MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED:  September 26, 2008 
CBCA 982-C(50)-R 
TIDEWATER CONTRACTORS, INC., 
Applicant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 
Respondent. 
Joseph A. Yazbeck, Jr., of Yazbeck, Cloran & Hanson, LLC, Portland, OR, counsel 
for Applicant. 
David Sett, Division Counsel, Federal Highway Administration, Department of 
Transportation, Lakewood, CO, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges SOMERS , STERN , and FENNESSY . 
SOMERS , Board Judge. 
The Board granted an appeal by Tidewater Contractors, Inc. (Tidewater) in which 
Tidewater sought an extension of contract time resulting from the Government’s delay in the 
issuance of a notice to proceed.  Tidewater Contractors, Inc. v. Department of 
Transportation, CBCA 50, 07-1 BCA ¶ 33,525; modified on reconsideration, 07-2 BCA 
¶ 33,618.  As a result, the contract completion date was extended by eighty-nine days.  The 
Government, which had assessed liquidated damages against Tidewater after the appeal had 
been filed, issued a unilateral modification as a result of the decision and remitted to 
Tidewater $160,200, representing the amount that had been withheld from Tidewater.  

 
 
 
 
   
        
           
    
     
 
 
      
   
     
 
     
    
  
2 CBCA 982-C(50)-R 
On November 26, 2007, Tidewater filed an application for fees and other expenses 
under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 (2000) (EAJA).  After the Government 
filed its response to the EAJA application, Tidewater filed a motion for summary relief, 
seeking an order to compel the Government to pay interest on the amount held for liquidated 
damages pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 (CDA).  We 
held that the Board did not possess jurisdiction to entertain Tidewater’s claim for CDA 
interest because Tidewater failed to file a claim for the return of liquidated damages with the 
contracting officer.  Without a claim, we concluded that Tidewater would not be entitled to 
CDA interest.  Tidewater Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 
CBCA 982-C(50), 08-2 BCA ¶ 33,908, at 167,790 (citing Hettich & Co., GmbH , ASBCA 
35239, 88-2 BCA ¶ 20,699, at 104,597-98, aff’d in part and remanded , 873 F.2d 1451 
(Fed. Cir. 1989) (table); Hunter Manufacturing Co. , Inc . ASBCA 34209, 87-2 BCA 
¶ 19,903, at 100,690). 
Tidewater now asks us to reconsider our decision. It asserts that the Board failed to 
consider a letter that Tidewater submitted to the contracting officer on January 30, 2006,
1 
which Tidewater contends presents its claim for the return of the liquidated damages.  As we 
have noted previously, the Board does not grant reconsideration on the basis of arguments 
already made and reinterpretations of old evidence.  07-2 BCA at 166,501.  The argument 
presented by Tidewater now is the same legal argument presented before.  Whether 
Tidewater asserted a separate claim for liquidated damages in the January 30, 2006, letter or 
in the November 1, 2007, letter, as we noted previously, the contracting officer never issued 
a final decision on that claim.  Nor did Tidewater file an appeal on the basis of a denial or 
“deemed denial” of its claim.  Thus, we do not possess jurisdiction over Tidewater’s alleged 
claim and cannot grant the relief now sought. 
Attempting an end run around this jurisdictional bar, Tidewater suggests that the 
January 30, 2006, letter should be construed as     
. . . essentially an amendment to the complaint under 
[Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals 
(DOTBCA)] Rule 14. 
[2] As the January 30, 2006 letter served 
1
 Tidewater has submitted an unsigned, “true copy” version of the letter. 
Applicant’s Motion for Reconsideration, Exhibit 4.    
2
 Originally, this appeal had been filed before the Department of Transportation 
Board of Contract Appeals, and had been governed by the rules of procedure of that Board. 
The appeal was transferred to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals pursuant to the 
consolidation of the various civilian agency boards of contract appeals.  See Pub. L. No. 

  
 
 
 
   
  
 
      
 
 
 
  
 
___________________________ 
3 CBCA 982-C(50)-R 
as an amendment to the claim a request for CDA interest was in 
turn made relative to this claim and a separate appeal was not 
required. 
Applicant’s Motion for Reconsideration at 3.  
We reject the notion that the January 30, 2006, letter could be considered as an 
amendment of the complaint. Pursuant to DOTBCA Rule 14(a), the DOTBCA would “in 
its discretion and within the proper scope of the appeal, permit either party to amend its 
pleadings upon conditions just to both parties.” Tidewater never moved to amend its 
pleadings, nor did this Board issue an order permitting Tidewater to amend its complaint. 
Finally, Tidewater argues that its purported claim for the remission of liquidated 
damages is within the proper scope of its original appeal, and, accordingly, did not require 
the filing of a separate appeal.  This is palpably incorrect. As a general matter, the scope of 
an appeal is circumscribed by the parameters of the claim, the contracting officer’s decision, 
and the contractor’s appeal.  AEC Corp. , ASBCA 42920, 03-1 BCA ¶ 32,071, at 158,488 
(2002). Tidewater’s original claim sought an extension of the contract time period.  At the 
time that Tidewater filed its claim, the Government had not assessed liquidated damages 
against Tidewater.  The contracting officer’s decision was limited to denying Tidewater’s 
request for an extension of the contract time period.  Tidewater’s appeal was limited to 
challenging the basis for the contracting officer’s decision denying the request.  Tidewater’s 
claim for the remission of liquidated damages could not be considered part of the original 
claim for contract extension because it arose subsequent to the filing of an appeal of the first 
claim.  See AAB Joint Venture v. United States , 68 Fed. Cl. 363, 365-66 (2005);  J. Cooper 
& Associates v. United States , 47 Fed. Cl. 280, 287 (2000). 
Decision 
For the reasons detailed above, appellant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED . 
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS 
Board Judge 
109-163, § 847, 119 Stat. 3136 (2006).    

4 CBCA 982-C(50)-R 
We concur: 
______________________________ ___________________________ 
JAMES L. STERN EILEEN P. FENNESSY 
Board Judge Board Judge