MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
 
MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD DENIED: August 19, 2010
 
CBCA 1310-R, 1530-R
 
SPRINGCAR COMPANY, LLC,
 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Robert C. MacKichan of Holland & Knight LLP, Washington, DC; and William M. 
Pannier of Holland & Knight LLP, Los Angeles, CA, counsel for Appellant. 
Lesley M. Busch, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges SOMERS , STERN , and HYATT . 
SOMERS , Board Judge. 
On March 26, 2010, after considering all evidence presented to the Board on a fully 
developed record, including the appeal files, testimony, and post-trial briefs, we granted 
appellant Springcar Company, LLC’s (Springcar) claims in part and denied the remainder. 
Springcar Co., LLC v. General Services Administration , CBCA 1310, et al., 10-1 BCA 
¶ 34,407. Familiarity with that decision is presumed. Springcar has moved for 
reconsideration of that decision, and asks us to reopen the record in CBCA 1530 in order to 
allow appellant to present additional evidence. The General Services Administration (GSA) 
opposes the motion. 

  
            
              
           
           
      
           
            
           
               
  
               
               
   
 
           
             
            
      
              
              
           
      
            
             
               
            
                
                
             
           
              
          
2 CBCA 1310-R, 1530-R 
Board Rule 26 (48 CFR 6101.26 (2009)) provides that reconsideration may be granted 
for any of the reasons stated in Rule 27(a), which include, among other things, newly 
discovered evidence which could not have been earlier discovered through due diligence, 
fraud, misinterpretation, or other misconduct of an adverse party, or excusable mistake. 
Pursuant to our Rules, “[a]rguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence are 
not sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration.” Beyley Construction Group Corp. v. 
Department of Veterans Affairs , CBCA 5-R, et al., 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,784; Tidewater 
Contractors, Inc. v. Department of Transportation , CBCA 50-R, 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,618. 
Reconsideration is a matter within the discretion of the Board. Beyley , 08-1 BCA at 167,203 
(citing Flathead Contractors, LLC v. Department of Agriculture , CBCA 118-R, 07-2 BCA 
¶ 33,688). Appellant has presented no new evidence or arguments in support of its motion 
for reconsideration and to reopen the record. For the reasons set forth below, we deny 
appellant’s motions.
1 
I. CBCA 1310-R 
In the first claim, CBCA 1310, Springcar sought compensation for increased electrical 
costs resulting from the transfer of leased space from one heating, ventilation, and air 
conditioning (HVAC) system, referred to as the general HVAC system, to the dedicated 
twenty-four-hour HVAC system. The Government acknowledged that Springcar would be 
entitled to some relief for any extra operating expenses arising from the transfer of leased 
space from one HVAC system to another, but disputed the amount of reimbursement sought. 
We found that Springcar was entitled to recovery for additional electrical costs 
resulting from the transfer of leased space from the general HVAC system to the dedicated 
twenty-four-hour system. We concluded based upon evidence presented in the appeal file 
that the cost for the twenty-four-hour operation for the additional 8434 square feet is 
approximately $2.17 per square foot per year. We ordered GSA to pay Springcar a one-time 
payment of $101,459.90 plus interest, as calculated in accordance with the Contract Disputes 
Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. § 611 (2006), from the date on which GSA received Springcar’s first 
certified claim (April 30, 2008) until the date of payment. We ordered that the annual rent 
be increased by the amount of $18,301.78 per year, effective May 1, 2010. 
1 Although this opinion may not address each and every point presented by 
appellant in its motions for reconsideration and to reopen the record, we have considered all 
of Springcar’s arguments before reaching this decision. 

  
             
     
              
      
              
          
             
           
                 
           
             
                
             
          
              
          
                   
                
               
           
             
           
           
           
         
 
          
       
  
       
           
            
           
           
3 CBCA 1310-R, 1530-R 
Springcar disagrees with this decision because the Board relied upon an exhibit in the 
appeal file to determine quantum, rather than adopting the analysis presented by appellant’s 
expert. Springcar asserts that we provided no foundation for using the analysis that we 
located in the appeal file. 
The Board may rely upon any evidence contained within the appeal file. See Board 
Rule 4(g); Keller & Sons Enterprises, Inc. v. General Services Administration , 
GSBCA 11970, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,564 (1993) (board relied upon appeal file to calculate 
damages); Monitor Northwest Co. , GSBCA 7028, 85-2 BCA ¶ 18,065 (liquidated damages 
granted on the basis of evidence contained in appeal file). Indeed, at the hearing, a GSA 
witness testified that GSA considered the methodology detailed in that exhibit when 
evaluating how to compensate Springcar for the transfer of space to the dedicated twenty-
four-hour HVAC system. The fact that appellant failed to object to appeal file exhibit 16, or 
failed to question the witness about the methodology, is of no consequence. 
Appellant’s belated conclusion that additional arguments might have been made or 
other evidence might have been highlighted is not a basis for the Board to allow 
reconsideration. Mitchell Enterprises, Ltd. v. General Services Administration , CBCA 402-R, 
07-2 BCA ¶ 33,644. “While the Board will look at clear errors, be they of fact or law, the 
Board will not use reconsideration to allow a party to retry a case or introduce facts and 
arguments that it failed to present at the original hearing or put forward in its briefing.” 
Beyley , 08-1 BCA at 167,205 (quoting Flathead Contractors, 07-2 BCA at 166,769). 
Springcar presents no new, additional, compelling insight, or evidence that the Board has not 
already carefully considered. The Board will not grant reconsideration based on 
reinterpretations of old evidence and interpretations of matters already considered by the 
Board. Tidewater ; see also Hook Construction, Inc. v. General Services Administration , 
CBCA 423-R, 07-1 BCA ¶ 33,488, at 165,994. 
II. CBCA 1530-R 
In the second appeal, Springcar contended that the Government imposed numerous 
changes to the leased premises, which resulted in increased electrical costs.  We denied that 
claim, finding that appellant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
Government ordered any of the changes. 
Springcar argues that the contracting officer’s testimony at the hearing that GSA’s 
building manager, Ms. Glenda Petefish, attended a meeting on October 21, 2005, during 
which some of the changes (adjusting the building automation system (BAS) settings) 
allegedly occurred, surprised appellant. Springcar contends that the Government failed to 

  
               
             
 
           
             
               
             
              
            
             
               
             
                
     
         
           
             
            
            
           
              
            
               
         
   
      
               
             
_____________________________ 
4 CBCA 1310-R, 1530-R 
disclose the fact that Ms. Petefish attended the meeting. Springcar seeks to reopen the record 
“to explore Ms. Petefish’s participation in the October 21, 2005 meeting.” 
GSA responds, stating that (1) the evidence did not conclusively establish that 
Ms. Petefish attended the meeting; (2) although Ms. Petefish had been listed on discovery 
responses as an individual with knowledge of the issues and was a potential witness for GSA, 
Springcar did not attempt to depose her or attempt to discover her personal knowledge 
concerning the events at the meeting; (3) relying upon the testimony at trial, appellant argued 
in post-trial briefing that Ms. Petefish’s presence established that the Government had ordered 
changes at the meeting; and (4) the Board’s conclusion that government representatives at the 
meeting did not have authority to effectuate the alleged changes is supported by the law, citing 
Hercules, Inc. v. United States , 516 U.S. 417, 423-24 (1996) ; Winter v. Cath-Dr/Balti Joint 
Venture , 497 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2007); City of El Centro v. United States , 922 F.2d 816 
(Fed. Cir. 1990); H. Landau & Co. v. United States , 886 F.2d 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); General 
Electric Co. , ASBCA 11990, 67-1 BCA ¶ 6377. 
Springcar’s arguments have not changed from those previously asserted. Springcar had 
argued that Ms. Petefish had ordered the changes on the Government’s behalf, and we 
rejected that argument. We evaluated the evidence presented at the hearing, examined 
Springcar’s arguments, and ultimately held that Springcar had failed to establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the contracting officer or the contracting officer’s 
representative ordered the changes at the October meeting, or indeed at any time. Arguments 
already made and reinterpretation of old evidence are not sufficient bases for requesting 
reconsideration. Rule 26(a). Even if the reasoning in support of a motion for reconsideration 
is more sophisticated than the arguments previously made, reconsideration is inappropriate. 
ROI Investments v. General Services Administration , GSBCA 15488-C(15037-C)-REIN-R, 
01-2 BCA ¶ 31,523, at 155,622. 
Decision 
Springcar has given us no reason to reconsider our decision or to reopen the record. 
Consequently, the motions for reconsideration and to reopen the record are DENIED . 
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS 
Board Judge 

  
___________________________ _____________________________ 
5 CBCA 1310-R, 1530-R 
We concur: 
JAMES L. STERN CATHERINE B. HYATT 
Board Judge Board Judge