JAAAT Technical Services, LLC
Docket: ASBCA 61180
Decision date: 2019-10-04

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
JAAAT Technical Services, LLC ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W912HN-10-D-0063 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 61180 
Mr. Rickey B. Barnhill 
Administrator 
Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 
Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
Laura J. Arnett, Esq. 
Allie E. Vandivier, Esq. 
Engineer Trial Attorneys 
U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE OSTERHOUT 
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
Appellant, JAAAT Technical Services, LLC (JAAAT), has timely filed a 
motion for reconsideration of the Board's decision in JAAAT Technical Services, LLC, 
ASBCA No. 61180, 19-1 BCA ,J 37,297 at 181,423.1 In ASBCA No. 61180, we 
denied appellant's appeal, where appellant requested $392,187.00 and 159 days of 
compensable time due to a dispute over whether an access control system was required 
in the contract or if the government requiring the system was an out of scope change to 
the contract. Id. at 181,424. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. 
ST AND ARD FOR DECIDING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 
In order to prevail on a motion for reconsideration, JAAA T must demonstrate a 
compelling reason for the Board to modify its original decision. When deciding a 
motion for reconsideration, JAAAT must demonstrate that newly discovered evidence, 
mistakes in our findings of fact, or errors of law warrant us vacating the underlying 
decision. See Parsons Evergreene, LLC, ASBCA No. 5 8634, 19-1 BCA ,i 37,251 
at 181,310 ( citation omitted). Motions for reconsideration are not intended to provide 
the party with another chance to again argue its position that was previously raised and 
denied. Id. ( citation omitted) On the other hand, if we have made mistakes in the 
1 In the course of briefing the motion, the government submitted an additional sur-reply 
brief on July 3, 2019. The Board did not consider this brief in writing this 
decision. 

findings of fact or conclusions of law, or by failing to consider an appropriate matter, 
reconsideration may be appropriate. Relyant, LLC, ASBCA No. 59809, 18-1 BCA 
, 37,146. 
Here, JAAA T essentially points to the same evidence and facts as were 
presented when deciding this case and argues its position again. As discussed in 
further detail below, JAAA T did not demonstrate mistakes in our findings of fact, 
provide any newly discovered evidence, or point to errors of law that warrant us 
vacating our decision. 
JAAAT Failed to Demonstrate Any Mistakes In Our Findings of Fact 
JAAAT took issue with five findings in the Board's decision, findings 7, 15, 
16, 20, and 21 (app. mot. for recon. at 1-2). In its response to the government's 
opposition, JAAAT further added an allegation of mistake in reference to finding 39 
(app. reply at 2). 
All of these findings were based upon facts taken from the record. While 
JAAA T took issue with these six findings, it did not provide sufficient explanation as to 
why the findings were in error. Instead, nearly all of JAAAT's statements of mistake 
exceeded the scope of the finding, in an attempt to change the fact to an entirely 
different fact and reargue its underlying appeal. Thus, none of the facts that JAAAT 
raised on reconsideration as mistakes in the decision were actually mistakes in the 
Board's findings of fact. 
JAAA T Did Not Produce Any Newly Discovered Evidence 
In its reply to the government's response to JAAAT's motion for reconsideration, 
JAAA T provided four tabs of additional evidence for the Board to consider: 1) Chapter 2 
Resident Management System (RMS) Manual - Office and Staff Setup; 2) Memorandum 
for Appointment of Administrative Contract Officer for the contract; 3) RMS 
Report-All Requests For Information (RFI); and 4) RMS Detail Report- Response to 
RFI-0097: Electronic Security System (app. reply). While many of these documents 
were not in the Rule 4 file, none of these documents are newly discovered evidence. 
They were all part of the administration of the contract and were available to appellant 
throughout the contract and during the course of this appeal. Appellant could have 
supplemented the Rule 4 file at any time with any of these documents but did not. It is 
not appropriate for these documents to now be considered when they were available 
throughout the entire appeal process. 
Moreover, even if the evidence JAAAT presented on reconsideration had been 
presented during its appeal, it would not have changed the result of the decision. The 
evidence JAAAT produced with its reply brief demonstrates that JAAAT continues to 
2 

place an unwarranted amount of weight on the extrinsic evidence of one RFI response, 
which is further discussed below. 
JAAAT Failed to Demonstrate Any Errors of Law 
JAAAT failed to demonstrate any errors oflaw. 2 This appeal turned on whether 
the contract required JAAA T to install an access control system. As stated in the 
underlying decision, based upon reading the contract as a whole, the only reasonable 
interpretation of the contract is that the access control system was required. JAAAT 
Tech. Serv., 19-1 BCA ,r 37,297 at 181,430 
Appellant would like to, instead, turn this appeal on extrinsic evidence instead of 
the evidence directly included in the contract. The crux of our decision was that the 
contract itself required an access control system. Thus, we were not required to review 
extrinsic evidence. While our decision addressed extrinsic evidence, in an attempt to 
fully examine JAAAT's claim, none of the extrinsic evidence changed the interpretation 
that the access control system was required. Instead of leading us to hold otherwise, as 
appellant argues, the extrinsic evidence we considered, as a whole, merely led us to 
more concretely confirm our decision that the access control system was required in the 
original contract. 
Appellant's argument in its request for reconsideration still places an unreasonable 
amount of weight on an unsigned RFI answer. In its legal error argument, JAAAT points 
to the high number of RFis that did not have a name or title filled out. This evidence, 
which is not newly discovered, does not change the original decision that the contract 
itself required an access control system to be installed. 
Finally, appellant raises in its response that it had a right to ask for clarification 
and receive guidance through the RFI system ( app. reply at 4 ). Appellant certainly has 
a right to ask for clarification and receive guidance. We did not, in our decision, 
remove this right. However, any changes to the contract must be made by the 
contracting officer. Because we decided that the access control system was required 
by the contract, the only individuals who could have removed the requirements of the 
contract were warranted contracting officers. The record does not support that this 
2 In its legal errors section, JAAAT stressed that it was a not a legal firm (app. mot. for 
recon. at 4). While prose parties, such as JAAAT, are frequently held to less 
stringent pleading standards than those parties represented by counsel, they are 
not exempt from meeting jurisdictional prerequisites and must sufficiently 
articulate and support their arguments. See John Shaw LLC d/b/a Shaw 
Building Maintenance, ASBCA Nos. 61379, 61585, 19-1 BCA ,r 37,216 
at 181,185 (citation omitted). 
3 

RFI was answered by a contracting officer nor that the contract was changed to 
remove the requirement. 
CONCLUSION 
The motion for reconsideration is denied. 
Dated: October 4, 2019 
I concur 
~ 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
STERHOUT 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
OWENC.WILSoN 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61180, Appeal of JAAA T 
Technical Services, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals