MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN CBCA 185-R DENIED; 
MOTION TO DISMISS CBCA 1031 GRANTED:  August 15, 2008 
CBCA 185-R, 1031 
PETERSEN EQUIPMENT FIRE & EMERGENCY SERVICES, 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
Respondent. 
Audrey Johnston, Chief Executive Officer of Petersen Equipment Fire & Emergency 
Services, Tehachapi, CA, appearing for Appellant. 
Stephen R. Palmer, Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, 
Sacramento, CA, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), HYATT, and McCANN . 
McCANN, Board Judge. 
These cases present a claim for increased workers’ compensation benefits for Eric 
Petersen, a sometime employee of Petersen Equipment Company, a Government contractor.1 
The objective of appellant, and of Mr. Petersen, is to have the Board determine that the 
Government agreed to pay Eric Petersen, when he was employed as a firefighter for the 
Government, at a daily rate of pay instead of an hourly rate of pay. Such a determination 
would, theoretically, increase the disability payments which have been awarded to him by 
the Department of Labor (DOL). As elaborated below, the Board does not have jurisdiction 
1 The relationship between Eric Petersen and Petersen Equipment Company has 
not been made clear. 

   
 
  
     
   
  
 
 
  
      
 
      
      
    
   
  
  
 
2 CBCA 185-R, 1031 
over claims by employees of the Federal Government for disability payments, nor does it 
grant reconsideration of a decision absent newly discovered evidence or other factors as set 
forth in Rules 26 and 27.  We thus deny the motion for reconsideration of our decision in 
CBCA 185 and dismiss CBCA 1031 for lack of jurisdiction. 
Background 
On August 24, 1990, Petersen Equipment Company entered into Emergency 
Equipment Rental Agreement (EERA) number CA-020-EQ0-107 with the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM).  Appeal File, Exhibit 2(a). Under this agreement Petersen Equipment 
agreed to supply firefighting equipment to the BLM at certain rates.  Under some of the 
equipment categories the following phrase appears: “Individual to be paid AD-4 wages.” 
In block 6 of this agreement it states that the contractor is to furnish the supplies.  In block 
7 it states that the Government is to furnish the operator. 
Eric Petersen was hired to be the operator of the equipment.  Mr. Petersen’s 
Emergency Firefighter Time Reports for the days August 21 through August 31, 1992 show 
that he worked various numbers of hours during this period. Appeal File, Exhibit 2(b). 
These reports were signed by Eric Petersen and by the government time officer.  These 
reports indicate that the firefighter classification was AD-4 and the rate of pay was $10.90 
per hour.  There is no reference in these reports to agreement CA-020-EQ0-107.  Eric 
Petersen does not dispute that he was paid by the Government for the hours that he worked 
at the rate stated in the Emergency Firefighter Time Reports.  
While operating the equipment on the job, Eric Petersen was injured.  He sought and 
was awarded workers’ compensation benefits by the DOL. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 52-57. 
In its decision, the DOL found that Mr. Petersen was a federal employee. Mr. Petersen seeks 
to increase his award of workers’ compensation benefits by asking this Board to determine 
that, through agreement CA-020-EQ0-107, he was hired by Petersen Equipment Company 
or by the BLM and received a daily rate of pay instead of an hourly rate of pay.
2 
Procedural History
 On May 31, 2007, the Board dismissed CBCA 185 for lack of jurisdiction under the 
Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 601-613 (2008).  This decision 
articulated three problems with the appeal: (a) it was not clear that Petersen Equipment 
Mr. Petersen has not been clear on who he contends hired him or on how he 
contends that this Board has jurisdiction over his claim under the contract. 
2 

      
 
 
      
    
 
     
        
 
  
  
   
 
 
    
  
 
 
3 CBCA 185-R, 1031 
Company had filed the appeal; (b) no claim had been filed with the contracting officer; and 
(c) the claim was apparently made under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 
(FECA), 5 U.S.C. ch. 81 (2000), over which the Board has no jurisdiction.  Petersen 
Equipment Fire & Emergency Services v. Department of the Interior, CBCA 185, 07-2 BCA 
¶ 33,591. On June 15, 2007, Petersen Equipment filed for reconsideration of this decision. 
This request was docketed as CBCA 185-R.  Subsequently, Petersen Equipment filed the 
same claim with the contracting officer, who issued a decision denying the claim on or about 
December 10, 2007.  Petersen Equipment appealed the denial of its claim to the Board.  This 
appeal was docketed as CBCA 1031.  The Board consolidated CBCA 185-R with CBCA 
1031 and respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeals. 
Discussion 
CBCA 185-R 
We address first the request for reconsideration of our decision in CBCA 185.  The 
Board’s jurisdiction derives from the CDA, which requires that a claim be submitted to the 
contracting officer for decision as a prerequisite to the Board’s jurisdiction.  41 U.S.C. 
§§ 605(a), 606.  Since no claim had been presented to the contracting officer, the Board 
dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.  We further stated that even if a claim had been 
presented, the Board would lack subject matter jurisdiction over it since matters involving 
workers’ compensation payments are exclusively within the province of the DOL. 
Our Rule 26 provides that reconsideration may be granted for any of the grounds set 
forth in Rule 27, which include, among other things, newly discovered evidence which 
could not have been earlier discovered through due diligence, fraud, misrepresentation or 
other misconduct of an adverse party, or excusable mistake.  Appellant has presented no new 
evidence or arguments in its motion for reconsideration.  Arguments already made and 
reinterpretations of old evidence are not sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration. 
Rule 26(a).  Accordingly, appellant’s motion for reconsideration must be denied.
3 
The Board’s decision in CBCA 185-R, for which reconsideration is sought, 
was issued by a panel which included Judge Robert W. Parker, as well as Judges Hyatt and 
McCann.  Since the issuance of that decision, Judge Parker has retired.  He has been 
replaced, in CBCA 1031, by Judge Daniels, who was selected randomly.  Under applicable 
precedent, a board of contract appeals may not change the panel that decides a motion for 
reconsideration.  Stan Dieker v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16050-R, 03-2 
BCA ¶ 32,375 (citing Universal Restoration, Inc. v. United States, 798 F.2d 1400, 1406 n.9 
(Fed. Cir. 1986)).  Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration docketed as CBCA 185-R 
3 

   
  
       
       
  
 
  
 
  
  
__________________________________ 
 
4 CBCA 185-R, 1031 
CBCA 1031 
CBCA 1031 is an appeal of the contracting officer’s denial of a claim identical to 
CBCA 185 which, subsequent to the issuance of our decision in CBCA 185, Petersen 
Equipment submitted to the contracting officer. For the reasons we articulated in dismissing 
CBCA 185, we simply have no jurisdiction over this matter.  Although appellant has cured 
the first basis for dismissing CBCA 185 (failure to present a claim to the contracting officer 
for final decision), it has not and can not cure the primary defect in its appeal -- that the 
Board has no subject matter jurisdiction over the issue raised in the claim.  
This Board’s jurisdiction under the CDA is over express or implied contracts for the 
procurement of property, other than real property; the procurement of services; the 
procurement of construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of real property; or the 
disposal of personal property.  41 U.S.C. § 602.  The workers’ compensation benefits that 
form the basis for appellant’s claim do not arise under the CDA and are in no way related to 
the contract between Petersen Equipment and BLM.  We have no jurisdiction over issues 
relating to an individual’s employment with the Federal Government or with respect to 
workers’ compensation entitlement.  Appellant has not shown any basis by which the contract 
could be interpreted to govern disability payments in these circumstances.  Moreover, the 
DOL has already issued a decision addressing Mr. Petersen’s claim for workers’ 
compensation.  Whatever rights Mr. Petersen may have with respect to his workers’ 
compensation claim are governed by the provisions of FECA. 
Decision 
The motion for reconsideration of the decision issued in CBCA 185 is DENIED. 
CBCA 1031 is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 
R. ANTHONY McCANN 
Board Judge 
is being decided solely by Judges McCann and Hyatt, the remaining members of the original 
panel.  The entire panel has participated in the decision issued with respect to CBCA 1031. 

___________________________________ __________________________________ 
5 CBCA 185-R, 1031 
We concur: 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS CATHERINE B. HYATT 
Board Judge Board Judge