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.  [4]  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.