ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Application Under the Equal Access ) 
to Justice Act of -- ) 
) 
Anlaratek ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W9124R-l 1-P-1054 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 59149, 59395 
Mr. David P. Dumas 
President 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
CPT Cali Y. Kim, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON 
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
Appellant, Anlaratek, timely moves 
for reconsideration of our 22 January 2015 
decision upon its application pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 
5 U.S.C. § 504.1 We deny the motion. In order to prevail on its motion, Anlaratek 
must establish a compelling reason for us to modify the original decision. Paradigm 
IL LLC, ASBCA No. 55849, 12-2 BCA ~ 35,152 at 172,528. In determining ifthat 
standard has been met, the Board looks to see whether there is newly discovered 
evidence, mistakes in the findings of fact, or errors oflaw. Id. 
Anlaratek does not meet that standard. Amaratek asserts that it was error 
not to award the cost of the time that its president spent litigating the appeals, but 
under our precedent, the cost of such time is not recoverable. See M Bianchi of 
California, ASBCA No. 26362 et al., 90-1BCA~22,369 at 112,403-04; Roberts 
Construction Co., ASBCA No. 31033, 86-2 BCA ~ 18,846 at 94,974. Goetz 
Demolition Co., ASBCA No. 39129, 91-2 BCA ~ 23,836, which Anlaratek cites (app. 
mot. at 8), is not to the contrary. There, the Board denied recovery of the cost of the 
time and efforts of in-house counsel. Id. at 119,461. Nor does Sterling Federal 
Systems, Inc. v. Goldin, 16 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 1994), which Anlaratek also cites 
(app. mot. at 4), mandate recovery of the cost of the time of Anlaratek's president; 
Sterling does not address the Board's caselaw interpreting 5 U.S.C. § 504. 
1 Anlaratek elected to have the appeals processed pursuant to Board Rule 12.2; 
consequently, this decision shall have no value as precedent. Board 
Rule 12.2(d). 

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration is denied. 
Dated: 14 April 2015 
Administ tive 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 on an application for fees and other 
expenses incurred in connection with ASBCA Nos. 59149, 59395, Appeals of 
Amaratek, rendered in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 504. 
Dated: 
2 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals