U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Washington, D.C. 20401 GPO CAB No. 79-3 Lawrence W. Kennelly, Chairman William Klugh, Member, John F. Cavanaugh, Member Microform Data System Inc. March 28, 1980 Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration On February 1, 1980, the Board granted a motion of the Respondent that the Disputes Clause of the contract excludes breach of contract clause from its coverage. This Board gave the Appellant an opportunity to respond when the motion was made and the Appellant did so. After considering the arguments made by both parties the Board granted the motion. On March 5, 1980, the Appellant made a Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's decision. The Board gave the Respondent an opportunity to respond and such response has been received. The Board has carefully reviewed the arguments made by the Appellant and the Respondent. The Rules of Practice and Procedure, GPO Instruction 110.11, dated June 6, 1979, do not set forth a rule for reconsideration of a decision of the Board. Therefore, there are no specific guidelines that must be followed, or whether the motion should be considered. The Board has reviewed the criteria that are normally considered by Boards of Contract Appeals that provide for Motion for Reconsideration. In Chaney v. James Construction Co. Inc., GSBCA No. 1307, 69-1 BCA ¶ 7504 the rules for reconsideration are set forth: "Reconsideration is governed by the Board's Rule 20 which reads as follows: 'A request for reconsideration of a decision may be filed in writing with the Board by either party within 30 days after the date of receipt of a copy of such a decision. This filing requirement means that the request for reconsideration must actually be delivered to and be on file with the Board on or before the expiration of such 30 day period. Such request will be considered if based upon: (a) newly discovered evidence, or (b) a point of law, and must set forth specifically the grounds relied upon to sustain same.' Either party may ask permission to present oral argument in support of his request, but such argument will be heard by the Board only in those cases in which three members of the Board agree that this should be done." In this particular case the Board denied a motion for reconsideration because the moving party did not meet the criteria established. In Key Inc. and Jones Robertson Inc. , IBCA No. 690-12-67, 69-1 BCA ¶ 7447, the Board said: "The function of a motion for reconsideration is not to correct procedural errors or omissions by a party in the presentation of its case.  The rule allowing such a motion to be filed was not designed to afford a party an unqualified second time at bat. Its primary purpose is to apprise the Board of significant newly discovered evidence or evidence not readily available on the occasion of the principal decision. We have no such situation here. What we have here is an attempt by a party to rehash contentions which were previously considered and rejected by the Board. This purpose a motion for reconsideration was not intended to serve." In Control Data Corp., ASBCA No. 16448, 76-1 BCA ¶ 11841 the Board said: "We may reopen an Appeal where justice and fairness demand it, to correct mistakes which were not attributable to the moving party." In L & W Contracting, AGBCA No. 416, 76-2 BCA ¶ 12165 the Board said: "This Board and most other Boards traditionally deny Motions for Reconsideration which do not allege newly discovered evidence and which merely repeat arguments which were fully considered by the Board in rendering its decision. . . . We have concluded that the Motion for Reconsideration involving re-argument of the issues should be denied." In all of the cases it appears that there must be either newly discovered evidence, or a point of law and the grounds must be specifically set forth. In the present motion, it is apparent that there are no new arguments raised that were not considered by the Board when it made its ruling. We had a legal question that was presented to the Board; we made a ruling that we have no jurisdiction to hear it. Absent any controlling provision of the GPO Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Board, using the criteria common to other Boards of Contract Appeals for such reconsideration, finds that there was nothing new submitted that would warrant the granting of the motion. DECISION It is the decision of the this Board that the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.