ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. MDA220-01-D-0002 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 58028, 58794 
Joseph J. Dyer, Esq. 
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP 
Washington, DC 
Regina M. DelaRosa, Esq. 
April M. Beck, Esq. 
Trial Attorneys 
Defense Finance & Accounting Service 
Indianapolis, IN 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE 
JUDGE CLARKE ON THE GOVERNMENT'S 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
The Defense Finance & Accounting Service (DF AS) timely moves for reconsideration 
of our 8 December 2015 decision in Lockheed Martin Services, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 58028, 
58794, 16-1BCA~36,187, wherein we sustained Lockheed Martin Services, Inc.'s (LMSI's) 
appeals. The appeals involved LMSI's claim for payment for a license fee related to DFAS' 
use ofLMSI developed software in performance of the Military Retired and Annuitant Pay 
Operations contract. We awarded LMSI $1,140,462.56. We deny the motion. 
Reconsideration 
We discussed the standard for reconsideration in DODS, Inc., ASBCA No. 57667, 
13 BCA ~ 35,203 at 172,711, stating that "[t]o prevail on reconsideration, the moving party 
must generally establish that the underlying decision contained mistakes in our findings of facts 
or errors of law or that newly discovered evidence warrants vacating our decision." 
DISCUSSION 
DF AS first contends that the Board made a mistake of fact, "Respondent respectfully 
offers that the Board mistakenly found DRAS and MIRORS to be the same system, when 
they are two different systems" (gov't mot. at 1). DFAS points to Finding 5 of the decision 
as evidence of this mistake. In Finding 5 we stated, "Prior to Contract 0002 DF AS 
performed the DRAS function itself using government-owned hardware and software known 
collectively as the Mail Imaging Routing and Optical Reporting System, 'MIRORS. "' 

DF AS contends that "MIRO RS is a separate system that was used to scan incoming mail and 
route it to the technicians" (gov't mot. at 2-3). We agree that Finding 5 confuses the roles of 
MIRORS and DRAS. However, LMSI points out that MIRORS is not a "different" or 
"separate" system, MIRORS is part ofDRAS (app. resp. at 5). We agree that MIRORS 
works in conjunction with DRAS; this is made abundantly clear in contract section J.4.6., 
"LIST OF PROPERTIES, FACILITIES, MATERIALS AND SERVICES OFFERED BY 
THE GOVERNMENT," that lists Government Furnished Property (GFP) and identifies 
MIRORS and the DRAS Automated Information System (AIS) as GFP (Lockheed Martin, 
16-1 BCA if 36,187 at 176,552, 559; R4, DVD-A, tab C-0002 at PDF 109-110; gov't mot. at 
6). In any event, even accepting DF AS' argument that we confused DRAS with MIRO RS in 
Finding 5, a mistake of fact, DF AS fails to persuasively explain how our confusion affects 
the Board's contract interpretation, a question oflaw. This also holds true for DFAS' other 
arguments on pages 2 and 3 of its motion. This particular mistake of fact is a harmless 
mischaracterization that does not warrant modifying our decision. 
Next DF AS contends that the Board erred in finding that MIRO RS was not 
Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE) (gov't mot. at 4-9). The underpinning for this 
argument is twofold. First the mistake of fact discussed above and second, that "there was a 
meeting of the minds between the parties to the contract that MIRORS was GFE" (gov't 
mot. at 4 ). There was no consideration of this second argument in our decision because it 
was not raised by DFAS previously. Normally we might determine that having failed to 
raise the "meeting of the minds" argument previously, it is too late to raise it now. Avant 
Assessment, LLC. ASBCA No. 58867. 15-1BCAif36.137 at 176.386 ('"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."). 
However, we agree with DFAS that since the Board's decision was based on logic neither 
party argued in their briefs (gov't reply br. at if 1) we should exercise discretion and 
consider DF AS' argument. DF AS' "meeting of the minds" argument primarily relies upon 
inferences from documents in the record (gov't hr. at 4-5; gov't reply hr. at if 5). Not only is 
there no direct evidence of this "meeting of the minds," LMSI contests it in its responses 
( app. resp. at 7; app. sur-resp. at 3 ). Even ifthere were some evidence of a "meeting of the 
minds," it would be extrinsic evidence. As we stated above, contract section J.4.6., "LIST 
OF PROPERTIES, FACILITIES, MATERIALS AND SERVICES OFFERED BY THE 
GOVERNMENT," identifies MIRORS as GFP. Lockheed Martin, 16-1BCAif36,187 at 
176,552, 559; R4, DVD-A, tab C-0002 at PDF 109-110; gov't hr. at 6). Section J.4.6. is 
clear and unambiguous. Therefore, even if extrinsic evidence existed, it would be 
inadmissible. Teg-Paradigm Environmental, Inc. v. US., 465 F.3d 1329 at 1338 (Fed. Cir. 
2006) (When the contract's language is unambiguous it must be given its "plain and 
ordinary" meaning and the court may not look to extrinsic evidence to interpret its 
provisions.). We included the alternative interpretation in our decision only to show that the 
other clauses in the contract were consistent with Section J.4.6. Lockheed Martin, 16-1 BCA 
if 36,187 at 176,559-560. We have considered DFAS' arguments in its motion and reply 
and find them unpersuasive; MIRORS is not GFE. 
2 

In pages 9 to 12 of its motion, DFAS makes an alternative argument assuming that 
MIRO RS is not GFE. DF AS supports this argument with its initial position that MIRO RS is 
not DRAS. Based on this contention, DF AS argues that section H-8 and PWS 8.0 do not 
apply to MIRORS (gov't mot. at 9). We dealt with this earlier; MIRORS works in 
conjunction with DRAS and these clauses apply to MIRORS. Even if they didn't, the clear 
and unambiguous identification ofMIRORS as GFP ends the discussion. 
Finally, DFAS contends that the Board made errors in its calculation of quantum 
(gov't mot. at 13). DFAS relies on the DCAA audit that we considered in our decision. 
Lockheed Martin, 16-1 BCA iJ 36, 187 at 176,562. DFAS presents no new evidence to 
persuade us that our decision was in error. As we explained in our decision, we were satisfied 
that LMSI incurred unrecovered costs to develop RAPID 
that exceeded the $1,140,462.56 
unpaid difference between the $2.6 million cap and the amount paid by Modification 
No. P00089. Id. 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated above, DFAS' motion for reconsideration is denied. 
Dated: 25 April 2016 
Administr ive Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur I concur 
/~p $~-- -{;i?s~ 
MARK N. STEMPLER ~ rucJARDSHACTuFoRD 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
3 
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. 58028, 58794, Appeals of 
Lockheed Martin Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
4 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals