MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: July 22, 2009 
CBCA 449-R 
NAVIGANT SATOTRAVEL, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
James H. Roberts, III and Carrol H. Kinsey, Jr. of Van Scoyoc Kelly PLLC, 
Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant. 
Michael J. Noble, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges BORWICK,  HYATT , and KULLBERG. 
KULLBERG, Board Judge. 
Appellant, Navigant SatoTravel (NST), moves for reconsideration of the Board’s 
decision that denied its appeal as to the issue of entitlement. 1 Navigant SatoTravel v. 
1 The Board determined in a previous order that entitlement and quantum would 
be decided separately in this appeal.  Board’s Memorandum of Conference Call and Order 
(Mar. 8, 2007) at 3. 

    
 
 
        
 
 
 
 
   
 
    
  
 
 
2 CBCA 449-R 
General Services Administration, CBCA 449, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,098.  In our decision, the 
Board denied NST’s appeal of the determination by the General Services Administration’s 
(GSA’s) contracting officer that NST was required under its Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 
contract
2 to remit to GSA Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) payments for certain transactions 
under order number W91QUZ-05-F-0005 (order), which was awarded to NST by the Army 
Contracting Agency-ITEC4 (DoD), for various travel-related services in Defense Travel 
Region 6 (DTR6).  The Board rejected NST’s argument that DoD’s order was not subject to 
the requirement for remitting IFF payments to GSA. In so far as NST’s motion for 
reconsideration only reiterates its argument that DoD was legally precluded from ordering 
DTR6 travel services under NST’s FSS contract, and that argument was addressed in the 
Board’s decision, we deny its motion for reconsideration. 
This Board’s rules set forth specific circumstances under which granting a motion for 
reconsideration of its decision is appropriate.  “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.” Rule 26(a) (48 CFR 6101.26(a) 
(2008)).  In considering a party’s motion for reconsideration, the Board will look to the 
following factors set forth under its rules: 
The Board’s Rule 26 explains that reconsideration may be 
granted for any of the following reasons: newly discovered 
evidence which could not have been earlier discovered, even 
through due diligence; justifiable or excusable mistake, 
inadvertence, surprise, or neglect; fraud, misrepresentation, or 
other misconduct of an adverse party; the decision has been 
satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior decision upon which 
it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, and it is no 
longer equitable that the decision should have prospective 
application; the decision is void, whether for lack of jurisdiction 
or otherwise; or any other ground justifying reconsideration, 
including a reason established by the rules of common law or 
equity applicable as between private parties in the courts of the 
United States. 
Oregon Woods, Inc. v. Department of the Interior , CBCA 1072-R, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,063, 
at 168,431.  Consequently, reconsideration will not be granted when the moving party 
2 GSA awarded contract number GS-33F-0020-P, an FSS contract for various 
travel-related services, to NST on May 5, 2004.  Appeal File, Exhibit 29 at 2. 

 
 
 
    
 
 
       
     
     
 
 
 
  
  
    
     
      
    
 
3 CBCA 449-R 
“simply restates issues already considered and decided . . . .”  Michael C. Lam v. General 
Services Administration, CBCA 1213-R, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,105, at 168,643.  
NST’s motion for reconsideration reiterates its earlier argument, which the Board 
addressed in its decision, that DoD was legally precluded from ordering DTR6 travel services 
under its FSS contract because the cost of contract line items (CLINs) 0013 and 0014 in 
DoD’s order for DTR6 travel services
3  exceeded the micro-purchase limit for items not 
within the scope of NST’s FSS contract. 4   Appellant’s Brief at 29 (citing ATA Defense 
Industries, Inc. v. United States , 38 Fed. Cl. 489 (1997), and SMS Systems Maintenance 
Services, Inc. , B-284550.2, 2000 CPD ¶ 127 (Aug. 4, 2000)).  We declined to review the 
question of whether DoD had properly competed the order for DTR6 travel services by 
including CLINs 0013 and 0014 because this Board lacks jurisdiction over protests, and, 
consequently, we have no authority to change the rights and obligations of either NST or 
DoD under the terms of that order.  Navigant SatoTravel , 09-1 BCA at 168,605 (citing 
Innovative (PBX) Telephone Services, Inc. v. Department of Veterans Affairs , CBCA 12, 
et al., 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,685, at 166,765).  This Board has recognized that “[t]he [Contract 
Disputes Act] limits our jurisdiction to contracts between the Government and contractor.” 
Innovative (PBX) Telephone Services, Inc., 07-2 BCA at 166,765 (citing 41 U.S.C. § 602 
(2000)).  A protest is not within this Board’s jurisdiction because “bid protests, by definition, 
involve disputes between the Government and a disappointed bidder.”  Id.  Consequently, 
“[t]he Board does not have jurisdiction to review an agency’s determination of its needs or 
method of fulfilling those needs.”  Id. 
In its motion, NST again requests that this Board apply the SMS  and ATA  decisions, 
which involved protests, to determine that DoD was legally precluded from issuing an order 
under NST’s FSS contract because the cost of CLINs 0013 and 0014 in DoD’s order 
exceeded the micro-purchase threshold, and GSA has no entitlement to IFF payments under 
those circumstances.  Such an inquiry into the manner in which DoD competed the order is 
a matter related to the adjudication of a protest and outside the jurisdiction of this Board. 
Lacking the authority to make such an inquiry into the competition of the order for DTR6 
3 CLINs 0013 and 0014 were for the global distribution system terminal and 
software, and the Government did not dispute that those CLINs were not within the scope 
of NST’s FSS contract.  Navigant StatoTravel , 09-1 BCA at 168,602. 
4 NST stated in its brief that CLINs 0013 and 0014 had a combined cost of 
$3352 for the base and option periods of the order that exceeded both the micro-purchase 
level of $2500 that was in effect at time of award and the current micro-purchase threshold 
of $3000.  Appellant’s Brief at 30. 

  
     
 
      
 
 
             
 
   
______________________ 
_______________________ _______________________ 
4 CBCA 449-R 
travel services, we also lack the authority to implement any remedy that would alter the terms 
of the order for that reason.  
Additionally, NST argues in its motion that the issue of whether DoD could properly 
include CLINs 0013 and 0014 in an order under NST’s FSS contract is one of contract 
formation rather than an issue related to a protest, but that argument does not present us with 
a new rationale that would justify granting its motion for reconsideration.  Our decision dealt 
at length with the issue as to whether DoD’s order for DTR6 travel services was an order 
under NST’s FSS contract, and we held that NST accepted the terms of the standard form 
(SF) 1449, which was an order under its FSS contract.  Navigant SatoTravel , 
09-1 BCA at 168,604. NST’s attempt to use an alleged defect in the competition for that 
order as a means to change the terms of the SF 1449 is precluded by the fact that, as 
discussed above, we do not have the jurisdiction to make the inquiry as to whether the 
inclusion of CLINs 0013 and 0014 were improper nor do we have the authority to change the 
terms of that order simply because NST now challenges the manner in which DoD competed 
the order by including CLINs 0013 and 0014.  Although it is possible that a protest could 
have been brought before the appropriate forum to challenge DoD’s action, we are in no 
position to speculate as to how such a matter would have been resolved nor are we in a 
position to rewrite the terms of the order based upon such speculation. 
Decision 
The motion to reconsider is DENIED . 
H. CHUCK KULLBERG 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK CATHERINE B. HYATT 
Board Judge Board Judge