MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: August 22, 2017
CBCA 5701-R
YRT ENTERPRISES LLC dba TOMPKINS INVESTIGATION SERVICES,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Respondent.
Yolanda R. Tompkins, President of YRT Enterprises LLC dba Tompkins
Investigation Services, Washington, DC, appearing for Appellant.
J. Todd Casey, Office of Chief Counsel, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), ZISCHKAU, and SULLIVAN.
SULLIVAN, Board Judge.
Appellant, YRT Enterprises LLC (YRT), seeks reconsideration of the Board’s
dismissal of its appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1  YRT Enterprises LLC v. Department of
Justice, CBCA 3701 (July 26, 2017).  Because neither the new evidence nor the new
1 In its motion, YRT states that it is appealing the Board’s decision, but cites one
of the Board’s rules regarding reconsideration and seeks to introduce new evidence for the
Board’s consideration.  On this basis, the Board construes YRT’s motion to be one for
reconsideration, pursuant to Rules 26 and 27 (48 CFR 6101.26, .27 (2016)).  Appeals of
decisions of the Board are made directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit and are governed by the rules of that court.  

CBCA 5701-R 2
arguments presented by YRT overcome the jurisdictional defects of its appeal, the Board
denies the motion for reconsideration.  Respondent, Department of Justice, Bureau of
Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives (ATF), filed a motion seeking permission to
respond to the reconsideration motion.  The Board denies this motion as moot. 
Discussion
Rules 26 and 27 of the Board’s rules set forth the standards by which a motion for
reconsideration will be evaluated and provide that reconsideration may be granted for
several reasons, including newly discovered evidence which could not have been earlier
discovered, even through due diligence; justifiable or excusable mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or neglect; or fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. 
Americom Government Services, Inc. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 2294-R,
17-1 BCA ¶ 36,590, at 178,712.  “Reconsideration is not a vehicle for retrying a case or
introducing arguments that could have been made previously.” Id. 
In our prior decision, we held that the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider YRT’s
allegations that the agency’s actions constituted a violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, because that act vests sole jurisdiction to consider such complaints with the United
States district courts.  YRT Enterprises LLC, slip op. at 5.  We further held that, to the extent
YRT was alleging general acts of discrimination, the Board could only consider these
allegations if YRT alleged specifically how unlawful acts of government personnel affected
its ability to perform the contract.  Id. at 5-6.  We determined that the letter sent to YRT on
November 23, 2017, requesting return of security credentials at the end of contract
performance did not terminate YRT’s ability to work on the contract.  Id. at 6.    
YRT seeks reconsideration of the Board’s determination that YRT had not alleged
how the November 23 letter prevented it from performing the contract.  With its motion,
YRT submitted a second email message from the contracting officer, sent on November 28,
2016, stating that ATF would respond to YRT’s inquiry “shortly.”  Exhibit 20.2  YRT asserts
that, because the contracting officer did not provide a response until November 30, 2016, the
day that the contract was scheduled to end, ATF prevented YRT from working on the
contract.  This additional email message from the contracting officer does not change the
Board’s analysis of the November 23 letter itself, which we found was not a termination
letter and did not prevent YRT from continuing to work on the contract through the end of
contract completion, November 30.  
2 YRT submitted three new exhibits with its motion, numbered as appeal file
exhibits.  We cite to these exhibits with those numbers.  

CBCA 5701-R 3
YRT alleges for the first time that ATF’s actions violate provisions of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, codified at 41 U.S.C. § 4712 (2012), which
prohibit reprisal against contractor employees for reporting suspected gross mismanagement
of a federal contract, waste of federal funds, or abuse of authority relating to a federal
contract.3  YRT contends that its report of incidents of racism and potentially fraudulent
activity on the contract affected YRT’s performance of the contract with ATF.  As support
for these allegations, YRT asks the Board to consider a letter YRT sent to the Inspector
General, Department of Justice, dated April 3, 2017.  Exhibit 21.  In this letter, YRT states
many of the same facts alleged in its notice of appeal and complaint and asks the inspector
general to investigate whether the actions taken by ATF constitute reprisal for whistle-
blowing activities that YRT had detailed.  YRT also provided modifications 0001, 0003, and
0005 to YRT’s contract, which YRT alleges evidence fraud and mismanagement by ATF. 
Exhibit 22.  
The Board lacks jurisdiction to consider these new allegations because they were not
presented to the contracting officer in YRT’s claim.  “An action brought . . . under the
[Contract Disputes Act] must be ‘based on the same claim previously presented to and denied
by the contracting officer.”’ Scott Timber Co. v. United States, 333 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (quoting Cerberonics, Inc. v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 415, 417 (1987)).  In its
review of YRT’s claim, the Board does not see that YRT claimed that its contract was
terminated as a reprisal for reporting contract mismanagement of fraud, waste and abuse. 
Exhibits 12, 15.  Without such an allegation in the claim, the Board lacks the jurisdiction to
consider these allegations further.  
  
Finally, YRT alleges that the administrative withdrawal of Ms. Tompkins’ security
clearance violates Presidential Policy Directive No. 19 (Oct. 10, 2012), which prohibits
reprisals against federal employees in the intelligence community in response to reports of
3 Contractor employees who believe that reprisal actions have been taken against
them may request that the inspector general of the relevant agency investigate the matter and
report the results to the head of the agency.  41 U.S.C. § 4712(b).  Upon receiving the
inspector general’s report, the head of the agency is required to determine if the contractor
employee has been subjected to reprisal and issue an order either denying relief or taking
action to address any wrongdoing.  Id. § 4712(c).  If the head of the agency fails to act or the
contractor fails to take an action ordered by the head of the agency, the contractor employee
may seek relief in the appropriate U.S. district court.  Id. § 4712(c)(2), (4).  It appears that
YRT has taken advantage of the relief afforded by this provision with its submission of its
letter to the Department of Justice Inspector General.  Exhibit 21.  

CBCA 5701-R 4
waste, fraud, and abuse.  Prohibited reprisals include denying access to classified information
necessary to perform a contractor employee’s job.  Id.  However, nothing in this policy
directive grants the Board jurisdiction to review the decisions of executive branch agencies
to grant or withdraw security clearances.  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528-30 (1988).   
Decision
YRT’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.  
___________________________
MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge
We concur:
_________________________ _________________________
STEPHEN M. DANIELS JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge Board Judge