BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, DC 20401 In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) ) STERLING PRINTING, INC. ) Docket No. GPO BCA 20-89 Jacket No. 226-948 ) Purchase Order 812288 ) DECISION DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ORDER On July 5, 1994, the Board issued its Decision on Motion for Reconsideration and Order (Decision on Motion) denying the U.S. Government Printing Office's (Respondent or GPO or Government) motion for reconsideration and alternative request to reopen the record, in the above-captioned appeal of Sterling Printing, Inc. See, Sterling Printing, Inc., GPO BCA 20-89, Decision on Motion for Reconsideration and Order (July 5, 1994), Sl. op. at 16. Thereafter, on August 5, 1994, the Respondent filed a second motion for reconsideration with the Board contending that the Decision on Motion was based "on material oversights of fact and erroneous conclusions of law."1 See, Respondent's Second Motion for Reconsideration, dated August 5, 1994, p. 1 (Second Motion). For the reason which follows, the Second Motion is also DENIED. DISCUSSION Motions for reconsideration are authorized by Rule 29 of the Board's rules of practice and procedure, which provides: A motion for reconsideration, if filed by either party, shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds relied upon to sustain the motion, and shall be filed within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of the decision of the Board by the party filing the motion. See, Board Rules, Rule 29. Rule 29 of the Board Rules is a verbatim adoption of the corresponding rule of practice followed by the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals (PSBCA). See, 39 CFR § 955.30. Furthermore, except for a minor variation in wording, the Board's rule governing reconsideration closely follows procedural Rule 29 of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). See, 48 CFR Chap. 2, Subchap. 1, App. A, ¶ 29. Both the PSBCA and the ASBCA have held that their procedural rules provide for only one motion for reconsideration. See, Clyde P. Thomas, ASBCA No. 28296, 88-3 BCA ¶ 21,179; P.T. Sarana Daya Taruna, ASBCA No. 26240, 88-3 BCA ¶ 21,002; Lawrence D. Bane, PSBCA Nos. 1440 and 1491, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,276. As indicated several times in the past, where GPO adopts the regulatory language followed by other agencies as its own, in this case the procedural rules governing contract appeals, under settled rules of construction, the Board must presume that the uniform interpretation given to those words has also been accepted. See, Banta Company, GPO BCA 03-91 (November 15, 1993), Sl. op. at 34. See also, McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., GPO BCA 40-92 (January 31, 1994), Sl. op. at 11-12; Shepard Printing, GPO CA 37-92 (January 28, 1994), Sl. op. at 21-22. Accordingly, in agreement with the PSBCA and the ASBCA, the Board holds that Rule 29 of the Board Rules allows a party to file only one motion for reconsideration. ORDER The Respondent's Second Motion for reconsideration is DENIED and the Clerk of the Board is instructed not to accept any further filings by the Government relative to this appeal. Clyde P. Thomas, supra, 88-3 BCA ¶ 21,179, at 106,881; P.T. Sarana Daya Taruna, supra, 88-3 BCA ¶ 21,002, at 106,101; Lawrence D. Bane, supra, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,276, at 97,442. It is so Ordered. August 12, 1994 STUART M. FOSS Administrative Judge _______________ 1 To the extent that the Second Motion disputes the Board's analysis of the record, factual findings and legal conclusions, the Respondent's objections are little more than an expression of its disagreement with the Decision on Motion, which is not a sufficient ground to grant reconsideration in any event. See, J.W. Bateson Company, Inc., VABCA No. 3460R, 93-3 BCA ¶ 26,118; Luther Benjamin Construction Company, ASBCA Nos. 40401, 40606, 93-3 BCA ¶ 25,918; Zinger Construction Company, Inc., GSBCA No. 11039- R, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,039. However, Counsel for GPO also uses the Second Motion as a vehicle to lecture the Board on what he sees as a "disturbing trend at the [Board]", namely, a willingness to decide cases "on issues not decided by the Contracting Officer, not raised in the appeal and not litigated by the parties." Second Motion, pp. 4-6. Apart from the fact that the cases cited by Counsel for GPO are irrelevant here, the Board finds his gratuitous criticism both offensive and presumptuous. Contrary to what Counsel for GPO may believe, the Board is not a "rubber stamp" for the actions of GPO Contracting Officers nor a protective shield for the mistakes made by the parties in litigating cases. Furthermore, the Board interprets its charter, which allows it to go beyond the grounds asserted by the Contracting Officer in his/her final decision and "hear, consider, and decide all questions of law necessary for the complete adjudication of an appeal", as a clear signal that it is empowered to give a de novo review of the claims made by the parties in all cognizable cases. See, GPO Instruction 110.10C, Subject: Establishment of the Board of Contract Appeals, dated September 17, 1984, ¶ 7.b (GPO Instruction 110.10C); GPO Instruction 110.12, Subject: Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Practice and Procedure, dated September 17, 1984, Preface to Rules, ¶ V (Board Rules). In taking such a "new look" at the issues, the Board, as a matter of policy, conducts its own research to ensure that its decisions are in harmony with the latest developments in the law of Government contracts to the maximum extent possible, considering that the Board is not a creature of statute. See, e.g., Scalf Engineering Co. & Pike County Construction Co., a Joint Venture, IBCA No. 2328, 89-3 BCA No. 22,221; Sequal, Inc., ASBCA No. 29119, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18,366. As a consequence, while the Board recognizes the exercise of this independent role may be disturbing to some, it is satisfied that it has been "impartial, fair and just" in the exercise of its authority and in its adjudications. GPO Instruction 110.10C, ¶ 7.a. 2 The only difference between the Board's Rule 29 and the ASBCA's is that the latter consists of three sentences, rather than one. Thus, the ASBCA's Rule 29 states: "A motion for reconsideration may be filed by either party. It shall set forth specifically the grounds relied upon to sustain the motion. The motion shall be filed within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of the decision of the Board by the party filing the motion." See, 48 CFR Chap. 2, Subchap. 1, App. A, ¶ 29.