ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL 
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
 
Appellant, Paragon Defense Solutions, Inc. (Paragon), requests reconsideration 
of our recent decision denying its Board Rule 12.2 appeal; we held that because 
Paragon failed to deliver certain parts by the November 16, 2022 date set by the 
government’s unilateral purchase order, the option contract created by Paragon’s 
substantial performance, and the purchase order itself, lapsed.  Paragon Defense 
Solutions, Inc., ASBCA No. 64307, slip op. (Nov. 19, 2025).  In addition, regarding a 
pre-lapse issue concerning labeling of the parts, we found that Paragon conceded in its 
briefing that it “could have decided on its own how to label the [parts], and could have 
labeled and delivered those [parts] by the [] delivery deadline.”  Id. at 2-3 (alterations 
added).  In its motion for reconsideration, Paragon does not contend that it delivered 
the parts on time; rather, it now says that “[t]he failure to deliver was not a choice by 
Paragon; it was a prohibition by the Government.”1  Elaborating, Paragon (1) quotes a 
November 3, 2022 government statement regarding the labeling issue that “[t]he 
nonconformance needs to be addressed and corrected” (which statement Paragon also 
referenced in its pre-decision briefing), and (2) says that the government “legally 
 
1 Mot. recon. at 2 ¶ 2. 
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Paragon Defense Solutions, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 64307 
 )  
Under Contract No. SPE7L2-22-P-0710 )  
   
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Weiwei Jian 
    President 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Gary P. Bilski, Esq. 
    DLA Chief Trial Attorney 
 John J. Pritchard, Esq. 
Adam J. Heer, Esq. 
Julie K. Phillips, Esq. 
Deidra Canady, Esq. 
    Trial Attorneys 
    DLA Land and Maritime 
    Columbus, OH 

2 
 
barred Paragon from shipping the parts in their current state or ‘deciding on its own’ 
where to mark them without Government approval.”2  
 
We have not waited for the government to respond to the motion for 
reconsideration.  See John Shaw LLC d/b/a Shaw Building Maintenance, ASBCA 
No. 61379, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,026 at 180,294.  Motions 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.  Avant Assessment, 
LLC, ASBCA No. 58867, 15-1 BCA ¶ 36,137 at 176,384.  At bottom, Paragon 
reargues, with some elaboration, the case it made before we issued our decision.  The 
motion for reconsideration is denied. 
 
 Dated:  December 8, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TIMOTHY P. MCILMAIL 
Administrative Judge 
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. 64307, Appeal of Paragon 
Defense Solutions, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  December 9, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 Mot. recon. at 2 ¶¶ 1-2; 2 (citing R4, gov’t tab 8a); see app. br. at 2 ¶ 4; reply at 4 ¶ 2. 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals