MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: June 3, 2014
CBCA 3359-R
WESTERN STATES FEDERAL CONTRACTING, LLC,
                                                         Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                                                             Respondent.
Robert J. Berens and Adam D. Melton of Langley, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, counsel for
Appellant.
Stephen F. Butea, Office of Regional Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Clarksburg, WV, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges McCANN, SHERIDAN, and KULLBERG.
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
This matter is before the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) on a motion for
reconsideration, alteration, or amendment of dismissal filed by appellant, Western States
Federal Contracting, LLC (Western States).  Western States is a Delaware limited liability
company (LLC), doing business as a foreign LLC in the state of Arizona.  On February 11,
2014, we found that we lacked jurisdiction to entertain this appeal because Western States
had failed to prove that it was an LLC in good standing in Delaware, the state in which it was
organized. Western States Federal Contracting, LLC v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
CBCA 3359, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,530.  The facts surrounding the Board’s orders dealing with
appellant’s standing to maintain its appeal are set forth in the underlying decision. 


CBCA 3359-R 2
Familiarity with those facts is assumed.  Now, Western States has shown that it is in good
standing in Delaware; however, this does not warrant granting the motion for
reconsideration.
Background
On September 30, 2009, Western States entered into contract VA258-C-0320 with the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for, among other things, the alteration and expansion
of the fire alarm and sprinkler system at the VA Medical Center, in Phoenix, Arizona.  On
April 26, 2012, Western States submitted a claim to a VA contracting officer alleging 699
days of VA-caused delay and seeking $461,706.01 in damages for extended home office
overhead and $299,146 in other delay damages.  When a timely final decision was not
forthcoming, Western States appealed this matter as a deemed denial to the Board.
Mr. Jose Perea filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Western States.  Shortly
thereafter, respondent filed a motion to strike the appearance of Mr. Perea.  In its motion, the
Government alleged that Mr. Perea had not proven that he met the Board’s requirements for
representation of the LLC and that, even if Mr. Perea could represent the LLC before the
Board, the LLC needed to be in good standing in its state of formation, Delaware, in order
to maintain this action at the Board.  The VA argued that an LLC that is not in good standing
“may not maintain any action, suit or proceeding in any court of the State of Delaware until
such domestic LLC . . . has been restored and has the status of a domestic limited liability
company . . . in good standing.”  Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 18-1107(l) (2012). 
After the Board made repeated requests that appellant show it is in good standing in
Delaware, on February 11, 2014, we dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because 
appellant, as an LLC lacking good standing in its state of formation, did not have standing
to maintain its action at the Board. 
On March 13, 2014, Adam D. Melton, Esquire, entered his appearance on behalf of
appellant and filed a “Motion for Reconsideration, Alteration, or Amendment of Dismissal
of Appeal.”  Attached to the motion was proof that Western States is now in good standing
in Delaware—a tax financing statement from the Delaware Division of Corporations
showing that $1366 was paid in satisfaction of all taxes due and owing and a printout from
the Delaware Division of Corporations showing that, as of March 11, 2014, the status of
Western States was “Good Standing.”  In addition, on March 18, 2014, appellant submitted
to the Board a supplement to its motion for reconsideration wherein it provided an official
(signed by the Delaware Secretary of State) certificate of good standing.

CBCA 3359-R 3
Appellant, in its motion for reconsideration, submits that changed circumstances
justify relief from the Board’s initial dismissal.  Respondent, in its opposition, argues that the
grounds for granting reconsideration are limited, and appellant’s circumstance does not fit
the mold. 
Discussion
Board Rule 26 (48 CFR 6101.26 (2012)) provides that reconsideration may be granted
for any of the reasons stated in Rule 27(a).  These reasons 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. 
Pursuant to our Rules, “[a]rguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence are
not sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration.”  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 a matter 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).
Further, an 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.  “While the Board will look at clear errors, be they of fact or law,
the Board will not use reconsideration to allow a party to retry a case or introduce facts and
arguments that it failed to present at the original hearing or put forward in its briefing.” 
Flathead Contractors, 07-2 BCA at 166,778.
Here, appellant was warned of the danger that the Board would dismiss its appeal for
lack of jurisdiction if Western States did not produce proof of the LLC’s good standing in
Delaware.  When Western States failed to produce the required evidence, the appeal was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  Western States has failed to establish that any of the
reasons to grant reconsideration exist here.  The fact that Western States may now be in good
standing in Delaware is not a compelling reason to grant reconsideration.  Had appellant
acted diligently, and returned itself to good standing earlier, it may have avoided the
dismissal of its action. 

CBCA 3359-R 4
Decision
The appellant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 
                                                 
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge
We concur:
                                                                                                  
R. ANTHONY McCANN H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge Board Judge