ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of --
Public Warehousing Company, K.S.C. 
Under Contract No. SPM300-05-D-3128 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 58088 
Michael R. Charness, Esq. 
Adrianne L. Goins, Esq. 
Elizabeth Krabill Mcintyre, Esq. 
Ralph C. Mayrell, Esq. 
Vinson & Elkins LLP 
Washington, DC 
Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 
DLA Chief Trial Attorney 
John F. Basiak, Jr., Esq. 
Keith J. Feigenbaum, Esq. 
Kari L. Scheck, Esq. 
Trial Attorneys 
DLA Troop Support 
Philadelphia, PA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'CONNELL ON 
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
AND TO 
CERTIFY QUESTIONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 
Before the Board is appellant Public Warehousing Company, K.S.C. 's (PWC's) 
motion that we partially lift the one-year stay, which we treat as a timely motion for 
reconsideration of our 8 December 2016 opinion. PWC also moves that we certify for 
interlocutory appeal the December 2016 opinion as well as our 8 November 2016 
opinion granting the government 
leave to amend its answer to assert affirmative 
defenses. We deny both motions. 
Motion for Reconsideration 
A motion for reconsideration is not the place to present arguments previously 
made and rejected. "[W]here litigants have once battled for the court's decision, they 
should neither 
be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again. 
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." Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 
(citations omitted); see also Avant Assessment, LLC, ASBCA No. 58867, 15-1 BCA 
ii 36,137 at 176,384. 
In our December 2016 opinion, we denied the government's motion to dismiss, 
but granted its alternate motion to stay, due to the criminal case pending in the district 
court. Public Warehousing Company, K.S.C., ASBCA No. 58088, 17-1 BCA 
ii 36,589. PWC's motion for reconsideration is largely a rehash of its previous 
contentions. 1 We will not disturb an earlier decision merely because, on 
reconsideration, the losing side presents the same arguments as before. 
Accordingly, we deny PWC's request for reconsideration of our 8 December 
2016 opinion. 
Motion to Certify November and December 2016 Opinions for Appeal 
In the alternative, PWC moves that we certify for appeal to the Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit our 8 November 2016 opinion granting the government 
leave to amend its answer to assert affirmative defenses, Public Warehousing 
Company, K.S.C., ASBCA No. 58088, 16-1 BCA ii 36,555, and our December 2016 
opinion staying this appeal. 
The Contract Disputes Act provides that: 
The decision of an agency board is final, except that-
(A) a contractor may appeal the decision to the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
1 Among other things, PWC faults us for not addressing its citations to three earlier 
Board opinions: Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 57530, 
58161, 16-1BCAii36,449; Suh 'dutsing Techs., LLC, ASBCA No. 58760, 15-1 
BCA ii 36,058; and TRW, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 51172, 51530, 99-2 BCA 
ii 30,407. But our opinion cited precedent from our reviewing court that 
identifies the factors we must balance when there is a parallel criminal case. 
The three Board opinions cited by PWC did not involve parallel criminal 
proceedings, only civil cases or civil investigations. As a result, they are of 
limited utility in this appeal. There is no split from earlier Board decisions 
despite PWC's contentions. 
2 

within 120 days from the date the contractor receives a 
copy of the decision .... 
41 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(l). 2 Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1295, which identifies the jurisdiction 
of the Federal Circuit provides that: 
(a) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction-
(I 0) of an appeal from a final decision of an agency board of 
contract appeals pursuant to section 7107(a)(l) of title 41.. .. 
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(l0). 
Jurisdiction of the courts of appeal to review interlocutory decisions is 
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1292. This statute specifies a process for district courts, the 
Court of International Trade, and the Court of Federal Claims to certify their 
interlocutory decisions for review to a Court of Appeals. Congress did not provide for 
· such a process for decisions of the boards of contract appeals. 
Starting with perhaps an obvious point, it is not our role to determine whether 
the Federal Circuit may consider an appeal of our November and December 2016 
decisions. The narrow issue before us is whether Congress provided the Board 
authority to certify questions for interlocutory review. We have held that the Board 
lacks authority to certify questions for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) 
because that section applies only to district court judges. General Dynamics Ordnance 
and Tactical Systems, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 56870, 56957 10-2 BCA ~ 34,525. 
PWC relies upon the decision of the Department of Agriculture Board of 
Contract Appeals (AGBCA) in Shawn Montee, Inc., AGBCA No. 2004-153-R et al., 
05-1 BCA ~ 32,889, 3 in which that board concluded that it possessed authority to 
certify questions for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(l) and (d)(2). 
Section 1292(c)(l) provides that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction: 
2 There is no provision in the Contract Disputes Act authorizing a Board of Contract 
Appeals to certify an interlocutory decision for review. 
3 The AGBCA has been consolidated into the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. 
Pub. L. No. I 09-163, Stat. 3136, 3391 (Jan. 6, 2006). 
3 

