MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
AND REHEARING DENIED:  March 25, 2009 
CBCA 1213-R 
MICHAEL C. LAM, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Ray M. Shepard and Azim Chowdhury of Duane Morris LLP, Baltimore, MD, 
counsel for Appellant. 
Gabriel N. Steinberg, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services 
Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent. 
BORWICK, Board Judge. 
In this small claims case, involving a sale of personal property at an auction 
conducted by respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), appellant seeks 
reconsideration of that portion of our decision denying him  $42,740.63 in breach 
damages.  Michael C. Lam v. General Services Administration, CBCA 1213, 09-1 BCA 
¶ 34,027 (2008).  Appellant appeared pro se in the underlying appeal but retained counsel 
for the reconsideration motion.  We deny reconsideration.  Although the arguments were 
more artfully presented by counsel in the reconsideration motion, than previously 
presented by appellant in the underlying proceeding, the arguments were considered and 
rejected in the original decision.  

 
     
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
     
2 CBCA 1213-R 
Background 
In the underlying appeal, we found that GSA had breached the contract because it 
sold goods--375 used electric meter boxes--that turned out to be unavailable when 
appellant traveled to the depot, a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) site, 
to retrieve them. We therefore granted the appeal in part, awarding appellant $1719.82 in 
proven breach damages for appellant’s travel costs to the depot.  
Appellant based his amended quantum claim of $42,740.63 on one internet site’s 
market price for new electric meter boxes, which appellant reduced by half to account for 
the used condition of the meter boxes GSA sold to appellant.  We rejected appellant’s 
proof of a market price as insufficient, arbitrary, and speculative.  Our conclusion was 
buttressed by the disparity between the acquisition cost to the Government of $50 for new 
boxes, as detailed in the Government’s excess property report, and the unit cost of 
$146.95 for the boxes as stated on the internet site.  Lam , 09-1 BCA at 168,318.  To the 
extent that the claimed damages of $42,740.63 represented lost profits on potential resale, 
we found that appellant had no commitment for their resale and that the GSA contracting 
officer had no reason to believe that appellant would put the goods up for sale.  Id . 
Discussion 
Respondent argues that because a decision issued under the small claims procedure 
is final, reconsideration is not available.  See Respondent’s Opposition to Appellant’s 
Motion for Reconsideration at 3; see 41 U.S.C. § 608 (2006). However, the Board’s rule 
on reconsideration does not prohibit small claims litigants from seeking reconsideration. 
Cases handled under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) small claims procedure are subject 
to reconsideration as any other case before boards of contract appeals.  Cf. Palmer v. 
Barram , 184 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Court noted without adverse comment that 
board’s small claims decision had been subject of reconsideration); Wayne T. Palmer v. 
General Services Administration, GSBCA 14063-R, 97-2 BCA ¶ 29,173; Professional 
Window & House Cleaning, Inc. , GSBCA 7603, 1985 WL 16489 (Apr. 2, 1985) (dicta); 
Capital Electric Co. , GSBCA 5551-R, 81-1 BCA ¶ 14,963. 
Turning to the merits of the motion for reconsideration, the Board’s rule on 
reconsideration provides, “Arguments already made and reinterpretation of old evidence 
are not grounds for granting reconsideration.”  Board Rule 26.  Appellant simply restates 
issues already considered and decided, and such arguments are not sufficient for 
reconsideration.  Hook Construction, Inc. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 

  
 
      
 
            
  
 
 
   
 
         
_______________________________ 
3 CBCA 1213-R 
423-R, 07-1 BCA ¶ 33,488.  Appellant’s expanded arguments for the sufficiency of the 
proof on the amended quantum claim for breach damages are no more convincing on the 
second telling than they were originally.  
Appellant also seeks rehearing because the Board denied appellant’s request to call 
the FEMA property manager, who appellant now maintains would have given “opinion 
evidence as to the value of the meter boxes.”  Reconsideration at 9.  This statement has no 
support in the record. In his witness list, appellant sought to call the FEMA property 
manager merely to “verify what happened to the property and when the SCO [sales 
contracting officer] was notified of the missing property.”  Appellant’s Revised Tentative 
Witness List at 2.  The missing property issue was the subject of a stipulation by the 
parties and the SCO testified at the hearing.  The Board properly regarded the purported 
testimony of the FEMA property manager on this issue as cumulative. Appellant also 
sought to call the FEMA property manager to verify a report and “other circumstances 
relating to the sale of the property.”  Id.  However, the circumstances of the sale were 
thoroughly addressed by both the SCO and appellant himself at the hearing on this matter. 
Appellant did not seek to call the property manager as a hearing witness to give an 
opinion as to the market value of the meter boxes.  Nor was there any representation by 
appellant before the hearing that the property manager possessed information as to the 
market value of the meter boxes.  
Decision 
The Board DENIES  reconsideration and rehearing. Since this case was 
considered under the Board’s small claims procedure and was, therefore, decided by a 
single judge, the motion for reconsideration and rehearing is likewise decided by the same 
single judge.  Cf . Palmer , 97-2 BCA at 145,080. 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK 
Board Judge