ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of-­
MOQA-AQYOL JV, LTD. 
Under Contract No. W5J9JE-10-C-0031 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 60456 
Thomas J. Fraser, Jr., Esq. 
Eavenson, Fraser, Lunsford & Ivan 
Jacksonville, FL 
Thomas J. Warren, Esq. 
Acting Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
Daniel B. McConnell, Esq. 
Rebecca L. Bockmann, Esq. 
Engineer Trial Attorneys 
U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East 
Winchester, VA 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'CONNELL 
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
MOQA-AQYOL JV, LTD. (MOQA) has filed a motion for reconsideration of 
our decision in MOQA-AQYOL JV, LTD., ASBCA Nos. 57963, 60456, 17-1 BCA 
,i 36,909, in which we denied MOQA's challenge to the default termination and its 
money claim. MOQA's motion concerns only the money claim, ASBCA No. 60456. 
DECISION 
The standards for deciding a motion for reconsideration are well established. 
Reconsideration does not provide a party an opportunity to reargue issues that were 
previously raised and decided. Precision Standard, Inc., ASBCA No. 58135, 16-1 
BCA ,i 36,504 at 177,860. The movant must establish a compelling reason to modify 
the earlier decision. Id. We look to whether the movant presents newly discovered 
evidence, mistakes in findings of fact, or errors of law. Id. A motion for 
reconsideration does not provide a litigant a "second bite at the apple" or the 
opportunity to advance arguments that properly should have been presented in an 
earlier proceeding. Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 
While MOQA sought damages in four discrete categories, it challenges our 
determination with respect to only one: $842,587.23 for work performed through the 
date of termination. It does not seek reconsideration of our decision with respect to 

materials and equipment left on site or consulting fees paid to Kevin Cato. (App. mot. 
at 23) 
We conclude that MOQA's motion falls squarely in the "second bite at the 
apple" category: its 30-page motion for reconsideration contains far more facts and 
arguments relating to damages than it presented in its post-hearing brief, which was 
devoted mainly to the termination for default. But there is nothing in MOQA's motion 
that leads us to change our opinion. 
The crux ofMOQA's motion is that it accomplished more work than reflected 
in the amount that it has been paid. As detailed in our opinion, the project was in a 
remote area of Afghanistan and none of the witnesses testifying at the hearing-had 
spent any significant time at the site. MOQA, 17-1 BCA 136,909 at 179,811, 
findings 3, 5. As the party with the burden of proof on its money claim, this presented 
a challenge to MOQA that it could not overcome. None of MOQA's witnesses 
testified as to any specific facts that would allow us to award MOQA more money 
than the Corps paid. 
In calculating the final payment due MOQA, we found that there was internal 
disagreement at the Corps as to whether MOQA had completed 20 or 25% of the work, 
but it went with the higher number. Our opinion detailed the many problems the Corps 
discovered with MOQA's work. See MOQA, 17-1BCA136,909 at 179,828-29. In 
light of these problems, we held that the contracting officer did not abuse his discretion 
in having the replacement contractor remove most of MOQA's work, including the 
foundation for the headquarters building, the perimeter wall and foundation, and the 
guard tower support columns. Id. Our conclusion was, and remains, that MOQA was 
paid 25% of the contract price even though it accomplished relatively little. 1 There is 
no basis for the Board to increase the amount paid. 
MOQA contends in its brief that we misunderstood testimony by the Corps 
quality assurance representative, Chester Lawrence. It contends that when he testified 
as to problems with the concrete and rebar it pertained only to MOQA's claim for 
materials left on site, which is a separate issue (app. mot. at 28). MOQA is incorrect 
to the extent it suggests that Mr. Lawrence's testimony supports a higher payment to 
MOQA. To the contrary, it was Mr. Lawrence who concluded that MOQA had 
completed only 20% of the project based on all of the defective work that had to be 
removed. MOQA, 17-1 BCA 136,909 at 179,823, finding 100. Moreover, MOQA is 
also incorrect in contending that Mr. Lawrence was testifying only about materials left 
1 Thus, although MOQA contends that it is entitled to about $320,000 more because it 
completed all of the work for the compound size modification, we found that 
the largest component of this was the wall around the new perimeter that had to 
be removed. Id. at 179,825, findings 114-15. 
2 

on site. The testimony we relied upon for finding 110 concerned the document found 
at Rule 4, tab 419 at 18, which was a photo of the building foundation. He testified: 
(Tr. 2/58) 
Some of this stuff from the pictures that I got show cracks, 
and deformed work, and rebar laying on the ground which 
shows me that it wasn't properly inspected by them. It was 
just put in and thrown in there. And we were going to 
reject that. 
Finally, MOQA also challenges the Corps' reduction of earlier payments for 
mobilization and security payments. MOQA is correct when it observes that 
contracting officer's representative, Theodore Champine, testified inaccurately that the 
contract required MOQA to be paid 60% for mobilization and 40% for demobilization. 
But the evidence in the record does not go much beyond that. Other than a contract 
line item number (CLIN) for Defense Base Act insurance, the contract as awarded 
contained only one CLIN, which was to site adapt the design and build the project 
(CLIN 0001). (R4, tab 7 at 3) There was no mobilization CLIN. The parties 
apparently reached an agreement where they broke down CLIN 0001 into "cost 
loaded" items or "sub-CLINs" (tr. 1/138), but neither party presented evidence as to 
how this was done or what had to be accomplished for MOQA to paid in full for the 
sub-CLINs. 
The parties agree that there was a sub-CLIN for mobilization for $250,000. 
MOQA contends that the entire sum was due on mobilization while the Corps 
contends it was split between mobilization and demobilization. Neither party has 
directed us to a provision in the contract or other documents that supports its position. 
Because MOQA has the burden of proof on its money claim, we hold that MOQA has 
not met its burden on the mobilization issue. Wilner v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 
1401 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en bane). The same holds true for MOQA's project security 
issue. The evidence is inadequate for us to award MOQA any money. 2 
2 MOQA's did not make its arguments concerning mobilization and security payments 
in its post-hearing briefs. 
3 

MOQA's motion is denied. 
Dated: 27 March 2018 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
CONCLUSION 
·m~r(\ J!J'L-OJJ 
M1CfIAELN. O'CONNELL 
Admini~trative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
£)1_---.. 
OWEN C. WILSON 
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. 60456, Appeal of 
MOQA-AQYOL JV, LTD., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals