ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of --
M. L. Energia, Inc. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
ASBCA No. 58975 
Under Contract No. NAS 10-98025 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
Bruce I. Afran, Esq. 
Princeton, N.J. 
Scott W. Barber, Esq. 
NASA Chief Trial Attorney 
Bradley W. Smith, Esq. 
H. Joseph Batey, Esq. 
Trial Attorneys 
Kennedy Space Center, FL 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHACKLEFORD 
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
The Board issued its decision on quantum in this appeal on April 4, 2019, 
wherein we found that appellant was not entitled to payment of any additional contract 
amounts. M. L. Energia, Inc. (Energia) received the decision on April 10, 2019, and 
timely filed its motion for reconsideration on May 1, 2019. We deny the motion. 
DECISION 
Our standards for deciding a motion for reconsideration are well established: 
Reconsideration does not provide a party an opportunity to 
reargue issues that were previously raised and decided. 
Precision Standard, Inc., ASBCA No. 58135, 16-1 BCA 
,J 36,504 at 177,860. The movant must establish a 
compelling reason to modify the earlier decision. Id. We 
look to whether the movant presents newly discovered 
evidence, mistakes in findings of fact, or errors of law. Id. 
A motion for reconsideration does not provide a litigant a 
'"second bite at the apple" or the opportunity to advance 
arguments that properly should have been presented in an 

earlier proceeding. Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 
(Fed. Cir. 2014). 
American Int'l Contractors, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 60948, 61166, 18-1 BCA ,-r 37,194 
at 181,070-71. 
In its motion appellant (pro se at this stage) continues to challenge our decisions 
on entitlement (ML. Energia, Inc., ASBCA No. 55947, 12-2 BCA ,-r 35,110; recon. 
granted in part, 13 BCA ,-r 35,284). The government replied, correctly pointing out 
that appellant raised no new legal or factual (newly discovered or otherwise) 
arguments. Subsequently, appellant filed, by counsel, a memorandum in support of 
motion for reconsideration. Appellant rehashes causation again, arguing that the 
failure ofNASA to identify a test site caused delay and thus it was the government's 
fault, not appellant's, that the work never was completed. Even if that were true, and it 
is not, appellant also fully contributed to the failure of the work to be timely 
completed. Such failures were fully described in our first decision on entitlement. 
In any event, there is no basis for paying appellant for work that was not 
performed. Reminding appellant again, it had a firm fixed-price contract and it does 
not get all of the money unless it does all of the work. Thus, even if the government 
were responsible for the failure to complete the work (timely or not all of it), that does 
not give rise to entitlement to money appellant has not earned. 
Finally, appellant argues: 
[I]t would appear the Board had no jurisdiction to enter 
judgment in favor of the agency since the government, by 
failing to file its own claim for equitable reduction, failed 
to preserve its rights and waived such claims. The 
government had a six-year period in which to bring its 
claim of an equitable reduction against Energia but failed 
to file any claim.l*l As the government never actually filed 
a claim, it would appear to have waived any claim to the 
equitable reduction and the Board should have made no 
finding ofNASA's entitlement. 
(App. mot. at 5) 
The opposite is true. In 2001, NASA informed Energia that the government 
was taking an equitable reduction under the Inspection clause of the contract in the 
amount of $153,615. Dr. Lavid objected several times to the contracting officer (CO), 
• Appellant does not allege when the so-called six-year period began to run. 
2 

and did so as late as June 28, 2002. The contract was closed out on September 4, 
2002. Nearly four years later, Dr. Lavid requested reconsideration of the denial of the 
payment. NASA declined to reconsider and thus, Energia filed a certified claim for 
$153,615. The claim was denied in a final decision in late 2007 and it was timely 
appealed to this Board. See ML. Energia, ASBCA No. 55947, 12-2 BCA, 35,110 
at 172,407-08 (findings 90-91, 93, 96-98, 100-03). Thus the appeal is properly before 
the Board. 
When the work was not timely completed the contract's Inspection clause gave 
the government the right to accept the work and take an equitable reduction in contract 
price. The amount of the equitable reduction was the subject of our quantum decision. 
Appellant has not provided us with a compelling reason to modify our quantum 
decision. Nor has it shown newly discovered evidence, mistakes in our findings of fact 
or errors of law. 
CONCLUSION 
Appellant's motion for reconsideration of our quantum decision is cl~nied. 
Dated: January 27, 2020 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
3 
-------
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
MICHAEL T. PAUL 
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. 58975, Appeal ofM. L. 
Energia, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals