ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. DAAA09-02-D-0007 ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 57530, 58161 
E. Sanderson Hoe, Esq. 
Herbert L. Fenster, Esq. 
Raymond B. Biagini, Esq. 
Alejandro L. Sarria, Esq. 
Covington & Burling LLP 
Washington DC 
Arthur M. Taylor, Esq. 
DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 
Carol Matsunaga, Esq. 
Senior Trial Attorney 
Kara M. Klaas, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
Defense Contract Management Agency 
Carson, CA 
Russell B. Kinner, Esq. 
Patrick M. Klein, Esq. 
David W. Tyler, Esq. 
Trial Attorneys 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, DC 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK ON APPELLANT'S 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO THE 
SENIOR DECIDING GROUP 
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR), seeks referral of these appeals to 
the Board's Senior Deciding Group, and seeks reconsideration of the Board's 
November 19, 2018 decision denying the appeals.* 
* The Professional Services Council and the National Defense Industrial Association 
filed a supporting brief as amici curiae. KBR was also supported by a letter 
from the International Stability Operations Association. KBR also seeks oral 
argument upon its motion for reconsideration, which is denied. 

Requests that an appeal be referred to the Board's Senior Deciding Group are 
addressed in the Board's Rules and Charter. ASBCA Rules, Preface,§ II(c); ASBCA 
Charter, 84 Fed. Reg. 4360-0L 4361 (Feb. 15, 2019) (to be codified at 48 C.F.R .. ch. 
2, appx. A, pt. 1. i13). The Chairman has considered KBR's request pursuant to those 
provisions and denies it. 
Motions for reconsideration do not grant "an opportunity to reargue issues that 
were previously raised and decided." John C. Grimberg Co., ASBCA Nos. 58791, 
59717, 19-1BCAi137,227 at 181,211 (citing Precision Standard, Inc., ASBCA 
No. 58135, 16-1BCAi136,504 at 177,860). Nor do they allow a "second bite at the 
apple" or an "opportunity to advance arguments that properly should have been 
presented in an earlier proceeding." Id. (quoting Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 
(Fed. Cir. 2014)). Motions for reconsideration are granted "ifwe have made a genuine 
oversight that affects the outcome of the appeal." Id. (quoting Relyant, LLC, ASBCA 
No. 59809, 18-1BCAi137,146 at 180,841). KBR's motion reargues some points 
already considered by the Board, raises new arguments it could have previously 
advanced but did not, and substitutes prior contentions with new ones that it now 
prefers. But mostly, it does not persuade us that we have made an oversight that affects 
the outcome of the appeal 
CONCLUSION 
KBR's motion for reconsideration is denied. 
Dated: May 1, 2019 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
2 
2Lt{~ 
MARK A. MELNICK 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I 

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. 57530, 58161, Appeals of 
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's 
Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals