ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of --
Engineering Solutions & Products, LLC 
Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 58633 
Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq. 
Ryan C. Bradel, Esq. 
Greenberg Traurig, LLP 
McLean, VA 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
Kyle E. Chadwick, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PAUL 
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
The government has filed a timely motion for reconsideration of our decision 
denying its partial motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, as well as its partial 
motion for summary judgment. Engineering Solutions & Products, LLC, ASBCA 
No. 58633, 15-1 BCA ~ 35,989. Familiarity with that decision is presumed. 
Regarding the government's partial motion for summary judgment, or in the 
alternative, to dismiss Count 1 of Engineering Solutions & Products, LLC's (ESP's) 
complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the Board held that "there is simply not enough 
record evidence to grant the motion to dismiss." 15-1 BCA ~ 35,989 at 175,828 n.1. 
With respect to respondent's partial motion for summary judgement on the 
implied-in-fact contract issue, we cited the existence of multiple disputes of material 
facts and concluded that ESP had met its burden in this regard by making a non­
frivolous allegation that such a contract existed. On this basis, the Board denied the 
partial motion for summary judgment. 
In its motion for reconsideration, the government cites no new evidence and 
raises no new arguments. With respect to our conclusion on the jurisdiction issue, 
respondent makes the contention that, as the 
proponent of the motion, it was not 
required to present any evidence (gov't br. at 2-3). This statement does not even 
address the issue posed by the Board, i.e., that the present state of the factual record 
does not allow us to resolve the jurisdictional issue, and therefore we could not 
presently rule on the merits of the government's motion to dismiss. 

Regarding the existence of an implied-in-fact contract, the government 
criticizes the Board for not addressing issues of contractual offer, acceptance, and 
authority (gov't br. at 3-5). In formulating this argument, the government appears to 
misapprehend the Board's role in resolving summary judgment motions. We are not 
required to address every issue raised by a movant. The Board's responsibility is 
simply to determine whether material issues of genuine fact exist. Here, the Board 
made such a determination. Specifically, we stated: "In its motion, the Army disputes 
many of the material facts set forth in ESP's complaint." Similarly, we noted the 
following: "In its 'STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT,' 
ESP disputes most of the Army's factual narrative." We bolstered each of these 
conclusions by citing specific examples of genuine disputes of material fact. 
15-1 BCA ii 35,989 at 175,828-29. Finally, the Board concluded, "Here, the parties' 
factual positions are the legal equivalent of ships passing in the night. Indeed they 
dispute almost every key material fact." Id. at 175,829. On this basis, we denied the 
government's motion for partial summary judgment. 
Finally, the government states that the Board "did not address the anti-deficiency 
defense" (gov't br. at 5-6). But, as ESP correctly points out in its opposition brief: 
"[T]he Anti-Deficiency Act should not be employed to bar a 
contractor's 
implied-in-fact contract claim when the facts underlying the claim remain in dispute 
and the exact contours of the implied-in-fact contract have not been discerned" (app. br. 
at 9). Hence, at 
this stage, the government's defense is merely hypothetical in nature 
and need not be resolved. 
DECISION 
The law governing motions for reconsideration is well settled. Where litigants 
have fought for a decision, they should not, without a sound basis, be permitted to 
retry the same issues. Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We 
analyze on reconsideration whether a motion is based on newly discovered evidence, 
mistakes in findings of facts, or errors of law. We do not provide a movant the 
opportunity to reargue its positions. Bulova Technologies Ordnance Systems LLC, 
ASBCA No. 57406, 14-1BCAii35,802 at 175,101. The government has not met 
these burdens. It simply rehashes old arguments, apparently hoping for a different 
result. Accordingly, its motion must fail. 
2 

CONCLUSION 
We have reconsidered our decision and affirm it. 
Dated: 22 March 2016 
I concur 
/~//7 y!;;(/ 
.······~···~~-~MARK N. STEMPLER ~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
MICHAEL T. PAUL 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
1 I\ 
' \ •-\ 
y~--1- \ 
'-~-~ 
J 
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. 58633, Appeal of 
Engineering Solutions & Products, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's 
Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals