MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: July 8, 2010 
CBCA 1460 
WALSH/DAVIS JOINT VENTURE, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Edward J. Sheats, Jr. of Sheats & Associates, P.C., Brewerton, NY, counsel for 
Appellant. 
Dalton F. Phillips and Leigh Erin S. Izzo, Office of General Counsel, General 
Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), STERN , and HYATT . 
DANIELS , Board Judge. 
On June 10, 2010, the Board denied cross-motions for summary relief filed by the 
respondent in this case, the General Services Administration (GSA), and the appellant, 
Walsh/Davis Joint Venture (WDJV). Within GSA’s motion was an assertion that we must 
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the part of the current claim which was not presented to the 
contracting officer for decision.  We rejected this contention because the part in question is 
based on the same operative facts as the claim which was so presented. GSA now moves us 
to reconsider our ruling on the motion to dismiss. 

 
              
            
                 
                 
               
             
                  
                   
                  
              
            
                
                
                  
                 
                
               
                
         
             
      
               
        
       
    
_________________________ 
  
 
2 CBCA 1460 
The part of the claim which the motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration 
address is for additional costs allegedly incurred by WDJV subcontractor Global Precast, Inc. 
in supplying a face mix for the precast panels on Buildings A, B, and C which was different 
from the face mix anticipated in the contract. We held that although this part of the claim 
was not presented to the contracting officer, we have jurisdiction to consider it. The claim 
presented to the contracting officer included additional costs for the alleged change in the 
face mix for all the other buildings in the project, and the face mix for Buildings A, B, and 
C was identical to the face mix for all the other buildings. Thus, the face mix claim as to 
Buildings A, B, and C will succeed or fail on the merits of the face mix claim that was 
presented to the contracting officer; the current claim differs only in amount from the original 
claim. 
GSA’s motion for reconsideration appears to be premised on the belief that “the 
original claim did not raise any issues concerning a change in the color or composition of the 
face mix.” Motion at 4. Instead, the agency asserts, “the claim filed with the Contracting 
Officer alleged a change[] to the finish of the Garden Wall and Buildings D, E, F and G from 
smooth form to acid washed finish. Color was never raised as an issue.” Id. at 2. 
As we pointed out in our earlier decision, this belief is not correct. The original claim 
did include line items for “[a]dditional cost of acid wash finish” for the garden wall and for 
Buildings D, E, F, and G, the guardhouse, the entryway, and the credit union. It also, 
however, included line items for “[a]dditional cost of G715 face mix” for these portions of 
the project. As WDJV notes in opposing the motion for reconsideration, its claim 
encompasses additional costs for the face mix, but not the finish, for Buildings A, B, and C 
because while the face mix for those buildings may have changed, the finish of the precast 
for those structures remains as specified in the contract. 
Decision 
GSA has given us no reason to reconsider our decision.  Consequently, the agency’s 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION is DENIED . 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
Board Judge 

 
 
_________________________ _________________________ 
    
  
3 CBCA 1460 
We concur: 
JAMES L. STERN CATHERINE B. HYATT 
Board Judge Board Judge