ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Military Aircraft Parts ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. SPM4A7-l 1-M-J567 ) 

SPM4A7-l 1-M-P870 ) 

SPM4A7-12-M-0831 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60336 

Mr. Robert E. Marin 

President 

Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 

DLA Chief Trial Attorney 

Edward R. Murray, Esq. 

Jason D. Morgan, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

DLA Aviation 

Richmond, VA 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON APPELLANT'S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Appellant requests that we reconsider our 25 April 2016 decision denying its 

appeal. There, we rejected appellant's jurisdictional argument that we could waive the 

90-day appeals period in the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a), to consider 

appellant's untimely challenge to the termination of Contract No. SPM4A7-11-M-J567. 

Military Aircraft Parts, ASBCA No. 60336, 16-1BCAif36,361at177,251.* 

Appellant objects that, in doing so, we did not consider the opinion of the United 

States Supreme Court in Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical 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 our jurisdiction, we rejected appellant's request for a "good cause" exception to 

the 90-day period, citing a 5 February 2016 brief in which appellant had responded to the 

government's earlier motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; in that brief, appellant had 

relied upon Sebelius. Military Aircraft Parts, 16-1 BCA if 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 of fraud, 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't br. 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 of Sebelius, appellant raises an issue-whether the 

90-day appeals period is jurisdictional-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 of its appeal rights 

with respect to the termination of Contract No. SPM4A7-11-M-J567 (reply at 1, 5). 

Although newly discovered evidence can be the basis for reconsideration, see 

Paradigm II, LLC, ASBCA No. 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 of receipt of the decision, and provided the Board's address (R4, tab Al4). 

See generally Access Personnel Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 59900, 16-1 BCA 

ii 36,407 (describing appeal rights notice requirement). 

For these reasons, the motion to reconsider is denied. 

Dated: 2 August 2016 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60336, Appeal of Military 

Aircraft Parts, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals