ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WILSON 
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
 
 Frontline Support Solutions, LLC (Frontline or appellant) moves for 
reconsideration of the Board’s April 3, 2025 decision (Frontline Support Sols., LLC, 
ASBCA No. 64022, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,803) dismissing its appeal for lack of jurisdiction 
due to a lack of privity of contract with the government.  Familiarity with that decision 
is presumed.   
 
In its motion, Frontline alleges for the first time that it had an implied-in-fact 
contract with the government (app. mot. at 4).  Frontline asserts that the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (government or USACE) “knowingly benefited [sic] from 
Frontline’s completed work [on the project], permitted that work to be fraudulently 
credited to another party, and then deliberately relied upon that fraud to secure 
performance from the surety . . . after the prime contractor’s termination” (id. at 1).  
Frontline contends that these “unjust” actions established an implied-in-fact 
contractual relationship with USACE and as such, triggered the Board’s jurisdiction 
(id.).   
 
In support of its motion, Frontline relies upon a government memorandum 
dated January 10, 2024 (Exhibit 1), which it submitted to the Board prior to the release 
of the aforementioned April 3, 2025 decision
1.  Obtained through a Freedom of 
 
1 Frontline submitted a “motion for leave to file supplemental evidence . . .” on 
March 24, 2025.  Attached to appellant’s motion was a copy of the 
Appeal of - )  
 )  
Frontline Support Solutions, LLC ) ASBCA No. 64022 
 )  
Under Contract No. W9126G-19-C-0163 )  
   
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Bronson Lerma 
    President 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq. 
    Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
 Lisa M. Haywood, Esq. 
Elliott A. Stanley, Esq. 
    Engineer Trial Attorneys 
     U.S. Army Engineer District, Fort Worth 
     

2 
 
Information Act (FOIA) request, the purpose of Exhibit 1 was to “document details 
regarding time and duties for Subcontractor ‘Frontline’ under the subject contract” 
(app. mot., ex. 1 at 1).  In addition to describing Frontline’s time and activities on the 
jobsite, Exhibit 1 lists billing and payments to the prime contractor for work performed 
by Frontline (id. at 1-3).  Frontline argues Exhibit 1 confirms USACE knew the prime 
contractor fraudulently claimed credit for Frontline’s completed work.  Frontline then 
alleges that when the prime contractor defaulted, USACE executed a takeover 
agreement with the surety, relying on the alleged fraudulent records to complete the 
project and thereby “ratifying” Frontline’s uncompensated performance.  Frontline 
asserts that this purported ratification created a “direct and legally recognizable 
implied contractual relationship” between it and USACE.  (App. mot. at 1-2, 4, 8)   
 
Frontline also alleges that the government’s “intentional delays” in responding 
to its FOIA requests prevented it from “presenting these jurisdictional facts at the 
appropriate procedural juncture, specifically during the initial claim and early 
jurisdictional arguments” (id. at 2-3, 6).  Frontline contends that the government’s 
“deliberate procedural misconduct compromised the fairness, completeness, and 
accuracy of the jurisdictional record, directly influencing the Board’s decision to 
dismiss the appeal without a full and proper evaluation of this vital evidence” (id. 
at 3). 
 
USACE counters that Frontline’s motion fails to introduce any newly 
discovered evidence that was not available at the time of our original decision, 
including Exhibit 1, which it points out identifies Frontline as a subcontractor.  
USACE further argues that Frontline has not shown any material errors of fact or law 
warranting reconsideration.  (Gov’t resp. at 5-6)  USACE notes that even if we were to 
grant the motion for reconsideration, Frontline must still show that the Board 
possesses jurisdiction over any new issues that would be considered if reconsideration 
were granted.  According to USACE, “[s]ince no new issues have been submitted to 
[the] contracting officer, this Board only needs to determine if there was an error in 
finding no jurisdiction over the claims that were in fact the subject of” our original 
decision.  (Id. at 6)  USACE also points out that the Board does not possess 
jurisdiction over fraud actions where it would first need to make factual determinations 
with respect to the alleged fraudulent conduct
2 (id. at 7 (citations omitted)).   
 
 
government’s memorandum dated January 10, 2024 (“Exhibit 1”).  In rendering 
our decision, the Board considered all the parties’ arguments and cited 
evidence, including arguments set forth in Frontline’s March 24, 2025, motion 
for leave to file supplemental evidence.  
2 Given our disposition of this motion, we need not address this argument.   

3 
 
DECISION 
 
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a party “must demonstrate a 
compelling reason for the Board to modify its decision.”  Golden Build Co., ASBCA 
No. 62294, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,742 at 183,161 (quoting Bruce E. Zoeller, ASBCA 
No. 56578, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,803 at 175,103).  “[If] we have made mistakes in the 
findings of fact or conclusions of law, or by failing to consider an appropriate matter, 
reconsideration may be appropriate.”  Chugach Fed. Sols., Inc., ASBCA No. 61320, 
23-1 BCA ¶ 38,456 at 186,918; Robinson Quality Constructors, ASBCA No. 55784, 
09-2 BCA ¶ 34,171 at 168,911.  “In short, if we have made a genuine oversight that 
affects the outcome of the appeal, we will remedy it.”  Relyant, LLC, ASBCA 
No. 59809, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,146 at 180,841.  Reconsideration might also be appropriate 
in the event of newly discovered evidence.  Afghan Premier Logistics, ASBCA 
No. 62938 et al., 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,373 at 186,402.  Motions for reconsideration, 
however, are “not the place to present arguments previously made and rejected.”  Id.; 
Potomac Elec. Corp., ASBCA No. 61371, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,663 at 182,862 (“A motion 
for reconsideration is not intended to present a ‘post-decision bolstering of contentions 
which we have already rejected.’”) (quoting Charitable Bingo Assocs., Inc., d/b/a 
Mr. Bingo, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 53249, 53470, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,088 at 164,014).  They 
“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).  
 
 Frontline has not demonstrated that reconsideration of our original decision is 
warranted.  It has not shown any mistakes in the findings of fact or conclusions of law 
in our decision, nor has it shown the existence of newly discovered evidence.  
Although Frontline makes much of the purported significance of Exhibit 1, the fact 
remains that it submitted Exhibit 1 to the Board before we issued our original decision.  
It could have asserted the existence of an implied-in-fact contract at that time, but it 
did not.  See (app. resp. to govt’s mot. to dismiss). 
 
Frontline is clearly attempting to take a second bite the apple by arguing that it 
had an implied-in-fact contract directly with the government.  As Frontline itself 
admits, “the existence of an implied-in-fact contractual relationship through 
constructive ratification[] was not directly argued or addressed during the original 
proceedings” (app. mot. at 3).  Frontline has failed to show a compelling reason for us 
to modify our original decision.   
 
Moreover, even if we granted the motion, Frontline would still have to establish 
our jurisdiction over its allegation of an implied-in-fact contract.  To do so, it would 
have to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the new allegation 
“derive[] from the same set of common or related operative facts” as those contained 
in the claim and “seek[s] the same or similar relief.”  Parwan Grp. Co., ASBCA 

4 
 
No. 60657, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,082 at 180,495 (citing Scott Timber Co. v. United States, 
333 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).  Allegations presenting a new legal theory of 
recovery, or the introduction of additional facts that do not alter the nature of the 
original claim, do not constitute a new claim if they are based on the same set of 
operative facts included in the original claim.  Id. (citing Trepte Constr. Co., ASBCA 
38555, 90-1 BCA ¶ 22,595 at 113,385-86).  “Where proof of the new legal theory 
includes operative facts differing from those in the original claim, however, ‘the 
essential nature of the claim has been changed and we do not have jurisdiction over the 
new claim until it has been presented to the contracting officer for decision.’”  Id. 
(quoting Shams Eng’g and Contracting Co. and Ramli Co., ASBCA Nos. 50618, 
50619, 98-2 BCA ¶ 30,019 at 148,525).   
 
Frontline argues its assertion of an implied-in-fact contract “refin[es] legal 
theories, grounded in the same underlying facts” (app. reply at 6).  However, here, 
Frontline bases its claim on a new set of operative facts derived from Exhibit 1, which 
was neither part of the original claim nor submitted to the contracting officer for a 
final decision.  Accordingly, we conclude that this new legal theory is not grounded in 
the same underlying facts and, as such, is a new claim.  We cannot exercise 
jurisdiction over new claims asserted here that were not previously presented to the 
contracting officer.  Conrad Shipyard, LLC, ASBCA No. 63869, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,796 
at 188,686, citing Wilwood Eng. Inc., ASBCA No. 62773, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,116 
at 185,144. (explaining the action before the Board must arise from the same operative 
facts as the claim submitted to the contracting officer, seek essentially the same relief, 
and not advance a materially different legal theory).  Thus, Frontline’s argument must 
fail. 
 
 Finally, with respect to Frontline’s allegation of “procedural” misconduct by 
USACE personnel, we have seen no evidence of any misconduct on the part of 
USACE counsel in this appeal.  Frontline’s complaints about the handling of its FOIA 
requests are not relevant to the proceedings before this Board, as our jurisdiction does 
not extend to an agency’s FOIA actions.  See 41 U.S.C. §7105(e).   
  

5 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 The motion for reconsideration is denied. 
 
 Dated:  January 14, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
 
 
 
MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 I concur 
 
 
 DAVID B. STINSON 
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. 64022,
 Appeal of Frontline 
Support Solutions, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  January 14, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals