MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED;
 
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION GRANTED: October 15, 2012
 
CBCA 2057-R
 
POWER WIRE CONSTRUCTORS, 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 
Respondent. 
Ronald G. Schmidt of Schmidt, Schroyer, Moreno, Lee & Bachand, P.C., Rapid City, 
SD, counsel for Appellant. 
Claire Douthit, Office of General Counsel, Department of Energy, Lakewood, CO, 
counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman) , GOODMAN , and KULLBERG . 
GOODMAN , Board Judge. 
Appellant, Power Wire Constructors, has filed a motion for reconsideration and 
clarification of the Board’s decision dated August 30, 2012. Respondent has filed a response 
which includes information that we treat as a motion for reconsideration. 
Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration 
The Board found that appellant’s stripping of a portion of proposed area 5 without 
respondent’s contractually-required prior approval and the destruction of a potentially 

 
              
               
         
            
            
            
       
          
           
            
          
      
      
             
      
           
            
                   
        
          
            
              
               
                
           
            
                
            
        
           
                
2 CBCA 2057-R 
historical site within that area by tenants was justification for the state authority to bar 
appellant from further activity in the entire area. The Board found further that it was 
reasonable for respondent to concur with the state authority’s determination. 
Appellant asserts in its motion for reconsideration that the Board overlooked facts that 
prove that respondent gave appellant prior approval for stripping proposed area 5. However, 
appellant asserted a contrary position in its response to respondent’s motion for summary 
relief: 
The primary reason the DOE [Department of Energy] shut down PW [Power 
Wire Constructors] on the morning of September 24 was its commencement 
of “stripping” without the prior approval of DOE . The undisputed evidence 
discloses that there was never any contractual requirement for PW to seek the 
DOE’s prior approval for stripping activities. The contract clearly and 
unambiguously distinguishes “stripping” activities and “excavation” activities 
within a borrow area. (emphasis added) 
Appellant’s Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Relief and in Opposition to 
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Relief at 18-19. 
It is Power Wire’s position that “stripping” and “excavating” are separate and 
distinct and that no authorization or approval is required by DOE for stripping 
as a matter of law. . . . The only work that PW had done in Borrow Area 5 was 
strip for which it did not need approval . 
Appellant’s Response to Respondent’s Statement of Undisputed Facts 38, 41 (emphasis 
added). 
Thus, while appellant previously asserted that it had stripped a portion of proposed 
area 5 without prior approval and that prior approval was not required, appellant now asserts 
in its motion for reconsideration that it had received approval for stripping. A motion for 
reconsideration is not a vehicle that allows a party to retry a case or reinterpret evidence. Ryll 
International, LLC v. Department of Transportation , CBCA 1143-R, 12-1 BCA ¶ 35,029. 
Appellant also asserts in its motion for reconsideration that it should have been 
allowed to use that part of proposed area 5 that was undisturbed and allegedly did not contain 
any historical material. These arguments were previously raised by appellant and considered 
by the Board in reaching its decision. The Board noted that proposed area 5 contained two 
contiguous areas of approximately eight acres each, Power Wire Constructors v. Department 
of Energy , CBCA 2057, slip op. at 4 (Aug. 30, 2012), and that appellant maintained it could 

 
                
                
             
          
              
 
           
  
 
          
             
        
           
 
     
         
           
            
             
             
            
          
            
          
         
           
             
     
        
            
            
     
      
3 CBCA 2057-R 
have still been allowed to remove borrow material as the destruction of the site by the tenants 
of the property was minimal compared to the overall area, id. at 8. The operative undisputed 
facts were that approximately half the area was stripped prematurely by appellant and a 
potential historical site was destroyed by the tenants that were farming the area.  In light of 
these actions, appellant was barred by the state authority from using the entire area, including 
the remainder of the area which had not been disturbed, and respondent concurred with the 
state authority’s decision, in accordance with its obligations under the National Historic 
Preservation Act (NHPA). 
We held: 
The resolution of appellant’s claim does not require us to determine 
whether there was historical material in proposed area 5 and in the site that 
was destroyed. Rather, we must determine whether respondent’s 
determination, after proposed area 5 was stripped and the site destroyed, to 
preclude appellant from using proposed area 5 as a borrow area was a breach 
of contract. . . . 
Based upon appellant’s stripping of proposed area 5 without approval, 
contrary to the contract, and the tenants’ deliberate destruction of a potential 
historical site, the SHPO decided to bar any further activity in proposed area 
5. This decision was within the SHPO’s authority to determine, and there is 
no evidence that the decision was arbitrary or capricious. It was reasonable for 
respondent to concur with the SHPO’s decision. It was also reasonable for 
respondent to bar all construction activity within proposed area 5 pending its 
own investigation of the destruction of the site by the tenants and the 
possibility that historical material was scattered throughout the site. Such 
decision was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion. 
Accordingly, respondent’s refusal to approve proposed area 5 as a source of 
borrow material was not a breach of contract. In so doing, respondent fulfilled 
its obligations pursuant to the NHPA. 
Power Wire Constructors , slip op. at 5 n.5; 8. 
Reconsideration is not granted when a party reargues facts and theories upon which 
the Board has previously ruled. Flathead Contractors, LLC v. Department of Agriculture , 
CBCA 118-R, 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,688. 
Appellant has not stated grounds for reconsideration. 

 
   
             
              
              
              
                
               
              
        
            
            
           
             
            
 
     
         
     
__________________________________ 
  
 
           
              
             
        
4 CBCA 2057-R 
Appellant’s Motion for Clarification 
Appellant requests clarification as to the interest to be paid on its claim for 
transformer oil processing granted by the Board. As noted in the decision, appellant’s claim 
on this issue was $41,706. Respondent admitted liability with regard to $15,000 of this 
claim. The amount in dispute was therefore $26,706. 
1 The Board’s decision was applicable 
to the disputed amount only. Power Wire Constructors , slip op. at 2 n.1. Appellant is 
entitled to interest on the claimed amount of $41,706 at the rate allowed by the Contract 
Disputes Act, from the date the claim was received by the contracting officer until the date 
paid. 41 U.S.C.A. § 7109 (Supp. IV 2011). 
Appellant also requests clarification with regard to what it characterizes as an “award” 
in the amount of $43,000 for a contract modification which respondent has described in its 
statement of uncontested facts. According to respondent, the modification amount includes 
the contract balance owed and the $15,000 undisputed amount for transformer oil processing. 
While respondent appears to admit liability to pay the contract modification, the modification 
was not addressed in the appeal or the Board’s decision, and the Board did not “award” the 
$43,000 to appellant as appellant suggests. 
Decision 
The MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION are DENIED . The MOTION FOR 
CLARIFICATION is GRANTED as stated herein. 
ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge 
1 Responding to appellant’s motion for clarification, respondent submits calculations 
not previously submitted to show that the amount in dispute was $18,424. We treat 
respondent’s response as a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is not a vehicle for 
introducing arguments that could have been made previously. Ryll . 

 
 
    
  
5 CBCA 2057-R 
We concur: 
__________________________________ ___________________________ 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS H. CHUCK KULLBERG 
Board Judge Board Judge