MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: May 15, 2012 
CBCA 2516-R 
RAFAEL PORTILLO, 
Appellant, 
v.
 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
Respondent. 
Rafael Portillo, pro se, Tracy, CA. 
Jay N. Bernstein, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
Before Board Judges SOMERS , POLLACK , and GOODMAN .
 
SOMERS , Board Judge.
 
In the case of Rafael Portillo v. General Services Administration , CBCA 2516, 
12-1 BCA ¶ 34,925, we denied Rafael Portillo’s (appellant) appeal and held that the agency 
had complied with the terms of the lease agreement.   Appellant now seeks reconsideration 
of the Board’s decision. Familiarity with that decision is presumed. 
Board Rule 26 (48 CFR 6101.26 (2011)) provides that reconsideration may be granted 
for any of the reasons stated in Rule 27(a), which include, among other things, newly 
discovered evidence which could not have been earlier discovered through due diligence, 
fraud, misinterpretation, or other misconduct of an adverse party, or excusable mistake. 

 
      
           
             
            
               
           
          
       
             
          
            
         
                
             
            
          
             
                
                
                  
          
             
              
             
            
             
           
            
               
         
2 CBCA 2516-R 
Pursuant to our Rules, “[a]rguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence are 
not sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration.” Springcar Co. v. General Services 
Administration , CBCA 1310-R, et al., 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,534, at 170,332; see also Oregon 
Woods, Inc. v. Department of the Interior , CBCA 1072-R, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,063, 
aff’d sub nom. Oregon Woods, Inc. v. Salazar , 355 F. App’x 403 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Beyley 
Construction Group Corp. v. Department of Veterans Affairs , CBCA 5-R, et al., 
08-1 BCA ¶ 33,784; Tidewater Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Transportation , 
CBCA 50-R, 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,618. 
Reconsideration is not a vehicle for retrying a case or introducing arguments that have 
been made previously. Ryll International, LLC v. Department of Transportation, 
CBCA 1143-R (May 1, 2012); Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw 
Indians v. Department of Health and Human Services , CBCA 237-ISDA-R, 
10-2 BCA ¶ 34,476, at 170,043. Whether to grant a request for reconsideration is wholly 
within the discretion of the Board. Beyley , 08-1 BCA at 167,203 (citing Flathead 
Contractors, LLC v. Department of Agriculture , CBCA 118-R, 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,688). 
Appellant asserts that Supplemental Lease Agreement (SLA) number six “does not 
include any language which allows the government to terminate the lease,” that the clause 
extending the lease for a “one year (1), six (6) month firm term” should be interpreted to 
mean a firm term of eighteen months, that the lease does not clearly specify whether the firm 
term is for one year or for six months, and that termination is not clearly specified. In our 
decision, we considered these arguments and determined that appellant’s interpretation was 
“contrary to the plain and unambiguous terms of the lease agreement,” concluding that the 
General Services Administration (GSA) fully complied with the terms of the lease. 
Appellant argues, for the first time, that appellant had “no choice” in executing SLA 
number six because GSA “wanted me to do the supplemental lease agreement rightaway 
[sic].” In addition, appellant disputes GSA’s assessment of back rent and alleges that GSA 
officials failed to return appellant’s phone calls. Appellant’s belated conclusion that 
additional arguments might have been made or other evidence might have been highlighted 
is not a basis for the Board to allow reconsideration. Mitchell Enterprises, Ltd. v. General 
Services Administration , CBCA 402-R, 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,644. 

 
            
    
_______________________________ 
  
 
_____________________________ ______________________________ 
  
3 CBCA 2516-R 
Decision 
Appellant has given us no reason to reconsider our decision. Consequently, the 
motion for reconsideration is DENIED . 
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
HOWARD A. POLLACK ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge Board Judge