ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE HERZFELD 
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
 
D-STAR Engineering Corporation (D-STAR) seeks reconsideration of our 
decision sustaining in part and denying in part its appeals.  See D-Star Eng’g Corp., 
ASBCA Nos. 62075, 62780, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,816.  For the reasons discussed below, we 
deny D-STAR’s motion for reconsideration. 
 
DECISION 
 
We will grant a motion to reconsider if a party (1) demonstrates a compelling 
reason for the Board to modify its decision by showing 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.  
North Wind Constr. Servs., LLC, ASBCA No. 63641, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,622 at 187,751; 
Restoration Specialists, LLC, ASBCA No. 63284, 24-1 BCA ¶ 38,503 at 187,139; 
Afghan Premier Logistics, ASBCA No. 62938, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,373 at 186,402.  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.   
 
D-STAR mostly repeats prior arguments that we considered and rejected, 
attempting to take a second bite at the apple with its motion for reconsideration (and 
supplement).  None of the arguments demonstrate a factual or legal error.  We have 
considered all of D-STAR’s arguments and do not find any of them compelling.  
Appeals of - )  
 )  
D-STAR Engineering Corp. ) ASBCA Nos. 62075, 62780 
 )  
Under Contract No. FA8650-12-C-7243 )  
   
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. S. Paul Dev 
    President 
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Samuel W. Morris, Esq. 
    DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 
 Adrianne L. Goins, Esq. 
    Trial Attorney 
    Defense Contract Management Agency 

2 
 
However, we address two issues that D-STAR repeatedly asserts as a basis for 
reconsideration. 
 
First, D-STAR repeatedly asserts that we failed to recognize the “first audit” 
conducted by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which it asserts was “very 
thorough,” took three months, and the auditors supposedly found no concerns with 
D-STAR’s accounts and expenses (app. mot. at 5, 15; app. supp. br. at 2-3, 6-9, 11-13, 
15; ASBCA No. 62075 compl. at 105-29; ASBCA No. 62780 compl. at 7-8, 18-19).  
D-STAR refers to the “first audit” as beginning on August 21, 2015 (see app. supp. 
R4, tab 9 at 1).  Our decision discusses that DCAA began auditing D-STAR’s 
termination settlement proposal on August 21, 2015.  D-STAR, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,816 
at 188,820 (“On August 21, 2015, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) began 
auditing D-STAR’s July 2015 termination settlement proposal (R4, tabs 57-58).”).  
Contrary to D-STAR’s contention that DCAA had no concerns about D-STAR’s 
records in this “first audit,” DCAA was unable to conduct any audit in those three 
months because DCAA found D-STAR’s termination settlement proposal “inadequate 
and noncompliant.”  Id. (quoting R4, tab 9 at 78).  Thus, we find no merit in 
D- STAR’s assertion that this “first audit” provides any basis to reconsider our initial 
decision or that we did not properly consider it in the first place. 
 
Second, D-STAR repeatedly asserts that we found the wrong balance between 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation’s (FAR) cost principles (FAR Part 31) and the 
fairness principle applicable to terminations (FAR 49.201(a)) (app. mot. at 4, 14; 
app. supp. br. at 2, 5, 9, 14).  D-STAR wants to use the fairness principle in 
FAR 49.201 to relieve it of its burden of proving that its costs were reasonable as 
required by FAR 31.201-3(a).  See D-STAR, 25-1 BCA ¶ 38,816 at 188,827-28.  
D- STAR blames the passage of time for its inability to rebut the DCAA’s challenges 
to the reasonableness of its direct labor costs.   
 
While we may subordinate strict compliance with accounting practices and may 
permit estimates when assessing termination costs, a contractor’s estimates must still 
“furnish equally reliable guides to fair compensation.”  FAR 49.201(c).  “FAR 49.201 
does not nullify part 31’s cost principles . . . .”  Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc., 
ASBCA No. 52283, 02-1 BCA ¶ 31,659 at 156,411; see also Metro Mach. Corp., 
ASBCA No. 47005, 97-1 BCA ¶ 28,723 at 143,381 (“Fairness may permit the 
subordination of strict accounting practices, but does not justify disregarding an 
unambiguous contract provision.”).  Nor does it nullify the burden of proof.  
Nicon, Inc. v. United States, 331 F.3d 878, 885 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that the 
“burden is on the contractor” even considering the “overall purpose” to fairly 
compensate a contractor for terminated work); Int’l Equip. Servs., Inc., ASBCA 
No. 21104, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,675 at 82,924 (“[E]ven if use of estimates is permissible, 
the contractor bears the burden of proof.”).  Regardless of the method of proving its 
costs (by records or other equally reliable evidence), however, “[t]he fact of loss must 

3 
 
be proven with certainty and the amount of loss with sufficient certainty so that the 
determination of the amount of damages will be more than mere speculation.”  
Tagarelli Bros. Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 34793, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,363 at 102,990 
(citing Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 828 F.2d 759 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).   
D-STAR failed to meet its legal burden of proof, even considering the fairness 
principle.   
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Ultimately, we have considered all of D-STAR’s other arguments in its motion 
and supplement and find them uncompelling.  D-STAR’s motion for reconsideration is 
denied. 
 
 Dated:  August 20, 2025
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
I concur 
 
 
 
OWEN C. WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 I concur 
 
 
 
 J. REID PROUTY 
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 Nos. 62075, 62780, Appeals of 
D-STAR Engineering Corp., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  August 20, 2025  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DANIEL S. HERZFELD 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals