the Board to grant a stay request, simply because the motion is uncontested. To the contrary, no party has a per se right to a stay or dismissal at the Board. WEDJ/Three C's, Inc., ASBCA Nos.