MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: June 16, 2015
CBCA 3258-R
COLUMBIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Reginald M. Jones and Alexa A. Santora of Fox Rothschild LLP, Washington, DC,
counsel for Appellant.
James F. H. Scott and Claire O’Donnell, Office of General Counsel, General Services
Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges STERN, POLLACK, and SHERIDAN.
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
Respondent seeks reconsideration of the Board’s decision in Columbia Construction
Co. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 3258, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,856.  Familiarity with
that decision is presumed.  For the reasons below, we deny reconsideration.
Background
This appeal arose when the General Services Administration (GSA) required
Columbia Construction Company (Columbia) to install the security system wiring in EMT
conduit, instead of allowing its planned method of installation in cable trays under the raised


CBCA 3258-R 2
access flooring system and above the drop ceilings.  The Board concluded that,
“[c]onsidering the contract as a whole, appellant’s plan to conceal the security cabling in wire
trays in the raised flooring system and above the drop ceilings was reasonable.  GSA
unreasonably stopped appellant’s planned installation of the security cabling and now must
pay the increased price for demanding that the security cabling be installed in conduit.”  We
granted appellant’s claim for $491,450.81.
In its motion GSA argues that, in making our decision, we failed to focus on the
“discordant interplay” of the language in the specification in division 01 (General
Requirements), 010900.1.2.A, and the specification in division 28 (Security Systems),
281001.07.L.  The language of each is:
010900.1.2.A  Where there appear to be overlapping or conflicting
requirements in the drawings and specifications, the order of precedence
established by the clauses “Specifications and Drawings for Construction” and
“Specification and Drawings” of the contract clauses shall govern.[1]
.  .  .  .
281001.07.L  It shall be understood that the specifications and drawings are
complementary and are to be taken together for a complete interpretation of the
security systems work.  Where there are conflicts between the drawings and
specifications or within the specifications or drawings themselves, the items
of higher standard shall govern.
Discussion
Board Rule 26(a) (48 CFR 6101.26(a) (2014)) provides in pertinent part:
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. 
1 Division 01 (General Requirements), 010900.1.2.C provides:
Except for overlapping or conflicting requirements, where more than one set of
requirements are specified for a particular unit of work, option is intended to be
contractor’s regardless or whether or not it is specifically indicated as such. 

CBCA 3258-R 3
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.
Respondent seeks reconsideration, asserting:
The January 20, 2015, decision reflects no consideration of the Security
System Order of Precedence established uniquely for security systems.  GSA
concurs with the Board’s observation on page 12 of the January 20, 2015
decision that “[r]easonable meaning must be given to all parts of the agreement
so as not to render any portion meaningless . . . .”  Here, the Board must
consider specification 281001.07.L, ascribing meaning to it and concluding
that specification 281001.07.L creates a specific order of precedence uniquely
applicable to security systems, including supporting cabling, with the general
order of precedence referenced in specification 010900.1.2.A applying to other
specification divisions.
Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration at 2-3.
Reconsideration is a matter within the discretion of the Board.  Flathead Contractors,
LLC v. Department of Agriculture, CBCA 118-R, 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,688 at 166,770.  In
exercising our discretion, and in evaluating a request for reconsideration, we must “strike a
delicate balance between two countervailing impulses: the desire to preserve the finality of
judgments and the incessant command of the [tribunal’s] conscience that justice be done in
light of all the facts.”  Advanced Injection Molding, Inc. v. General Services Administration,
GSBCA 16504-R, et al., 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,097, at 164,063, cited in Flathead Contractors, 07-2
BCA at 166,770.  The Board will not grant reconsideration on the basis of arguments already
made and reinterpretations of old evidence.  Tidewater Contractors, Inc. v. Department of
Transportation, CBCA 50-R, 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,618, at 166,501. 
Respondent is incorrect; we did consider the two specification sections and included
them in our decision.  However, in reading the contract as a whole, we concluded that when
the contract called for “conduit,” the contract allowed the cabling to be enclosed by other
coverings so long as those coverings “completely covered” the cabling.  These other
coverings included the raised flooring and drop ceilings because they “completely covered”
the cabling with building materials.  In reading the contract as a whole, we did not find the
two specifications in issue to create an incongruity.
Decision

CBCA 3258-R 4
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
                                                             
PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN
Board Judge
We concur: 
                                                                                                                          
JAMES L. STERN HOWARD A. POLLACK
Board Judge Board Judge