ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
Appeals of - )  
 )  
Paragon Defense Solutions, Inc. ) 
) 
ASBCA Nos. 64168, 64308, 64310 
 64297, 64173 
 )  
Under Contract Nos. SPE7M2-23-P-1048 
SPE7M4-22-P-3476 
SPE7M2-23-P-0321 
SPE7M1-21-D-5005 
SPE7L1-23-C-0011 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
   
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Weiwei Jian 
    President 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Steven M. Sosko, Esq. 
    DLA Chief Trial Attorney 
 John J. Pritchard, Esq. 
Julie K. Phillips, Esq. 
Adam J. Heer, Esq. 
Andrew Demosthenous, Esq. 
    Trial Attorneys 
    DLA Land and Maritime 
    Columbus, OH 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE EYESTER  
ON APPELLANT’S MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 
 
Appellant Paragon Defense Solutions, Inc. (Paragon) requests reconsideration 
of the following Board decisions denying its appeals:  ASBCA Nos. 64168, 64308, 
64310, 64297, and 64173.
1  The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) submitted a 
response to Paragon’s motions, and the time has elapsed for Paragon to file a reply.  
We note that Paragon pursued these appeals pursuant to Board Rule 12.2, Small 
Claims (Expedited) Procedure.  As such, the decisions have no precedential value, and 
while Paragon may request reconsideration (see Board Rule 12.4), in the absence of 
 
1Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., ASBCA No. 64168, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,900; Paragon Def. 
Sols., Inc., ASBCA No. 64308, 26-1 BCA ¶ 38,949; Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., 
ASBCA No. 64310, 26-1 BCA ¶ 38,954; Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., ASBCA 
No. 64297, 26-1 BCA ¶ 38,947; and Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., ASBCA 
No. 64173, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,912. 

2 
fraud, each is final and conclusive and may not be appealed or set aside.  41 U.S.C. 
§ 7106(b)(4)-(5).2  Based on the following, we deny the motions. 
 
DECISION 
 
A party moving for reconsideration “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 75,103).  Specifically, we will grant a motion to reconsider if a party:  
(1) demonstrates we made a genuine oversight that affects the outcome, or (2) presents 
newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered by due diligence prior 
to the issuance of the challenged decision.  Restoration Specialists, LLC, ASBCA 
No. 63284, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,503 at 187,139.  “[I]f 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.  Accordingly, a motion to reconsider is not 
an invitation for a party to reargue issues that were previously raised and decided, get a 
“second bite at the apple,” or advance arguments it could have previously raised but 
failed to do so.  Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Restoration 
Specialists, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,503 at 187,139. 
 
While familiarity with the facts of each decision is presumed, we provide a 
brief discussion of the appeals as they relate to the motions.  The following appeals 
involve requests for quotations issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR) part 13. 
 
In ASBCA No. 64168, we concluded that Paragon failed to provide conforming 
items, DLA never accepted the items, and the purchase order lapsed.  Paragon Def. 
Sols., Inc., 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,900 at 189,360.  Paragon’s main argument in the appeal 
was that DLA waived its right to reject the nonconforming items because it took 
28 months to notify Paragon of the issues, and therefore DLA constructively accepted 
them.  Id.  We concluded DLA never accepted the items, either impliedly or 
constructively.  Id. at 189,361.  In its motion for reconsideration, Paragon reargues that 
the delay in notifying Paragon of the defects was an implied acceptance or waiver of 
any rejection rights (app. mot. at 2-4).  Paragon also makes somewhat new 
arguments--that DLA owed an implied duty not to hinder and cooperate in 
performance, that DLA’s conduct materially contributed to the nonconformance of the 
items, or, in the alternative, that there was disproportionate forfeiture (id. at 2).  
Paragon could have made these arguments in its prior briefs and failed to do so, 
although we do note these arguments generally relate to the argument that DLA 
delayed in notifying Paragon of the defects, which we addressed in the decision. 
 
2 This reconsideration opinion is likewise of no precedential value, nor may it be 
appealed or set aside, in the absence of fraud. 

3 
 
In ASBCA No. 64308, we concluded that Paragon failed to deliver per the 
terms of the order, DLA never waived the delivery date, and there was no substantial 
performance.  Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., 26-1 BCA ¶ 38,949 at 189,583.  As such, 
DLA’s offer lapsed.  Id.  In its motion for reconsideration, Paragon continues to 
reargue its prior position (e.g., substantial performance) (app. mot. at 1-3).  Paragon 
also re-argues that the offer lapsed not because Paragon failed to deliver on time, but 
due to DLA’s actions, some of which were a “pretext” (id. at 2-3).  We addressed 
these arguments.  See Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., 26-1 BCA ¶ 38,949 at 189,583.  
Paragon continues to ignore the facts and law, namely that it failed to deliver by the 
due date, and the offer lapsed. 
 
In ASBCA No. 64310, we concluded that Paragon never accepted the purchase 
order because it submitted a counter-offer to use a noncompliant manufacturer, and 
DLA rejected the counteroffer and then canceled the offer.  Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., 
26-1 BCA ¶ 38,954 at 189,631.  As such, we denied the appeal, in which Paragon 
sought lost profits.  Id. at 189,630-31.  In its motion for reconsideration, Paragon 
argues, as in its initial briefs, that it performed and that a contract had formed, and that 
DLA accepted Paragon’s offer the minute it was submitted with the noncompliant 
manufacturer (app. mot. at 1-3).  As noted, we addressed these issues.  Paragon Def. 
Sols., Inc., 26-1 BCA ¶ 38,954 at 189,630-31.  Paragon also argues that since 
FAR 52.215-8 is a contract clause, upon which the Board’s decision relies, this ipso 
facto means a contract was formed as such a clause cannot be used in a purchase order 
(app. mot. at 2-3).  Paragon could have made this argument in its initial briefs upon 
reviewing the purchase order, but failed to do so.  Regardless, Paragon fails to explain 
how this clause overrides the fact that Paragon never signed the purchase order and 
that the order included FAR 52.213-4, TERMS AND CONDITIONS-SIMPLIFIED 
ACQUISITIONS (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND 
COMMERCIAL SERVICES).  See Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., 26-1 BCA ¶ 38,954 
at 189,630.  Paragon also does not dispute, again, the fact it intended to use a 
manufacturer that did not meet the purchase order’s mandatory requirements for 
export controls of technical data. 
 
Two Board decisions concerned terminations.  In ASBCA No. 64297, we 
concluded that Paragon failed to meet the delivery date, and DLA never modified the 
delivery date.  Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., 26-1 BCA ¶ 38,947 at 189,578.  As the failure 
was not excusable, DLA had the right to terminate for default.  Id.  In its motion for 
reconsideration, Paragon argues the cause of the delay was due to the government’s 
failure to update Paragon’s SAM.gov with its new warehouse location, that Paragon 
possessed the items at its new warehouse since September 2021, and the government’s 
termination was a pretext (app. mot. at 2-4).  These are not new arguments.  See 
Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., 26-1 BCA ¶ 38,947 at 189,578.  And while Paragon takes 
issue with our findings of facts with respect to DLA’s email regarding “Government 

4 
error and delay” (app. mot. at 2), we explain once again the email states that if the 
original warehouse location (i.e., the inspection/acceptance point) was still correct, 
then DLA would issue modifications due to the government error and delay; the email 
did not say that the government caused any issues with a SAM.gov change to a 
different warehouse.  Further, we note that DLA’s response to the motion for 
reconsideration asserts that Paragon did not present any new information nor 
demonstrate “any mistake in the Board’s findings of fact” (hence, the DLA email) 
(gov’t resp. at 1). 
 