[O]f an appeal from an interlocutory order or decree 
described in subsection (a) or (b) of this section in any case 
over which the court would have jurisdiction of an appeal 
under section 1295 of this title .... 
Sections 1292(a) and (b) concern appeals from district courts. The Agriculture Board 
read section 1292(c)(l), with its references to sections 1292(b) and 1295, as granting 
the Federal Circuit authority to review interlocutory orders from tribunals for which it 
has jurisdiction to review final decisions, and granting the boards authority to certify 
such questions. The AGBCA explained the absence of any reference to Board judges 
in section 1292(b) by stating "We would not expect the federal rules to reference board 
judges or address specifically each tribunal over which the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit has jurisdiction." Shawn Montee, 05-1BCAil32,889 at 162,938. 
In a non-precedential order, the Federal Circuit denied Shawn Montee's petition 
for permission to appeal but did not address the jurisdiction of the boards of contract 
appeals to certify questions for interlocutory review. The Court of Appeals simply 
stated 
"we conclude that the better course is for the AGBCA to develop the factual 
record and fully adjudicate the legal issues prior to appellate review." Shawn Montee, 
Inc. v. Johanns, 131 F. App'x 304 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 
We decline to follow the AGBCA's opinion in Shawn Montee. Instead, we 
extend our precedent in General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems to hold 
that neither 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) nor (c) provide us with the authority to certify 
interlocutory appeals. We base this determination on the lack of any reference to 
interlocutory appeals from administrative tribunals in 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and on 
Federal Circuit precedent. The Court of Appeals has held that it lacks jurisdiction to 
consider our interlocutory decisions, United States v. WH Moseley Co., 730 F.2d 
1472, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and that it only possesses jurisdiction if the Board 
decision is final. Orlando Helicopter Airways, Inc. v. Widnall, 51 F .3d 258, 260 (Fed. 
Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we see no basis for the Board to certify interlocutory 
questions to the 
Federal Circuit. 
The AGBCA and appellants also rely on the Federal Circuit's decision in 
Electronic Data Systems Federal Corporation v. GSA Board of Contract Appeals, 
792 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1986), in which the Court of Appeals held that it possessed 
jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order (an injunction) of the GSBCA. However, 
that case involved a bid protest under the Brooks Act where the matter reached the 
Federal Circuit in an unusual manner. After the GSBCA issued the order in dispute, 
the contractor filed suit in the district court, which issued a temporary restraining order 
but then transferred the case to the Federal Circuit, and ordered that the restraining 
4 

order remain in place during the transfer. Shortly after that, the government and the 
contractor filed with the Federal Circuit petitions for writs of mandamus against the 
GSBCA. Id. at 1571-74. 
The Federal Circuit's opinion in Electronic Data Systems (EDS) contains an 
analysis of the court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) & (c) to review an 
interlocutory order issued by the GSBCA. 792 F.2d at 1574-75. The Court of Appeals 
concluded that the statute provided it with jurisdiction to review a GSBCA 
interlocutory order granting an injunction. Id. at 1575. 
PWC 
contends that we should join with the AGBCA in extending EDS to 
non-injunctive interlocutory decisions issued in the context of a Contract Disputes Act 
(CDA) dispute. We believe that this is foreclosed by the Federal Circuit's decision in 
United States v. WH Moseley, which has not been overruled by the Federal Circuit en 
bane. For purposes of the narrow issue under consideration, EDS reached the Federal 
Circuit through a combination of a district court transfer and petitions for writs of 
mandamus filed by the parties, not because the GSBCA certified a question for 
interlocutory review. Thus, EDS does not provide any support for a Board power to 
certify interlocutory decisions. 
PWC (and the AGBCA in Shawn Montee) contend that we also possess 
jurisdiction to certify interlocutory decisions through the interplay of the CDA, 
41 U.S.C. § 7105(e)(2), and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2). The former provides that, in 
exercising our jurisdiction, the Board "may grant any reliefthat would be available to a 
litigant asserting a contract claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims." The 
latter provides judges of the Court of Federal Claims the authority to certify questions 
for interlocutory review. Appellant and the AGBCA conclude from these provisions 
that, because the Court of Federal Claims can certify an interlocutory decision in a 
CDA case, then we can too. 
While these contentions have some surface appeal we do not believe that the 
provision at 41 U.S.C. § 7105(e)(2) should be read so broadly to mean that the Board 
in a CDA appeal enjoys the same powers as the Court of Federal Claims. See Fidelity 
Constr. Co. v. United States, 700 F.2d 1379, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1983). That court's 
power to certify interlocutory questions arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2), not the 
CDA, and we do not believe that we can assume the court's powers based on a mere 
inference. Such an expansive reading of our CDA powers conflicts with our 
precedent. For example, under the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), the 
court possesses authority (in CDA and other cases) to award attorney fees in a variety 
of situations. See RCFC 11, 16, 37, 45; 28 U.S.C. § 1927. We lack such authority. 
ADT Construction Group, Inc., ASBCA No. 55358, 13 BCA if 35,307 at 173,324. 
5 

Similarly, the Court of Federal Claims possesses authority to punish contempt of its 
authority by fine or imprisonment, 28 U.S.C. § 252l(b), a power that we lack. 
Accordingly, we reject PWC's contention that 41 U.S.C. § 7105(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1292(d)(2) provide us with the authority to certify interlocutory decisions. 
PWC's motion to certify interlocutory questions is denied. 
Dated: 7 March 2017 
I concur 
--77 
0"// #: /1 
F2q~~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
11(,J,.Qf)') ,()~ 
MICHAEL N. O'CONNELL 
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 Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58088, Appeal of Public 
Warehousing Company, K.S.C., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
6 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals