MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: August 1, 2007 
CBCA 402-R 
MITCHELL ENTERPRISES, LTD., 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
William P. Weir, Fort Worth, TX, counsel for Appellant. 
Catherine Crow and Dalton F. Phillips, Office of General Counsel, General Services 
Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS  (Chairman), HYATT , and DeGRAFF . 
DANIELS , Board Judge. 
The Board denied an appeal by Mitchell Enterprises, Ltd. (Mitchell) which involved 
a claim by Mitchell under a contract with the General Services Administration (GSA) for 
construction of a new United States Courthouse in Laredo, Texas.  Mitchell Enterprises, Ltd. 
v. General Services Administration, CBCA 402 (May 30, 2007). Mitchell now moves for 
reconsideration of that decision. 
The parties agreed that the principal issue in the case was whether GSA’s design for 
the building provided sufficient interstitial space to accommodate all of the building’s 
systems.  Interstitial space, as we explained, is the space between stories of a building. 
Systems include the building’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system; 

 
 
   
  
    
 
 
           
  
 
   
 
   
 
 
 
           
  
 
2 CBCA 402-R 
water, sewer, storm drain, and fire sprinkler piping; and electrical conduit and apparatus. 
Mitchell , slip op. at 2. 
In the Laredo courthouse, each floor was concrete, supported by metal beams. 
Mitchell maintained that the interstitial space available for installation of the building’s 
systems did not include the space between the beams.  We disagreed with this position, 
basing our conclusion primarily on the language in the contract and secondarily on testimony 
of witnesses, a definition included in a document prepared by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA), and a decision of the VA Board of Contract Appeals to which Mitchell called 
our attention.  Mitchell , slip op. at 3-4. 
Mitchell now asks us to reconsider our decision as to whether the space between the 
beams was interstitial space available for installation of systems. The contractor argues that 
language in the contract and a VA document showing “typical subzones” of space between 
a building’s ceilings and floors mandate a different result from the one we reached.  The 
document is not part of the record on which we decided the case.  Its contents appear to be 
consistent with the designations of space made in the contract at issue in the case decided by 
the VA Board of Contract Appeals. 
The argument Mitchell makes now is essentially the same one it made earlier.  The 
contractor’s reply brief in the case, for example, argued that based on contract language and 
the way in which the VA treats subzones of space between ceilings and floors, we should 
conclude that the space between the beams in the Laredo courthouse was not available for 
the installation of systems.  Appellant’s Reply Brief (CBCA 402) at 2-5.  Arguments already 
made and reinterpretations of old evidence are not sufficient basis for requesting 
reconsideration, however.  Rule 26(a) (72 Fed. Reg. 36,794, 36,805 (July 5, 2007)); 
Tidewater Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, CBCA 50-R, slip op. at 2 
(June 29, 2007). Even if the reasoning in support of a motion for reconsideration is more 
sophisticated than the arguments previously made, reconsideration is inappropriate.  ROI 
Investments v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 15488-C(15037-C)-REIN-R, 01-2 
BCA ¶ 31,523, at 155,622.  The document newly filed with the motion for reconsideration 
does not provide a basis for reconsideration because it could have been presented earlier; is 
cumulative of information previously submitted; and, because it expresses general views of 
an agency different from the one involved in this case rather than requirements of the 
contract at issue here, is not material to resolution of the case.  A.C. Nielsen Co. v. Defense 
Commissary Agency , GSBCA 13466-P-R, et al., 97-1 BCA ¶ 28,774, at 143,595 (1996); 
Adelaide Blomfield Management Co. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11909-R, 
94-3 BCA ¶ 27,158, at 135,336. 

3 CBCA 402-R 
Decision
 
Consequently, appellant’s MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION  is DENIED .
 
_________________________ 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
_________________________ _________________________ 
CATHERINE B. HYATT MARTHA H. DeGRAFF 
Board Judge Board Judge