In ASBCA No. 64173, we concluded that DLA’s termination for default was 
proper because Paragon failed to provide the towbars by the due date and failed to 
provide a firm date by which it could provide the towbars in its response to a show 
cause letter.  Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,912 at 189,411-12.  Paragon had 
argued that DLA waived the delivery dates by accepting late deliveries, but the Board 
concluded there was no affirmative government conduct evidencing waiver.  Id. 
at 189,410-11.  Further, Paragon argued that DLA acted in bad faith, retaliated against 
Paragon, breached its duty of fairness, and that the termination was arbitrary 
capricious, and an abuse of discretion and procedurally defective.  Id. at 189,411-12.  
We found these arguments to have no merit.  Id.  Paragon sought reimbursement for 
money paid after DLA issued a show cause letter, which stated that Paragon was not to 
initiate any further shipments.  Id. at 189,411.  According to the facts, Paragon 
understood DLA had the right to terminate for default and that it made the payments 
for which it sought reimbursement at its own risk.  Id. at 189,411-12. 
 
In its motion for reconsideration, Paragon continues to argue DLA waived the 
delivery schedule and acted in a retaliatory, coercive, and baseless manner (app. mot. 
at 2-3).  Paragon argues the Board failed to analyze the alleged procedural violations, 
and then relitigates the issues (id. at 3-5).  As set forth above, Paragon previously 
made these arguments, which the Board addressed in its decision.  Paragon Def. Sols., 
Inc., 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,912 at 189,411-12. 
 
Paragon also argues the Board faulted it for failing to timely notify DLA about 
the causes of the delay (app. mot. at 5-6).  To the contrary, the decision states that 
Paragon's response to DLA’s show cause letter included a summary explanation that 
there were supply chain issues and failed to include a statement from its manufacturer 
regarding these issues; there seemed to be payment issues between Paragon and its 
manufacturer; Paragon was able to provide some shipments to DLA despite the alleged 
supply chain and the DX rating issues; the information relating to the alleged supply 
chain and DX rating issues only came to light after DLA issued the show cause letter; 
and generally, material shortages do not per se relieve a contractor of its contractual 
obligations.  Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., 25-1 BCA ¶  38,912 at 189,411-12 (citing 
Eppco Metals Corp., ASBCA No. 38305, 90-1 BCA ¶22,349 at 112,304; Precision 

5 
Standard, Inc., ASBCA No. 44357, 96-2 BCA ¶8,461 at 142,155.  Ultimately, Paragon 
failed to demonstrate excusable delay. 
 
In sum, Paragon contends that each of our decisions is erroneous.  However, in 
its motions for reconsideration, Paragon failed to show the Board made a genuine 
oversight that affected the decision’s outcome, or failed to present newly discovered 
evidence.
3  Rather, as summarized above, Paragon simply reasserts arguments already 
addressed by the Board in an attempt to get a second bite at the apple.  Further, any 
new arguments made could have been made in the initial filings.  In any event, we 
have again thoroughly considered all of Paragon’s arguments and do not find any of 
them compelling. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Paragon’s motions are denied. 
 
Dated:  March 5, 2026 
 
 
 
LAURA EYESTER 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 
  
 
3 Paragon argues in several of its motions that the Board cursorily addressed some of 
its arguments.  See e.g., App. mot. at 3 (ASBCA No. 64308) (arguing Board 
dismissed its argument, without any analysis, that the reason the offer lapsed 
was a “pretext” by DLA).  Board Rule 12.2(c) explains that decisions processed 
under the expedited procedures “will be short” and contain “only summary 
findings of fact and conclusions.”  Regardless, the Board considered all of the 
numerous arguments made and addressed most of them in these appeals.  For 
example, in ASBCA No. 64308, we found no “pretext” by DLA because we 
concluded the offer lapsed by its own terms due to Paragon’s failure to meet the 
delivery date.  Paragon Def. Sols., Inc., 26-1 BCA ¶ 38,949 at 189,583. 

6 
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. 64168, 64308, 64310, 
64297, 64173, Appeals of Paragon Defense Solutions Inc., rendered in conformance 
with the Board’s Charter. 
 
Dated:  March 5, 2026  
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals