MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: November 4, 2010 
CBCA 938 
JAVIS AUTOMATION & ENGINEERING, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
Respondent. 
Crishon D. Jordan, Knightdale, NC, counsel for Appellant. 
Stephen R. Palmer, Office of the Regional Solicitor, Department of the Interior, 
Sacramento, CA, counsel for Respondent. 
Before DANIELS (Chairman), GILMORE , and HYATT , Board Judges. 
HYATT , Board Judge. 
Appellant, JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc. (JAVIS), has filed a request for 
reconsideration asking the Board to reconsider its decision granting in part the 
Government’s motion for summary relief. JAVIS Automation & Engineering, Inc. v. 
Department of the Interior, CBCA 938, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,309. JAVIS had appealed a 
contracting officer’s decision asserting that the Government was entitled to recoup an 
overpayment of $333,955. In its decision, the Board found that as a matter of law the parties 
had entered into a cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract for the provision of information 
technology and geographic information system services under task orders issued to JAVIS 
by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The Board rejected 
JAVIS’s contention that the task orders should be billed on a time and materials (T&M) 
basis. 

 
       
     
   
     
   
     
   
      
  
   
  
     
    
   
     
      
     
     
       
      
     
      
   
      
       
   
      
   
   
2 CBCA 938 
Although the Board agreed with BOR’s position as to the proper basis for billing 
costs, the Board nonetheless noted that it would not be possible to resolve the appeal in its 
entirety because: 
Although we are persuaded that, as a matter of law, BOR 
is entitled to prevail on the question of whether the proper 
billing rates are CPFF or T&M, we are not convinced that the 
amount of the overpayment alleged by BOR is sufficiently 
accurate that we should deny the appeal outright. Although 
both parties seem to expect that resolution of the question of 
whether the task orders were CPFF or T&M will fully resolve 
the appeal, that is not the case. Neither party has provided 
sufficient support for the dollars claimed to decide the amount 
in dispute given the record available to the Board. Thus, while 
the agency has prevailed as to the type of contract performed, it 
has not demonstrated that the amount by which it considers 
JAVIS to have been overpaid is correct. Accordingly, we grant 
BOR’s motion limited to the question of the nature of the 
contract and the corollary pricing of the services provided. The 
amount of the overpayment, if any, that BOR may be entitled to 
collect back from the contractor remains to be determined. 
09-2 BCA at 169,481. Thus, the decision left open the matter of quantum for further 
development by the parties, either on their own through informal discussions or formally 
through further proceedings at the Board. 
Appellant’s request seeks “reconsideration regarding the amount of money on which 
this dispute centers” and contends that even under CPFF billing JAVIS is still owed money. 
In support of this request, appellant has resubmitted its final invoice for the task orders in 
question, based on the CPFF billing rates calculated by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, 
and asserts that this invoice demonstrates that JAVIS was not overpaid by BOR and is in fact 
entitled to be paid an outstanding balance of $628,189.28. 
Respondent opposes the motion, pointing out that appellant is not actually seeking 
reconsideration with respect to the Board’s decision concerning the proper billing rates that 
should be applied under the contract, but rather seeks to preempt further proceedings with 
respect to resolution of the remaining quantum issue.  
Appellant misapprehends the purpose of the Board’s Rule 26, 48 CFR 6101.26 
(2009), which governs motions for reconsideration.  As the Board has previously stated: 

 
   
      
    
  
   
 
  
   
    
       
    
    
      
   
      
   
     
       
_________________________________ 
_________________________________ _________________________________ 
3 CBCA 938 
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, aff’d sub nom. Oregon Woods, Inc. v. Salazar, 355 F.App’x 403 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 
accord Navigant SatoTravel v. General Services Administration, CBCA 449-R, 09-2 BCA 
¶ 34,207, at 169,107-08.  
As respondent points out, since appellant’s motion is not based on any of these 
grounds, appellant has not met the test for reconsideration set forth in the Board’s Rule 26. 
Corners and Edges, Inc. v. Department of Health and Human Services, CBCA 1002-R, 09-2 
BCA ¶ 34,236. The motion is improperly directed to a matter which has not yet been 
addressed by the Board. 
Decision 
The motion for reconsideration is DENIED . 
CATHERINE B. HYATT 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
STEPHEN M. DANIELS BERYL S. GILMORE 
Board Judge Board Judge