ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
Al Barih for General Contracting Ltd. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W91GDW-07-D-2012 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 57148, 57149, 57599 
Mr. Naseer A. Abdul-Ameer 
President/CEO 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
CPT Tyler L. Davidson, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PAUL 
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
On 7 July 2014, the Board dismissed Al Barih for General Contracting Ltd.'s 
(Al Barih's) appeals for failure to prosecute pursuant to Board Rule 31, now revised as 
Rule 17. Al Barihfor General Contracting Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 57148, 57149, 57599, 
14-1 BCA ~ 3 5 ,661. Familiarity with that decision is presumed. We noted that 
Al Barih's appeals had been on the Board's docket for several years, that it had 
engaged a series of attorneys who later withdrew their representation, and that it 
had failed to comply with a series of Board orders. Accordingly, the Board ordered 
Al Barih to show cause why its appeals should not be dismissed with prejudice for 
failure to prosecute. In its response, appellant failed to resolve the issues raised by the 
Board. Rather, it pointed to financial distress as the underlying cause for its failures. 
Rejecting Al Barih's contentions, the Board held: 
Many contractors are represented pro se before this Board. 
They routinely respond to discovery requests and file 
briefing materials. Considering the extended period of 
time these appeals have been on the Board's docket, Al 
Barih's alleged financial condition does not excuse its 
failure to prosecute these appeals. 
14-1BCA~35,661at174,568. 
Al Barih filed a timely motion for reconsideration dated 9 August 2014. It 
stated that it was trying to raise funds to secure new counsel and that it would suffer a 
significant financial loss if our decision was affirmed (mot. at 1-2). On 26 August 

2014, the government responded to appellant's motion. It accurately set forth the legal 
standard governing motions for reconsideration in these terms: 
In determining whether a party has met this standard, the 
Board will consider newly discovered evidence, mistakes 
in the Board's fact-finding, and errors oflaw. [Citations 
omitted] 
(Gov't opp'n at 1-2) The government argued that appellant had failed to meet these criteria 
(id. at 1-3). On 25 September 2014, Al Barih filed a reply brief in which it merely 
summarized its earlier contentions (app. reply br. at 1-2). 
Al Barih has failed 
to meet the standards for granting motions for reconsideration. 
It has neither presented any newly discovered evidence nor pointed to any factual or legal 
errors in our decision. 
CONCLUSION 
We have reconsidered our decision and affirm it. 
Dated: 5 November 2014 
I concur 
Administrative 
Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
2 
MICHAEL T. PAUL 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
~~# 
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 Nos. 57148, 57149, 57599, 
Appeals of Al Barih for General Contracting Ltd., rendered in conformance with the 
Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals