MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: April 20, 2016
CBCA 4996-R
G2G, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Respondent.
Darren Rittenhouse, Sole Member of G2G, LLC, Gainesville, VA, appearing for
Appellant.
Lisa J. Obayashi and Heidi Bourgeois, Office of the General Counsel, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, Alexandria, VA, counsel for
Respondent.
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), SHERIDAN, and ZISCHKAU.
DANIELS, Board Judge.
On February 24, 2016, the Board denied in part and dismissed in part an appeal filed
by G2G, LLC (G2G), of a decision by a contracting officer of the Department of
Commerce’s Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).  We denied G2G’s claim of entitlement
to $1,296,168, which the contractor characterized as “the remaining balance” of the contract
in question, and dismissed G2G’s request that we direct the PTO to place “the Contract
requirement . . . back into [the] SBA [Small Business Administration] 8(a) program.”  G2G
moves the Board to reconsider its decision.


CBCA 4996-R 2
In support of its motion, the contractor makes two assertions.  First, it alleges that one
of the documents in the appeal file submitted by the PTO was “submitted to the Board
fraudulently” because it includes data which was not provided to the contractor in response
to a previous Freedom of Information Act request.  Second, the contractor maintains that the
contract “was drafted illegally, fraudulently, and/or negligently without the SBA’s or
Appellant’s knowledge.”
G2G made these same arguments in advancing its case earlier.  As our Rules of
Procedure explain, “Arguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence are not
sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration.”  Rule 26(a) (48 CFR 6101.26(a) (2015)). 
Asking us to retread old ground is not appropriate; it cannot serve as a valid basis for the
motion.  Consequently, the motion is denied.
In an effort to help G2G to better understand the Board’s decision, however, we
restate the following points.  As we said earlier, whether the document in question was sent
and whether it was defective “are not dispositive of this case.”  The document is a letter
allegedly sent by the PTO to the SBA, offering to the latter agency, for award on a sole-
source basis (evidently under the program established under section 8(a) of the Small
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 637(a) (2006)), the requirement which was ultimately included in
the contract between the PTO and G2G.  Any questions about the document are not
dispositive because even if the PTO did not follow the Government’s housekeeping rules in
awarding the contract – something we did not address and, contrary to G2G’s belief, we did
not imply – the result in this case would not change.  G2G received the contract in question,
was fully paid for its services under the contract, and was not entitled to have the PTO
exercise the last two unilateral options to keep the contract in force beyond the date on which
it concluded by its own terms.  The Board has no authority to direct the PTO to place “the
Contract requirement . . . back into [the] SBA 8(a) program” because Congress has not
waived the immunity of the United States from suits for specific performance under the
statute under which this appeal was taken, the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-
7109 (2012).
Decision
The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
_________________________
STEPHEN M. DANIELS
Board Judge

CBCA 4996-R 3
We concur:
_________________________ _________________________
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge Board Judge