Court Opinion

ID: 9929825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 15:00:47.660827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:54:43.918789
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
 Appeal of -                                   )
                                               )
 Restoration Specialists, LLC                  )    ASBCA No. 63284
                                               )
 Under Contract No. FA4418-13-D-0006           )

 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                     A. Bright Ariail, Esq.
                                                    Warren W. Ariail, Esq.
                                                     Law Office of A. Bright Ariail, LLC
                                                     Charleston, SC

 APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                    Caryl A. Potter, III, Esq.
                                                     Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney
                                                    Aaron J. Weaver, Esq.
                                                     Trial Attorney

                 OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCLISH
               ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

       Appellant Restoration Specialists, LLC (Restoration) moves for reconsideration
of the Board’s November 14, 2023 decision granting in part and denying in part the
government’s motion for summary judgment (Decision). Restoration Specialists,
LLC, ASBCA No. 63284, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,466. For the reasons explained below, we
deny the motion.

        To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a party “must demonstrate a
compelling reason for the Board to modify its decision.” Golden Build Co., ASBCA
No. 62294, 20-1 BCA ¶37,742 at 183,161 (quoting Bruce E. Zoeller, ASBCA
No. 56578, 14-1 BCA ¶35,803 at 175,103). If we have made mistakes in the findings
of fact or conclusions of law, or by failing to consider an appropriate matter,
reconsideration may be appropriate. See Chugach Federal Solutions, ASBCA
No. 61320, 23-1 BCA ¶38,456 at 186,919; Robinson Quality Constructors, ASBCA
No. 55784, 09-2 BCA ¶34,171 at 168,911. “In short, if we have made a genuine
oversight that affects the outcome of the appeal, we will remedy it.” Relyant, LLC,
ASBCA No. 59809, 18-1 BCA ¶37,146 at 180,841. Reconsideration might also be
appropriate in the event of newly-discovered evidence. Afghan Premier Logistics,
ASBCA No. 62938 et al., 23-1 BCA ¶38,373 at 186,403. Motions for reconsideration,
however, are “not the place to present arguments previously made and rejected.” Id.;
Potomac Elec. Corp., ASBCA No. 61371, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,663 at 182,862 (“A motion
for reconsideration is not intended to present a ‘post-decision bolstering of contentions
which we have already rejected.’”) (quoting Charitable Bingo Assocs., ASBCA
No. 53470, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,088 at 164,014). They also “do not afford litigants the
opportunity to take a ‘second bite at the apple’ or to advance arguments that properly
should have been presented in an earlier proceeding.” Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d
1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

        Restoration has not demonstrated that reconsideration is appropriate. Instead, it
mostly repeats arguments that we previously considered and rejected. Although it
repeatedly asserts otherwise, it has not shown that we made factual or legal mistakes
or failed to consider an appropriate matter. 1 Nothing in the motion presents a
compelling reason for the Board to modify its decision.

       1. Discovery

       Restoration repeats its argument that it should be allowed discovery in order to
defend against the government’s summary judgment motion (app. mot. at 1-2). 2 We
considered that argument and rejected it because Restoration had failed to show that it
lacked any information important to its ability to contest the motion or that allowing
discovery would supply it. Restoration’s motion simply points to its counsel’s
declaration, the inadequacies of which we addressed in our prior decision. Decision
at 186,961-62.

       2. Single Claim Accrual Date

        Restoration continues to press its argument that the decision in Europe Asia
Constr. Logistic, ASBCA No. 61553, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,267, somehow supports its
argument that its claims did not accrue for purposes of the six-year statute of
limitations until the government deobligated funds from the contract long after the
contract work was complete (app. mot. at 2-3). As before, Restoration has not
demonstrated how its interpretation of Europe Asia can be squared with the extensive
precedent setting forth the claim accrual analysis that the Board follows, nor that
Europe Asia in any way compels the conclusion that Restoration’s claims were timely.

1
  Making clear that it is rearguing its prior points, Restoration’s motion repeatedly
       directs us to “[s]ee arguments contained within Appellant’s Response to
       Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment and arguments made during the
       motion hearing held on September 21, 2023 as reflected in the Official
       Transcript of Proceedings” (app. mot. at 3, 10, 11 (emphasis in original); see
       also id. at 2).
2
  Restoration’s motion lacks page numbers. We cite to the pages of the PDF file.
                                            2
         3. Later Option Years

        Restoration continues to contend that it has viable and timely claims that the
government is liable for failing to exercise the second, third and fourth option years
under the Contract, even if the government properly declined to exercise the first
option year (app. mot. at 3-9). Restoration argues that the decision we cited for the
proposition that a contract ends if the government does not timely exercise an option to
extend it, Fluor Federal Solutions, Inc., ASBCA No. 62343, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,302, is
distinguishable on several grounds and actually supports Restoration’s position (app.
mot. at 4). Fluor, citing numerous other authorities, held that the government’s failure
to properly exercise an option meant that the contract came to an end on the date it
would have ended had the government not attempted to exercise the option at all.
Fluor, 23-1 BCA at 185,956. It went on to hold that any attempt by the government to
exercise options after that date was “legally ineffective.” Id. It thus directly
contradicts Restoration’s position that the government could have exercised the
second, third and fourth option years in 2016, 2017 and 2018, even though the contract
ended in January 2016. 3 If the government could not have exercised those later
options, as Fluor demonstrates, then its failure to exercise them cannot be actionable.
Restoration’s insistence that this conclusion is in error because of Hi-Shear Tech.
Corp. v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 420 (2002), which Restoration acknowledges is not
binding on us, continues to be unpersuasive, as that case did not address whether the
government can be liable for failing to exercise an option at a time when it had no
legal right to do so.

        Restoration also repeats its argument that its claims arising from the alleged
failure to exercise the later option years can be salvaged under the “continuing claims”
doctrine (app. mot. at 6-9) but makes no arguments we did not already consider and
reject and identifies no error in our ruling. It unpersuasively reargues its position that
DynCorp Int’l, LLC, ASBCA No. 56078, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,290, demonstrates that its
claims regarding the non-exercise of the later option years are timely as continuing
claims. In that case, the Board found that the exercise of options can be independent
and distinct events or wrongs, but expressly noted that “if the government chose not to
award additional option years, there would be no claim for those years.” Id.
at 169,407. Here, the claims Restoration is asserting as to the later option years are
rooted in a single event — the allegedly bad faith decision not to award the first option
year. As DynCorp suggests, the failure to exercise each of the second, third and fourth
options was not a distinct event from the non-exercise of the first option, but rather

3
    Restoration incorrectly asserts that we found that the contract expired when the
         government failed to exercise the first option year on May 27, 2014 (app. mot.
         at 5). To the contrary, our opinion makes clear that the contract ended in
         January 2016. Decision at 186,964.
                                             3
  flowed directly from it and the resulting expiration of the contract, and thus did not
  give rise to a continuing claim.

                                      CONCLUSION

        We have considered all of the arguments made in Restoration’s motion,
  whether or not specifically addressed herein, and find none of them availing. The
  motion is denied.

           Dated: January 25, 2024

                                                     THOMAS P. MCLISH
                                                     Administrative Judge
                                                     Armed Services Board
                                                     of Contract Appeals

I concur                                             I concur

OWEN C. WILSON                                       MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL
Administrative Judge                                 Administrative Judge
Acting Chairman                                      Acting Vice Chairman
Armed Services Board                                 Armed Services Board
of Contract Appeals                                  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. 63284, Appeal of Restoration
Specialists, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

      Dated: January 25, 2024

                                                  PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS
                                                  Recorder, Armed Services
                                                  Board of Contract Appeals

                                              4