Court Opinion

ID: 9900215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:02:10.714322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:02.276677
License: Public Domain

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
 Appeal of -                                   )
                                               )
 Safaa Al-Rawaby Company                       )    ASBCA No. 63146
                                               )
 Under Contract No. H92277-21-C-0013           )

 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:                      Bayrak Abbas Fadel
                                                     General Manager

 APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:                    Caryl A. Potter, III, Esq.
                                                     Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney
                                                    Maj James B. Leighton, USAF
                                                     Trial Attorney

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

       The March 17, 2023, request by appellant Safaa Al-Rawaby Company (Safaa)
for reconsideration of our March 15, 2023, decision is denied. A party moving for
reconsideration “must demonstrate a compelling reason for the Board to modify its
decision. . . . [In doing so] we look to whether there is newly discovered evidence or
whether there were mistakes in the decision’s findings of fact, or errors of law.”
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). Under Board Rule
20, a motion for reconsideration “shall set forth specifically the grounds relied upon to
grant the motion.” A motion that lacks specificity in the alleged grounds for
reconsideration does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 20. A.A.K.C.C, ASBCA
No. 60399, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,381 at 181,721; Anis Avasta Constr. Co., ASBCA
No. 61107, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,060 at 180,408. Thus, we have repeatedly denied
purported motions for reconsideration that do not specifically describe the grounds
upon which the motion is based. See, e.g., Golden Build, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,742;
A.A.K.C.C, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,381; Anis Avasta, 18-1 BCA ¶ 37,060.

       Here, Safaa’s motion merely notes that our decision did not provide for any
compensation to Safaa and requests “once again” that we find Safaa is due
compensation in the amount of $212,313 (app. mot. at 1). It offers no grounds—let
alone specific grounds—as to how our decision may have been mistaken in its findings
  of fact or based on errors of law, nor does it identify any newly discovered evidence.
  Because the motion does not satisfy Rule 20 or the standard for reconsideration, it is
  denied.

            Dated: April 10, 2023

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

 I concur                                           I concur

 RICHARD SHACKLEFORD                                J. REID PROUTY
 Administrative Judge                               Administrative Judge
 Acting Chairman                                    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. 63146, Appeal of Safaa
Al-Rawaby Company, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

      Dated: April 10, 2023

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

                                             2