MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED:  January 19, 2007 
CBCA 423-R 
HOOK CONSTRUCTION, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Kenneth  R. Hook, Vice President of Hook Construction, Inc., Solon, IA, appearing 
for Appellant. 
Mark  R.  Warnick, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration , 
Kansas City, MO, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges PARKER , DEGRAFF , and GOODMAN . 
PARKER , Board Judge. 
Hook  Construction, Inc. (Hook)  moves the Board to reconsider  its decision denying 
Hook’s  claim for extra work performed in connection with  the installation of wall covering 
at the United States Courthouse in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  Hook Construction, Inc. v.  General 
Services Administration, GSBCA 16756, 06-2 BCA ¶ 33,404.  We deny the motion. 
Background 
Eleven  months after Hook ins talled wall covering in a judge’s office, the General 
Services  Administration (GSA) discovered that the covering was delaminating at some  of the 
seams  and promptly notified Hook of the prob lem.  Hook  replaced the defective wall 
covering  and submitted an invoice that included the amount of $2209.75 for the work.  GSA 

 
 
2 CBCA 423-R 
determined  that t he repair  was covered under the contract’s warranty provision, rejecting 
Hook’s  argument that the delamination was caused by  water damage that had occurred  after 
installation. 
On appeal, we agr eed with GSA that defective workmanship, rather than water 
damage, was likely the cause of the delamination: 
As to the first issue, we find that GSA  has  shown by a preponderance 
of the evidence that  a defect in workmanship  was the most probable cause of 
the wall covering becoming delaminated.  T he co ntract required Hook to 
“examine  the substrates” for “conditions affecting performance of the  work” 
and to “proceed with installation only after unsatisfactory conditions have been 
corrected.”   Hook was also re quired to  “prepare substrates to achieve a 
smooth,  dry, clean, structurally sound surface free of flaking, unsound 
coatings,  cracks, and defects.”   When the wall covering delaminated within the 
one-year  warranty period , the Government’s inspection showed no water 
leakage  or oth er conditi on that had changed between the time the wall 
covering  was installed and the time it delaminated.  Both parties agreed that 
the painted plaster surface on  which  the wall covering was installed was 
pulling away from the wall, causing the wall covering  to separate at  the seams. 
GSA  has shown that the most likely cause of the delamination was 
Hook’s  failure to comply with t he cont ract’s requirement to correct any 
unsatisfactory  conditi ons be fore proceeding with the work.  Hook’s 
acknowledgment  that it did not strip off all of  the old paint because “that’d be 
costs  that the GSA would have to pay” demo nstrates the company’s 
misunderstanding  of the contract’s requirements.  It  was Hook’s responsibility 
to examine the pre-existing conditions and make certain that any unsatis factor y 
conditions were corrected prior to installation of the wall covering. 
06-2 BCA at 165,624. 
Discussion 
Hook seeks  to reargue the issue of whether the delamination of the wall covering was 
caused  by water damage, ra ther than as  a result of a defect in workmanship.  In support, 
Hoo k maintains that GSA was aware of cracks in the wall prior to installation of the w all 
covering  and that, recently, the carpet in the judge’s office was  replaced due to a roof  leak. 
In response, GSA points out that the roof leak,  which occurred more than a year after Hook 
repaired  the wall covering, was “due to structural damage caused to the courthouse r oof 

3 CBCA 423-R 
during  tornadic activity during the summer of 2005 and  the neglige nce of a roofing 
contractor  hired by GSA to make interim repairs to the courthouse roof.”  Respondent’s 
Suggestions in Opposition to Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration. 
Hook’s  argument  for reconsideration based on the existence  of cracks in the wall prior 
to initial  installat ion of the wall covering merely reargues points previously made, which 
were  considered and rejected by the Board.  Arguments  previously made  and considered are 
not sufficient gro unds for granting reconsideration.  Long Lane Limited Partnership v. 
General  Services Administration, G SBCA 15334-R, 04-2 BCA ¶ 32,751, affd, 
159 Fed. Appx. 189 (Fed Ci r. 2 005).  Hook’s information that the judge’s carpet was 
damaged by water in  2005 is similarly unpersuasive.  A leak  in the roof that occurred more 
than  a year after  the wall covering was repaired does not  prove that the previous damage had 
been  caused by water,  especially considering that an investigation performed at the  time of 
the delamination concluded that no water damage  had occurred.  GSA’s explanation that the 
subsequent water damage was caused by a tornado demonstrates this point perfectly. 
Decision 
The motion for reconsideration is DENIED . 
_____________________ 
ROBERT W. PARKER 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
_______________________ _____________________ 
MARTHA H. DEGRAFF ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge Board Judge