ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PROUTY ON THE GOVERNMENT’S 
MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD AND/OR FOR RECONSIDERATION 
 
 The government has made a motion to “correct the record and/or reconsider” 
(gov’t mot.) our earlier decision
1 denying the cross-motions for summary judgment 
brought by both parties.  See Advanced Techs. Grp., Inc., ASBCA Nos. 59986, 61092, 
20-1 BCA ¶ 37,7442 (ATG).  In particular, the government is concerned that some of 
the language in that decision might be construed as denying a basis for summary 
judgment which the government had never advanced (gov’t mot. passim).  Appellant, 
Advanced Technologies Group, Inc. (ATGI) opposes the motion (app. opp’n).  As 
explained below, we grant the government’s motion, which we construe as a motion 
for reconsideration. 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
1 That decision was authored by Judge Hartman, who retired from the Board earlier 
this year, though this motion was submitted before his retirement. 
2 This opinion was issued prior to the consolidation of ASBCA Nos. 61693, 61996 
with ASBCA Nos. 59986 and 61092, which had previously been consolidated. 
Appeals of - )  
 )  
Advanced Technologies Group, Inc. ) 
) 
) 
ASBCA Nos. 59986, 61092 
                       61693, 61996  
 )  
Under Contract Nos. W911QX-06-C-0068 
W911W6-08-C-0043 
N68335-09-C-0214 
N68335-09-C-0313 
N68335-11-C-0154 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
   
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. John Justak 
    President   
 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Samuel W. Morris, Esq. 
    DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 
 Joseph P. McCool, Esq. 
Alexander M. Healy, Esq. 
  Trial Attorneys 
  Defense Contract Management Agency 
  Chantilly, VA  

2 
 
 The appeals embraced by the summary judgment decision here involve the 
Defense Contract Management Agency’s contracting officer’s (CO) decisions finding 
that ATGI had included expressly unallowable costs in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 and 
FY 2009 indirect cost rate submissions.  See ATG, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,744 at 183,168-70.  
ATGI appealed the decisions to the Board, with ASBCA No. 59986 challenging the 
decision on the FY 2007 indirect cost rate submission and ASBCA No. 61092 
challenging the decision on the FY 2009 indirect cost rate submission. 
 
 Shortly after these appeals were filed, the parties submitted cross motions for 
summary judgment.  ATGI argued that the CO’s final decisions were issued after the 
Contract Disputes Act’s six-year statute of limitations had passed and that judgment in 
its favor should be entered on those grounds.  See ATG, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,744 
at 183,171.  The government, for its part, sought a finding that its claims were not 
barred by the statute of limitations which, according to the government, would 
eliminate ATGI’s affirmative defense in the FY 2007 appeal (ASBCA No. 59986) and 
eliminate the entire basis of ATGI’s FY 2009 appeal (ASBCA No. 61092), since the 
only challenge it brought to the CO’s decision for that year was that it was brought too 
late.  The government did not, however, address the merits of the CO’s decisions in its 
cross-motion.  (See gov’t opp’n to mot. for summary judgment and cross-motions for 
summary judgment) 
 
 With respect to ATGI’s motion for summary judgment, the decision held that 
there was a “genuine issue of material fact as to whether the [indirect cost rate 
proposals] contained sufficient data for the government to know of its claims asserted 
in these appeals.”  See ATG, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,744 at 183,173.  Turning to the 
government’s cross motion, the decision addressed the merits of the CO’s finding that 
the questioned costs (involving patents) were unallowable.  Id. at 183,173-74.  The 
decision ultimately found that, “[b]ecause the record before us primarily contains terse 
legal bills . . . and the government has not presented evidence regarding the disputed 
costs showing that they are expressly unallowable, we currently do not have a factual 
basis to grant summary judgment to the government that ATGI’s patent legal costs are 
‘expressly unallowable.’”  Id. at 183,174.  The decision did not discuss the 
government’s request for summary judgment in its favor on the subject of the statute 
of limitations.  See id. passim. 
 
 The government filed its motion to correct the record or for reconsideration 
within 30 days of the issuance of the decision, in accordance with Board Rule 20.  
ATGI did not file an opposition to the motion and the judge presiding on the appeal 
at the time did not rule upon it.  When the appeals were assigned to the undersigned, 
we provided ATGI with the opportunity to submit an opposition to the motion, which 
it did.  The government filed a reply. 

3 
DECISION 
 
 As we will discuss in more detail below, it is plain that the original decision in 
this matter misread the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment and denied 
it for the wrong reasons.  In a sense, this does not matter because the motion should 
have been denied for the same reasons that ATGI’s motion for summary judgment was 
denied, but, nevertheless, the decision should be corrected as it will be. 
 
 We treat this as a motion for reconsideration, rather than for correction of the 
record, for reasons we explain below.  In any event, as we explained in Relyant, LLC: 
 
[I]f 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.  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 (citations omitted).   
Under this standard, reconsideration is merited. 
 
 In misreading the government’s motion as it did, our original decision made 
two mistakes:  first, it failed to rule on the requests actually made by the government – 
that judgment be entered eliminating ATGI’s statute of limitations affirmative defense 
in ASBCA No. 59986 and that judgment be entered in whole for ASBCA No. 61092 
because the statute of limitations was the only defense to the CO’s decision in that 
matter.  Second, it opined on the evidentiary merits of a motion for summary judgment 
regarding the allowability of patent costs when such a motion was never made.  Both 
mistakes need to be remedied. 
 
 As to the mistake of not addressing the actual basis of the government’s cross-
motion for summary judgment, we do believe it somewhat implicit in the decision that 
the government’s motion for summary judgment should be denied for the same 
reasons that ATGI’s was denied:  namely, that statute of limitations defenses that rest 
upon when the government knew or should have known of its claims regarding 
incurred cost proposals, are often highly dependent upon the facts.  The same factual 
disputes that prevented the entry of judgment in favor of ATGI here, see ATG, 20-1 
BCA ¶ 37,744 at 183,173, also preclude the entry of judgment in favor of the 
government.  The original decision was in error for not expressly stating as much.  
Since remedying this mistake requires a substantive change to the original decision, 
we find that reconsideration, rather than mere correction of the record is necessary. 
 
 With respect to the decision’s second mistake – addressing a substantive ground 
for summary judgment not advanced by the government – we find those issues to have 

4 
been improvidently discussed and that they should have been omitted from the 
opinion, regardless of whether we would or would not agree with the decision’s 
reasoning on the issue. 
 
 ATGI has argued that we should not have considered the government’s motion 
because two other judges concurred in the original decision and so much time has 
passed between its being filed and the Board’s addressing it (see app. opp’n at 2).  We 
understand ATGI’s position and its frustration that this matter was not resolved earlier, 
but motions of reconsideration exist so that the Board may remedy mistakes in original 
decisions that wrongly prejudice a party:  almost every motion for reconsideration 
involves a three-judge decision (and, indeed, is a three-judge decision, itself) and, 
given the fact that the government complied with the Board’s rules in submitting its 
motion in a timely manner, the failure to address this motion in a more timely way 
does not change the fact that the decision was partially mistaken at the time it was 
issued and merits correction. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 The government’s motion for reconsideration is granted to the extent that the 
government’s cross-motions for summary judgment are denied because genuine 
factual disputes preclude a finding that it brought its claims within the statute of 
limitations, and the portion of the decision addressing the merits of the CO’s claims 
disallowing patent costs is stricken. 
 
 Dated:  March 6, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Signatures continued) 
 
 
 
J. REID PROUTY 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 
 
 

5 
I concur 
 
 
 
OWEN WILSON 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 I concur 
 
 
 
 LAURA EYESTER 
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 Nos. 59986, 61092, 61693, 
61996, Appeals of Advanced Technologies Group, Inc., rendered in conformance with 
the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  March 7, 2025 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals