ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of --

Stobil Enterprise 

Under Contract No. FA3016-18-P-0074 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 61688, 61689 

Mr. Billie 0. Stone 

CEO 

Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq. 

Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney 

Heather M. Mandelkehr, Esq. 

Lt Col Scott A. Van Schoyck, USAF 

Trial Attorneys 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE SHACKLEFORD 

ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Appellant timely moves for reconsideration of our Rule 12.2 decision dated 

January 18, 2019, wherein we denied appellant's appeal from the denial of a monetary 

claim filed by appellant and also denied the appeal from the termination for default of 

appellant's contract. Familiarity with the facts of our previous decision is presumed.* 

The government replied to the motion for reconsideration on March 8, 2019, and 

appellant responded thereto on March 25, 2019. On May 29, 2019, appellant filed a 

motion for leave to file amended motion for summary judgment with memorandum of 

law in support. Leave to file said motion is denied as the record is closed. Moreover, 

the motion is irrelevant to the issue presented here. Appellant elected to proceed in 

these appeals under Board Rule 12.2 for small business concerns. A decision under 

Rule 12.2 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. 

Stobil Enterprise (Stobil) must demonstrate a compelling reason for the Board 

to modify its decision, as the standard we apply for reconsideration is that the moving 

party must establish that the underlying decision contained mistakes in our findings of 

fact or errors of law, or that newly discovered evidence warrants vacating our decision. 

Motions for reconsideration are not intended to provide a party with an opportunity to 

reargue issues previously raised and denied. See, Parsons Evergreene, LLC, ASBCA 

No. 5 8634, 19-1 BCA il 37,251 at 181 ,310, and cases cited therein. 

Appellant points to the same facts which were before us in deciding this case 

initially; they are not newly discovered facts. And, appellant repeats arguments 

* All responses to findings cited herein relate to the earlier decision found at Stobil 

Enterprise, ASBCA No. 61688, 61689, 19-1 BCA il 37,242. 
already made. In a Rule 12.2 decision, as here, we typically issue summary findings 

of fact and conclusions of law in order to decide the appeal in a relatively short period 

of time. There is no need for a point-by-point recitation of all the possible facts and all 

the contentions of appellant. We did not do so in our previous decision and will not do 

so on reconsideration. However, so that appellant more fully understands why its 

appeals were denied, we expand on our analysis on reconsideration. 

This case turned upon whether the contract requiring replacement of an overhead 

door included replacement of an inoperative drum as well at no additional cost to the 

government. It was a contract interpretation question involving whether the drum was 

part of the "electrical operators IAW SOW dated 9 January 2018." (Finding 9) The 

statement of work (SOW) required the removal and installation of a "new Overhead 

D.oor, hardware, and electric motors" also referred to as electric operators (finding 3). 

It was to be fully assembled and ready for use upon delivery (finding 2). 

In its Rule 11 brief, the government proposed a finding as follows: 

20. On May 29, 2018, TSgt Consola called TexDoor LTD, 

the manufacturer of the door that appellant ordered, and 

requested a quote for the same steel overhead door and 

electrical operators that were required by Appellant's 

contract. G-2 at 1. After TexDoor provided a quote on 

May 30, TSgt Consola inquired whether the hood, drum 

plates, and door rails came standard with the door. G-2 

at 1. TexDoor responded affirmatively that those items 

came standard with the door. G-2 at 1. 

(Gov't br. at 7) 

While the evidence set forth in that proposed finding supports the government's 

view of the case, it is diminished by its hearsay nature. Appellant's complaint iterates 

allegations in the contracting officer's final decision and then responds thereto in an 

apparent effort to show its opposite view of the industry standard. Appellants alleges 

that the contracting officer "Stated the items in dispute were considered part of the 

door" and then takes issue with that statement by pointing out, as it has throughout this 

litigation, that "drum" was not mentioned in the contract. (Compl. at 3) Next, 

appellant iterates the contracting officer, "Stated that the items were in accordance 

with standard industry practices," and then takes issue with that statement by averring 

as follows: 

Note: There 's no such industry practice. Stobil Enterprise 

has specialized in commercial and hanger [sic] door 

installations and repairs for over 20 years, and clearly 

knows what is required/or a new door installation, as well 

2 
as, a repair replacing damaged and or inoperative door 

parts. For evidence in this cause the Contractor requested 

its Distributor (TEXDOOR of San Antonio, 

Texas/Manufactures' Direct Distributor) to provide 

verification of such practice stated by the Contracting 

Officer ... see Exhibit B. 

(Comp 1. at 3) Exhibit B provides no support for that view of the industry practice. 

Said exhibit is a three part email dated May 23 , 2018, between Stobil and TexDoor, as 

follows: 

Stobil to TexDoor: 

Got a serious issue with the Government and hope you can 

help. You recently gave me a quote for a new drum and 

plates. These items weren't a part of my initial request for 

a curtain, guides, & operator. The Government is stating 

that the curtain should have come with a new drum and 

plates according to industry standards. The Government 

state's that their market research with San Antonio door 

company's [sic] indicates such. Can you confirm this 

policy as factual specifically with TexDoor. My work has 

stopped pending this issue. Any understanding would be 

helpful. 

TexDoor to Stobil: 

Good morning. I'm not sure which companies were 

included in this research. We stock and sell parts for 

overhead doors to companies all over Texas. 

Stobil to TexDoor: 

I didn't think so .... 

(Compl. and ex.A-Bat 1) 

While Stobil seems pleased with the TexDoor response, we fail to see how it advances 

appellant's position. Thus, we are left with a neutral response from TexDoor to Stobil, 

a hearsay statement clearly supporting its position from the Air Force, and Mr. Stone's 

self-serving unsworn statement that his 20 years in the business means he knows what 

is needed for new and replacement doors. The government's final decision dated 

June 25, 2018, denied appellant's monetary claim, stating in part: 

3 
The claim is denied. The SOW included in the subject 

contract required the contractor to remove one steel 

overhead door and replace with a new heavy duty rolling 

overhead door, to include all materials, incidentals and 

electric motors. The contract does not allow for the reuse 

or repair of any of the existing parts. The items in dispute 

are considered part of the door and, in accordance with 

standard industry practices, are provided with any 

commercial overhead door. Moreover, prior to award 

Stobil Enterprise confirmed that their quote included the 

drum and steel plates. 

(R4, tab 17 at 3) 

As the proponent of its claim, appellant has the burden of proving liability and 

damages (Wilner v. United States, 24 F.3d 1397, 1401-02 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en bane)) 

and thus had to show that the drum was not part of the door and that it was not 

industry practice to include the drum when replacing the door. Appellant has failed to 

meet its burden of proof as to liability. 

Even ifwe decided otherwise, appellant still would not be entitled to recover 

damages as this appeal was to be decided on entitlement and quantum; as such, 

appellant had the burden of proving its costs which is much more than merely stating 

that it is owed $126,000. Appellant has not provided any proof of damages in this 

record, nor have we found any such proof. 

Further, even if we decided otherwise on entitlement, appellant would still not 

prevail on converting the termination for default to a termination for convenience. The 

default clause required appellant to continue the work when disputes arose. Appellant 

did not complete the work by the extended contract completion date, and thus the 

termination was proper and the default inexcusable. 

Stobil' s motion for reconsideration is denied. 

Dated: July 23 , 2019 

4 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Acting 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 Nos. 61688, 61689, Appeals of 

Stobil Enterprise, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

5 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals