Stobil Enterprise
Docket: ASBCA 61688, ASBCA 61689
Decision date: 2019-07-23

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -­
Stobil Enterprise 
Under Contract No. FA3016-18-P-0074 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 61688, 61689 
Mr. Billie 0. Stone 
CEO 
Jeffrey P. Hildebrant , Esq. 
Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 
Heather M. Mandelkehr , Esq. 
Lt Col Scott A. Van Schoyck, USAF 
Trial Attorneys 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHACKLEFORD 
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
Appellant timely moves for reconsideration of our Rule 12.2 decision dated 
January 18, 2019, wherein we denied appellant 's appeal from the denial of a monetary 
claim filed by appellant and also denied the appeal from the termination for default of 
appellant's contract. Familiarity with the facts of our previous decision is presumed. * 
The government replied to the motion for reconsideration on March 8, 2019, and 
appellant responded thereto on March 25, 2019. On May 29, 2019, appellant filed a 
motion for leave to file amended motion for summary judgment with memorandum of 
law in support. Leave to file said motion is denied as the record is closed. Moreover, 
the motion is irrelevant to the issue presented here. Appellant elected to proceed in 
these appeals under Board Rule 12.2 for small business concerns. A decision under 
Rule 12.2 shall have no value as precedent , and in the absence of fraud, shall be final 
and conclusive and may not be appealed or set aside. 
Stobil Enterprise (Stobil) must demonstrate a compelling reason for the Board 
to modify its decision , as the standard we apply for reconsideration is that the moving 
party must establish that the underlying decision contained mistakes in our findings of 
fact or errors of law, or that newly discovered evidence warrants vacating our decision. 
Motions for reconsideration are not intended to provide a party with an opportunity to 
reargue issues previously raised and denied. See , Parsons Evergreene , LLC, ASBCA 
No. 5 8634, 19-1 BCA il 37,251 at 181,310, and cases cited therein. 
Appellant points to the same facts which were before us in deciding this case 
initially; they are not newly discovered facts. And, appellant repeats arguments 
* All responses to findings cited herein relate to the earlier decision found at Stobil 
Enterprise, ASBCA No. 61688, 61689, 19-1 BCA il 37,242. 

already made. In a Rule 12.2 decision , as here , we typically issue summary findings 
of fact and conclusions of law in order to decide the appeal in a relatively short period 
of time. There is no need for a point-by-point recitation of all the possible facts and all 
the contentions of appellant. We did not do so in our previous decision and will not do 
so on reconsideration. However, so that appellant more fully understands why its 
appeals were denied , we expand on our analysis on reconsideration. 
This case turned upon whether the contract requiring replacement of an overhead 
door included replacement of an inoperati ve drum as well at no additional cost to the 
government. It was a contract interpretation question involving whether the drum was 
part of the "electrical operators IAW SOW dated 9 January 2018. " (Finding 9) The 
statement of work (SOW) required the removal and installation of a "new Overhead 
D.oor, hardware , and electric motors " also referred to as electric operators (finding 3). 
It was to be fully assembled and ready for use upon delivery (finding 2). 
In its Rule 11 brief , the government proposed a finding as follows: 
20. On May 29, 2018, TSgt Consola called TexDoor LTD , 
the manufacturer of the door that appellant ordered , and 
requested a quote for the same steel overhead door and 
electrical operators that were required by Appellant 's 
contract. G-2 at 1. After TexDoor provided a quote on 
May 30, TSgt Consola inquired whether the hood , drum 
plates , and door rails came standard with the door. G-2 
at 1. TexDoor responded affirmatively that those items 
came standard with the door. G-2 at 1. 
(Gov't br. at 7) 
While the evidence set forth in that proposed finding supports the government's 
view of the case, it is diminished by its hearsa y nature. Appellant's complaint iterates 
allegations in the contracting officer's final decision and then responds thereto in an 
apparent effort to show its opposite view of the industry standard. Appellants alleges 
that the contracting officer "Stated the items in dispute were considered part of the 
door" and then takes issue with that statement by pointing out, as it has throughout this 
litigation , that "drum " was not mentioned in the contract. (Compl. at 3) Next , 
appellant iterates the contracting officer , "Stated that the items were in accordance 
with standard industry practices ," and then takes issue with that statement by averring 
as follows: 
Note: There 's no such industry practice . Stobil Enterprise 
has specialized in commercial and hanger [sic] door 
installations and repairs for over 20 years, and clearly 
knows what is required/or a new door installation, as well 
2 

as, a repair replacing damaged and or inoperative door 
parts. For evidence in this cause the Contractor requested 
its Distributor (TEXDOOR of San Antonio, 
Texas/Manufactures' Direct Distributor ) to provide 
verification of such practice stated by the Contracting 
Officer ... see Exhibit B. 
(Comp 1. at 3) Exhibit B provides no support for that view of the industry practice. 
Said exhibit is a three part email dated May 23, 2018, between Stobil and TexDoor, as 
follows: 
Stobil to TexDoor: 
Got a serious issue with the Government and hope you can 
help. You recently gave me a quote for a new drum and 
plates. These items weren't a part of my initial request for 
a curtain, guides, & operator. The Government is stating 
that the curtain should have come with a new drum and 
plates according to industry standards. The Government 
state's that their market research with San Antonio door 
company 's [sic] indicates such. Can you confirm this 
policy as factual specifically with TexDoor. My work has 
stopped pending this issue. Any understanding would be 
helpful. 
TexDoor to Stobil: 
Good morning. I'm not sure which companies were 
included in this research. We stock and sell parts for 
overhead doors to companies all over Texas. 
Stobil to TexDoor: 
I didn't think so .... 
(Compl. and ex.A-Bat 1) 
While Stobil seems pleased with the TexDoor response, we fail to see how it advances 
appellant's position. Thus, we are left with a neutral response from TexDoor to Stobil, 
a hearsay statement clearly supporting its position from the Air Force, and Mr. Stone's 
self-serving unsworn statement that his 20 years in the business means he knows what 
is needed for new and replacement doors. The government's final decision dated 
June 25, 2018, denied appellant 's monetary claim, stating in part: 
3 

The claim is denied. The SOW included in the subject 
contract required the contractor to remove one steel 
overhead door and replace with a new heavy duty rolling 
overhead door , to include all materials , incidentals and 
electric motors. The contract does not allow for the reuse 
or repair of any of the existing parts . The items in dispute 
are considered part of the door and, in accordance with 
standard industry practices , are provided with any 
commercial overhead door. Moreover , prior to award 
Stobil Enterprise confirmed that their quote included the 
drum and steel plates . 
(R4, tab 17 at 3) 
As the proponent of its claim , appellant has the burden of proving liability and 
damages (Wilner v. United States , 24 F.3d 1397, 1401-02 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en bane)) 
and thus had to show that the drum was not part of the door and that it was not 
industry practice to include the drum when replacing the door. Appellant has failed to 
meet its burden of proof as to liabilit y. 
Even ifwe decided otherwise , appellant still would not be entitled to recover 
damages as this appeal was to be decided on entitlement and quantum; as such , 
appellant had the burden of proving its costs which is much more than merely stating 
that it is owed $126 ,000. Appellant has not provided any proof of damages in this 
record, nor have we found any such proof. 
Further , even if we decided otherwise on entitlement , appellant would still not 
prevail on converting the termination for default to a termination for convenience. The 
default clause required appellant to continue the work when disputes arose. Appellant 
did not complete the work by the extended contract completion date, and thus the 
termination was proper and the default inexcusable. 
Stobil ' s motion for reconsideration is denied. 
Dated: July 23, 2019 
4 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting 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 Nos. 61688, 61689, Appeals of 
Stobil Enterprise, rendered in conformance with the Board 's Charter. 
Dated: 
5 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder , Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals