ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Military Aircraft Parts ) 

) 

Under Contract Nos. SPM4A7-12-M-3228 ) 

SPM4A7-12-M-3284 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60139 

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 O'SULLIVAN 

ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Appellant Military Aircraft Parts (MAP) has timely filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the Board's decision in Military Aircraft Parts, ASBCA No. 60139, 

16-1BCA~36,390. In that decision, we granted DLA Aviation's (DLA's) motion to 

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because we found that MAP's claim constituted a 

challenge to the propriety ofDLA's default termination of two purchase orders 1 more 

than two years earlier, and that MAP's appeal was therefore untimely filed under the 

Contract Disputes Act (CDA), see 41 U.S.C. § 7104(a). Familiarity with our prior 

decision is presumed. 

The general standards the Board applies in deciding a motion for reconsideration 

are whether the motion is based upon newly discovered evidence, mistakes in our 

findings of fact, or errors oflaw. Robinson Quality Constructors, ASBCA No. 55784, 

09-2 BCA ~ 34, 171 at 168,911. Reconsideration is not intended to provide a party with 

the opportunity to reargue its position. Precision Standard, Inc., ASBCA No. 58135, 

16-1 BCA ~ 36,504 at 177,859. To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, the 

moving party must show a compelling reason why the Board should modify its decision. 

ADT Construction Group, Inc., ASBCA No. 55358, 14-1BCA~35,508 at 174,041. 

1 The two purchase orders are hereinafter referred to as contract 3228 and contract 3284. 
MAP makes two arguments in support of its motion for reconsideration that it did 

not raise during the original proceedings. MAP argues that the contracting officer's final 

decisions (COFDs) informing MAP that contracts 3228 and 3284 were being terminated 

for default were deficient because they failed to adequately inform MAP of its appeal 

rights (app. mot. at 2-6). MAP also argues that the parties were mistaken about the 

interpretation of certain contract terms and that this alleged "mutual mistake" permits the 

Board to "to employ an equitable remedy finding the termination for default and resulting 

COFD to effectively be void ab initio" (id. at 2, 6-7). 

MAP's first argument relies on the proposition that the two COFDs failed to 

inform MAP that it would be required to be represented by an attorney by the Rules of 

the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) (app. mot. at 4-5).2 MAP argues 

that it detrimentally relied upon the allegedly defective COFDs when it elected to 

proceed before the Court of Federal Claims rather than the Board, and that this 

detrimental reliance requires the Board to toll the 90-day appeal period set forth in the 

CDA (id. at 5-6). 3 

As support for its argument, MAP cites the Board's decision in Access 

Personnel Services, Inc., ASBCA No. 59900, 16-1BCA,-r36,407, for the proposition 

that "unknowledgeable contractors" are not required to investigate their appeal rights 

(app. mot. at 5). In Access Personnel, the contracting officer issued two adverse 

written decisions, neither of which advised the contractor of its appeal rights. 

Access Personnel, 16-1 BCA ,-r 36,407 at 177 ,517. In contrast, here the COFDs for 

contracts 3228 and 3284 both described in detail the procedures contractors may use to 

appeal an adverse decision: 

This notice constitutes a final decision of the contracting 

officer from which you have the right of appeal. You may 

appeal this decision to the Armed Services Board of 

Contract Appeals. If you decide to make such an appeal, 

you must mail or otherwise furnish written notice thereof 

to the Board within 90 days from the date you receive this 

decision to the following address: 

Recorder 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 

Skyline 6 

5109 Leesburg Pike, 7TM FLOOR 

Falls Church, VA 22041-3208. 

2 See RCFC 83.l(a)(3). 

3 Since we find that the relevant COFDs were not defective, it is unnecessary to 

address MAP' s arguments regarding detrimental reliance. 

2 
A copy of such notice shall be furnished to the Contracting 

Officer. The notice should identify the contract by 

number; it should reference this decision and indicate that 

an appeal is taken therefrom. In lieu of appealing to the 

Board you may bring an action directly in the U.S. Court 

of Federal Claims within 12 months after you receive this 

decision. 

(Gov't mot. to dismiss, exs. C, G). 4 This language is substantially the same as the 

language found in FAR 3 3 .211 (a)( 4 )( v ), which implements the CDA' s requirement to 

inform a contractor of its appeal rights, and lists the specific information that 

contracting officers must include in their COFDs. Absent from both the statute and 

the regulation is any requirement that the contracting officer inform contractors of the 

content of the rules of the forums to which they may appeal. We have previously held 

that contracting officers are not required to advise contractors of the procedural rules 

of the Court of Federal Claims. Military Aircraft Parts, ASBCA No. 60739, 

16-1BCA~36,528 at 177,945. 

MAP's alternate argument of mutual mistake is merely an attempt to invalidate 

the default terminations via a slightly different path (app. mot. at 2, 6-7). Because 

MAP's appeal was untimely, we do not have jurisdiction and thus will not consider 

that argument. 

CONCLUSION 

MAP's motion for reconsideration is denied. 

Dated: 21 February 201 7 

(Signatures continued) 

L YND~LLIVAN 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

4 The contract modifications effecting the terminations contained the same language 

regarding MAP's appeal rights (gov't mot. to dismiss, exs. B, F). 

3 
I concur 

~~i#yi' Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

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. 60139, Appeal of Military 

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

Dated: 

4 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals