ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Military Aircraft Parts ) ) Under ContractNos. SPM4A7-l 1-M-J567 ) SPM4A7-l 1-M-P870 ) SPM4A7-12-M-0831 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60336

Mr. Robert E. Marin

President Daniel K. Poling, Esq.

DLA ChiefTrial Attorney Edward R. Murray, Esq. Jason D. Morgan, Esq.

Trial Attorneys DLA Aviation Richmond, VA OPINION BYADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ONAPPELLANT'S MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION Appellantrequests that we reconsider our 25 April 2016 decision denying its appeal. There, we rejected appellant'sjurisdictional argument that we could waive the 90-day appeals period in the ContractDisputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 

### § 7104(a), to consider appellant's untimely challenge to the termination ofContractNo. SPM4A7-11-M-J567. 

### MilitaryAircraftParts, ASBCA No. 60336, 16-1BCAif36,361at177,251.* Appellant objects that, in doing so, we did not consider the opinion ofthe United States Supreme Court in 

### Sebelius v. AuburnRegionalMedical Center, 133 S. Ct. 817 (2013) (mot. at 2). However, a motion for reconsideration is not intended to allow a party to re-argue issues that were previously raised and decided. 

### Precision Standard, Inc., ASBCA No. 59116, 15-1BCAif36,155 at 176,448. In addressing appellant's position regarding ourjurisdiction, we rejected appellant's request for a "good cause" exception to the 90-dayperiod, citing a 5 February 2016 briefin which appellant had responded to the government's earlier motionto dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; in that brief, appellant had relied upon 

### Sebelius. MilitaryAircraftParts, 16-1 BCAif 36,361 at 177,251. The
* This appeal was decided under Board Rule 12.2 and shall have no value as precedent, and in the absence offraud, shall be final and conclusive and may not be appealed or set aside.government also addressed Sebelius and the 90-day appeals period, in its 25 March 2016 opening brief(gov'tbr. at 12). Although we did not address Sebelius in denying the appeal, we relied upon our own, more recent case law to reject appellant's argument. 

### Id. (citing TTF, LLC, ASBCA No. 59511 et al., 15-1 BCA

### ii 35,883 at 175,434). Consequently, in raising the issue ofSebelius, appellant raises an issue-whetherthe 90-day appeals period isjurisdictional-that we have already addressed, and decided, in this appeal.
In its reply to the government's response to its motion, appellant also suggests that there is "new evidence" that it did not receive proper notice ofits appeal rights with respect to the termination ofContract No. SPM4A7-11-M-J567 (reply at 1, 5). Although newly discovered evidence can be the basis for reconsideration, see Paradigm II, LLC, ASBCANo. 55849, 12-2 BCA

### ii 35,152 at 172,528, we see no such evidence here. Indeed, the 18 March 2013 termination decision (which is not newly discovered) notified appellant that it had the right to appeal to the Board within 90 days ofreceipt ofthe decision, and provided the Board's address (R4, tab Al4). See generallyAccess PersonnelServices, Inc., ASBCA No. 59900, 16-1 BCA 

### ii 36,407 (describing appeal rights notice requirement).
Forthese reasons, the motion to reconsider is denied. Dated: 2 August 2016

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Opinion and Decision ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCANo. 60336, Appeal ofMilitary Aircraft Parts, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals