MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED:  February 6, 2020
CBCA 5698-R
STOBIL ENTERPRISE,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
Billie O. Stone, Chief Executive Officer of Stobil Enterprise, San Antonio, TX,
appearing for Appellant.
Mary A. Mitchell, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Houston, TX, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges KULLBERG, SULLIVAN, and RUSSELL.
RUSSELL, Board Judge.
Appellant, Stobil Enterprise (Stobil), has filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Board’s decision in Stobil Enterprise v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5698, 19-1
BCA ¶ 37,428.  Familiarity with this decision is presumed.  
Background
In its  appeal, Stobil sought a price adjustment for increased labor costs under Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses implementing provisions of the Service Contract Act
(SCA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 6701 – 6707 (2012), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),


CBCA 5698-R 2
29 U.S.C. § 206.1  Stobil additionally sought its costs for equipment and supplies lost or
damaged during contract performance and administrative costs (associated with both its
claim for increased labor costs and its claim for lost or damaged equipment and supplies). 
Stobil also sought relief based on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) alleged failure
to conduct a contractor performance evaluation.   
Discussion
We granted the VA’s motion for summary judgment and denied Stobil’s motion for
summary judgment.  In our decision, we held that the Board lacked jurisdiction over Stobil’s
performance evaluation claim, that Stobil’s claim for damaged or lost equipment and supplies
(and associated administrative costs) was barred by release language in a bilateral contract
modification signed by the parties, and that Stobil’s claim for increased labor costs was not
supported by the type of evidence required to defeat the VA’s motion for summary judgment
or, in the case of Stobil’s own motion, to receive summary judgment in its favor. 
Reconsideration is available under Board Rule 26.  48 CFR 6101.26 (2019). 
“Arguments and evidence previously presented are not grounds for reconsideration.”  Rule
26(a).  Reconsideration is not automatic; the Board has significant discretion when deciding
whether or not to grant a motion for reconsideration.  CH2M-WG IDAHO, LLC v.
Department of Energy, CBCA 6147-R, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,408, at 181,852 (citing URS Energy
& Construction, Inc. v. Department of Energy, CBCA 2260-R, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,147, at
172,522).  Reconsideration may be granted for several reasons, including “newly discovered
evidence which could not have been earlier discovered, even through due diligence.” 
Oregon Woods, Inc. v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 1072-R, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,063, at
168,431, aff’d sub nom. Oregon Woods, Inc. v. Salazar, 355 F. App’x 403 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 
Such relief may also be granted when there is “an intervening change in controlling law, . .
. a clear error of law or facts, or a manifest injustice.”  See Walker Development & Trading
Group Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, CBCA 5907-R, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,465, at
182,010.   It is the burden of the moving party to prove that Board reconsideration would be
the appropriate exercise of this discretion.  CH2M-WG IDAHO, 19-1 BCA at 181,852. 
In its motion for reconsideration, Stobil again argues for entitlement to a performance
evaluation.  However, Stobil does not establish any specific error in the Board’s decision that
it lacked jurisdiction over this claim.  Stobil, instead, depends on its prior motions and claims
as the bases for reconsideration and relies on previously presented arguments.  According to
1 The SCA was located at 41 U.S.C. §§ 351 – 357 (2006) when the parties
entered the contract at issue in this appeal.

CBCA 5698-R 3
Rule 26, this is not grounds for reconsideration.  Advancing arguments already made and
reintroducing old evidence are not sufficient grounds for altering a decision.  CH2M-WG
IDAHO, 19-1 BCA at 181,852. 
Stobil also argues for reconsideration on its claim for wage payments.  While Stobil
argues that earlier evidence properly supports its claim for wage reimbursement, the Board
considered that evidence in its prior holding.  See Walker Development & Trading Group
Inc., 19-1 BCA at 182,010 (“A motion to reconsider is not a second chance at trying the
case.”).  Additionally, the materials provided by Stobil with its motion for reconsideration
do not show that, or create a genuine issue in dispute on whether, the VA owes Stobil
additional compensation on the company’s wage claim.   Further, the materials, available to
Stobil during the briefing of the parties’ summary judgment motions, are not “newly
discovered evidence” that can serve as grounds justifying reconsideration.  Id.  Stobil has
also not indicated any specific “change in controlling law, . . . a clear error of law or facts,
or a manifest injustice” supporting its request for reconsideration.  Id.  Therefore, the Board
finds that reconsideration is not appropriate for Stobil’s claim for SCA and FLSA-related
labor costs. 
Decision
 
Appellant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.2
   Beverly M. Russell           
BEVERLY M. RUSSELL
Board Judge
We concur:
    H. Chuck Kullberg            Marian E. Sullivan        
H. CHUCK KULLBERG MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge Board Judge
2 Appellant has also timely filed an application for en banc review.  That
application will be addressed by the Board separately consistent with Rule 28.