MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: December  10, 2007 
CBCA 648-R 
CORNERS AND EDGES, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 
Respondent. 
John E. Larson, Secretary of Corners and Edges, Inc., Hamilton, MT, appearing for 
Appellant. 
Mogbeyi E. Omatete, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health and 
Human Services, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges BORWICK, SHERIDAN , and KULLBERG. 
BORWICK, Board Judge. 
Appellant seeks reconsideration of the Board’s decision in Corners and Edges, Inc. 
v. Department of Health and Human Services , CBCA 648 (Oct.19, 2007).  Familiarity with 
that decision is presumed.  For the reasons below, we deny reconsideration. 
Background 
The appeal concerned appellant’s claim for breach of its janitorial services contract 
of eight months’ length with respondent at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Hamilton, 

 
    
 
 
 
  
   
   
  
      
 
 
  
 
    
2 CBCA 648-R 
Montana.  First, appellant maintained that respondent breached the contract by refusing to 
let appellant work past the contract end date of July 31, 2005.  Appellant argued that the term 
“approximately” in the contract document created an indefinite ending date.  Second, 
appellant claimed that respondent breached the contract by refusing to extend the contract 
past July 31, 2005, as allegedly orally agreed to by respondent’s project manager.  
Respondent submitted a motion for summary relief, arguing that the terms of the 
contract clearly provided for an eight-month period of performance.  As to appellant’s second 
argument, respondent maintained that the project officer lacked authority to extend the 
contract, and that any agreement made was not ratified by the contracting officer.  Corners 
and Edges , slip op. at 8. 
As to appellant’s first argument, the Board granted respondent’s motion for summary 
relief and denied the appeal.  Applying a fundamental rule of contract interpretation, the 
Board found respondent’s interpretation to be the only reasonable one because that 
interpretation read the provisions of the contract so as to harmonize all of its terms. 
Appellant’s attempt to parse out and focus on one term in the contract rendered superfluous 
other material terms of the contract, i.e. the unqualified language in the contract document 
specifying an eight-month quantity ordered and the grand total figure stated in the contract. 
Corners and Edges , slip op. at 9. As to appellant’s second argument, based on the 
undisputed facts, it was clear that the project manager lacked authority to extend the contract, 
and that the contracting officer expressly refused to ratify the oral extension.  Id . at 11.  
Discussion 
The Board’s Rule 26(a) provides:    
Grounds .  Reconsideration may be granted, a decision or order may be altered 
or amended, or a new hearing may be granted, for any of the reasons stated in 
Rule 27(a) and the reasons established by the rules of common law or equity 
applicable as between private parties in the courts of the United States. 
Reconsideration or a new hearing may be granted on all or any of the issues. 
Arguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence are not 
sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration, for altering or amending a 
decision, or for granting a new hearing.  Upon granting a motion for a new 
hearing, the Board will take additional testimony and, if a decision has been 
issued, either amend its findings of fact and conclusions or law or issue a new 
decision. 

 
 
  
    
  
          
 
   
  
     
 
     
   
__________________________ 
_______________________________ ________________________________ 
3 CBCA 648-R 
The Board will not grant reconsideration on the basis of arguments already made and 
reinterpretations of old evidence.  Tidewaters Contractors, Inc. v. Department of 
Transportation, CBCA 50-R, 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,618.  
Appellant seeks reconsideration principally on the ground that the Board’s decision 
deprived appellant of a hearing to resolve the alleged ambiguity created by the term 
“approximately” in the contract. Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration at 6-7; Appellant’s 
Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration at 1-2.  When a provision in a contract is 
susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous.  Teg-Paradigm 
Environmental, Inc. v. United States , 465 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Edward 
R. Marden Corp. v. United States , 803 F.2d 701, 705 (Fed. Cir.1986)). In such a case, a 
hearing might be appropriate to resolve the ambiguity.  Acquest Government Holdings, OPP, 
LLC v. General Services Administration, CBCA 413, slip op. at 17 (Nov. 7, 2007); Petula 
Midrise IV, LLC v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16085, 06-2 BCA ¶ 33,386. 
However in this case, there was only one reasonable interpretation of the contract presented 
to the Board by respondent’s motion for summary relief and appellant’s opposition to that 
motion--that of respondent.  In short, the contract unambiguously specified that the 
respondent was to order eight months of services. Consequently, the grant of summary relief 
in favor of respondent was warranted.  Steelhead Constructors, Inc. , ASBCA 55283, 06-2 
BCA ¶ 33,388, reconsideration denied , 2006 WL 377293 (Dec. 15, 2006).  The remainder 
of appellant’s motion consists of re-arguments and interpretation of matters already 
considered by the Board in its original opinion.  Appellant has not shown grounds for 
reconsideration. 
Decision 
Appellant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED . 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN H. CHUCK KULLBERG 
Board Judge Board Judge