ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
 
Appeal of --  ) 
  ) 
Doubleshot, Inc. ) 
  ) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Wayne A. Keup, Esq. 
  Wayne A. Keup, PLLC  
  Washington, DC 
  
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Arthur M. Taylor, Esq. 
  DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 
Srikanti Schaffner, Esq. 
  Trial Attorney 
  Defense Contract Management Agency 
  Carson, CA  
 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O’CONNELL 
 
 Appellant, Doubleshot, Inc. (Doubleshot) has filed a motion for reconsideration 
of the Board’s July 22, 2020, decision denying summary judgment that the 
government’s claim is time barred.  The Board denies the motion.  
 
DECISION 
 
 “Motions for reconsideration do not afford litigants the opportunity to take a 
‘second bite at the apple’ or to advance arguments that properly should have been 
presented in an earlier proceeding.”  Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 
2014).  But if we made mistakes in our findings of fact or conclusions of law, or by 
failing to consider an appropriate matter, reconsideration may be appropriate.  Ford 
Lumber & Bldg. Supply, Inc., ASBCA No. 61618, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,487 at 182,088. 
 
 In its motion for reconsideration, Doubleshot contends that the government had 
all of the information it needed to assert its claim by the time the Defense Contract 
Audit Agency (DCAA) issued a “flash report” on April 29, 2011 (app. mot. for recon. 
at 2-3).  Doubleshot raised this contention in its motion for summary judgment but the 
Board rejected it.  Doubleshot, Inc., ASBCA No. 61691, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,677 
at 182,904-05. 
ASBCA No.   61691 
Under Contract Nos.  N6835-06-C-0416  
 W56HZV-07-C-0295 
 N00014-07-C-0386 
 N00014-08-C-0497 

2 
 
 
 In its motion and reply brief, Doubleshot acknowledges that in 2013 it 
submitted incurred cost proposals and does not dispute the government’s contention 
that as late as 2017 it was still providing financial documentation to DCAA (see, e.g., 
gov’t resp. at exs. G8-G11).  One of the weaknesses in Doubleshot’s presentation is 
that none of the financial documents it produced to DCAA prior to the 2011 flash 
report, nor those it produced in 2016 and 2017, are in the record.   
 
 As the Board explained in the opinion, the determination of the accrual date of 
a government claim is a fact specific inquiry.  Doubleshot, Inc., ASBCA No. 61691, 
20-1 BCA ¶ 37,677 at 182,904.  On summary judgment, the Board must construe the 
evidence in the light most favorable to the government as the non-moving party and 
must draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.  Id. at 182,905.  Thus, for example, 
while Doubleshot dismisses the importance of the documents it provided to DCAA in 
2016 and 2017 (app. reply at 2-3), the government disagrees, pointing out that in that 
time period Doubleshot provided DCAA with payroll, employee checks, time cards, 
and bank verifications to support its purported costs (gov’t resp. at 5).   
 
 A dispute centered upon the parties’ dueling characterizations of non-record 
evidence is simply not appropriate for resolution on summary judgment.∗  The Board 
clarifies, however, that after development of a full record, the Board will make a final 
determination as to whether any portion of the government’s claim is barred by the 
statute of limitations. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 Doubleshot’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 
 
 Dated:  November 17, 2020
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (Signatures continued) 
                                              
∗  The Board acknowledges Doubleshot’s reliance on our opinion in Laguna 
Construction Co., Inc., ASBCA No. 58569, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,618, but that appeal 
is distinguishable because, among other things, the contractor provided all of 
the pertinent documentation to DCAA giving rise to the government claim in 
the same year that the contract was awarded. 
 
 
 
MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 


3 
I concur 
 
 
 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
 I concur 
 
 
 
 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. 61691, Appeal of 
Doubleshot, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. 
 
 Dated:  November 18, 2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals