ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
Precision Standard, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. SPM4A7-08-M-B239 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 59116 
Nancy M. Camardo, Esq. 
Camardo Law Firm, P.C. 
Auburn, NY 
Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 
DLA Chief Trial Attorney 
Edward R. Murray, Esq. 
Robert E. Sebold, Esq. 
Trial Attorneys 
DLA Aviation 
Richmond, VA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE HAR1MAN 
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
On 14 August 2015, appellant, Precision Standard, Inc. (PSI), filed a timely 
motion for reconsideration of our 13 July 2015 decision denying its appeal from a 
termination for default, Precision Standard, Inc., ASBCA No. 59116, 15-1 BCA 
if 36,040. The government filed a response to PSI's reconsideration motion on 
10 September 2015 and PSI submitted a reply to the government's response on 
7 October 2015. 
In our 13 July 2015 decision, we granted the government's motion for summary 
judgment because PSI was delinquent in submitting the contract's first article and had 
provided no evidence of "excusable" delay. With respect to PSI's assertion there was 
a material question of fact regarding whether it was foreclosed from scheduling the 
quality assurance representative (QAR) inspection necessary for first article delivery 
due to problems arising from furlough of government employees, we explained that 
there was no showing by PSI it ever attempted to schedule a QAR inspection. With 
respect to 
PSI' s assertion there was another material fact question regarding 
whether 
the parties' contract modification provided for a "no-cost" termination, we explained 
that the language of the contract modification expressly provided, "ifthe First Article 
re-submission is not delivered by the date [due] ... , this contract may be terminated in 
its entirety at no cost to the Government" (emphasis added), not at no cost to PSI, 
and that a 
default termination was "at no cost to the Government." Finally, while PSI 

also contended that Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 49.lOl(b) mandated a 
no-cost settlement for its contract, instead of a default termination, we explained that 
even if we were to construe the FAR as did PSI a contracting officer is to consider a 
no-cost settlement only if certain factors exist and the record in this appeal does not 
show those factors exist here. Precision Standard, 15-1BCA~36,040 at 176,029. 
In its reconsideration motion, PSI asserts the same legal arguments it previously 
advanced and adds simply that the Board erred because PSI is not seeking recovery of 
costs it incurred through a termination for convenience settlement. According to PSI, 
FAR 52.209-4 provides, "[b ]efore first article approval, the costs [of the first article] 
shall not be allocable to this contract for ... termination settlements ifthe contract is 
terminated for the convenience of the Government" so a termination for convenience 
of PSI' s contract will result in a contract termination at "no cost" to the government 
(app. mot. at 5). 
PSI, however, misstates the FAR. FAR 52.209-4 (ALT. 1) (JAN 1997) does not 
state, as PSI asserts that, the costs of a first article shall not be allocable to the contract 
for purposes of a termination for convenience settlement. Rather, the FAR expressly 
states "[b ]efore first article approval, the acquisition of materials or components for, 
or the commencement of production of, the balance of the contract quantity is at the 
sole risk of the Contractor" (emphasis added) and "costs thereof shall not be allocable 
to this contract for (1) progress payments, or (2) termination settlements ifthe contract 
is terminated for the convenience of the Government." The FAR provision addresses 
costs associated with production of the balance of a contract, not costs associated with 
a contract's first article. See, e.g., Ra/con, Inc., ASBCA No. 38059 et al., 92-2 
BCA ~ 24,971 at 124,440 (progress payments covered about 85% of first article cost 
prior to first article approval); KAL ME.I. Mfg. & Trade, Ltd., ASB~A No. 40597, 
92-1BCA~24,411at121,854-55 (costs of special tooling, testing equipment, and 
testing for first article were recoverable where contract was terminated for 
convenience prior to first article approval). The language of the FAR therefore does 
not show any error of law in our prior decision, as PSI contends. 
We further note that PSI fails to recognize there are costs at issue other than 
those incurred directly by it. A convenience termination exposes the government to 
costs beyond those incurred by PSI. For example, ifthe government re-procures the 
part that PSI was to produce from another contractor at a higher cost, the government's 
excess re-procurement costs cannot be recovered by it if there is a contract termination 
for convenience. Compare FAR 52.249-1, TERMINATION FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF 
THE GOVERNMENT (FIXED-PRICE) (SHORT FORM) (APR 1984), with FAR 52.249-8(b ), 
DEFAULT (FIXED-PRICE SUPPLY AND SERVICE) (APR 1984). Further, a "no-cost" 
convenience termination likely would deprive the government of its ability to recover 
from PSI "costs related to [first article] tests," which are to be 
borne by the contractor. 
2 

See FAR 52.209-4( c ). Thus, the termination for convenience advocated by PSI would 
not be at "no cost to the government" as the parties' contract modification requires. 
A motion for reconsideration is not intended to allow a party to re-argue issues 
that were previously raised and decided. Zulco Int'!, Inc., ASBCA No. 55441, 08-1 
BCA ~ 33,799. The moving party therefore must show a compelling reason why this 
Board should alter its decision. ADT Construction Group, Inc., ASBCA No. 55358, 
14-1BCA~35,508. In determining whether a party has made such a showing, we 
look to whether there is newly discovered evidence, mistakes in our decision's 
findings of fact, or errors oflaw. J.F. Taylor, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 56105, 56322, 
12-2 BCA ~ 35,125; Robinson Quality Constructors, ASBCA No. 55784, 09-2 
BCA ~ 34, 171. PSI has shown no compelling reason why we should alter our prior 
decision. 
CONCLUSION 
We deny appellant's motion for reconsideration. 
Dated: 4 November 2015 
I concur 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
3 
TERRENCE S. HARTMAN 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
~ 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59116, Appeal of 
Precision Standard, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
JEFFREYD. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals