ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
Appeal of - )
)
Anis Avasta Construction Company ) ASBCA No. 61926
)
Under Contract No. H92237-11-C-0830 )
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Shujah Mowafaq
President and CEO
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.
Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney
Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq.
Trial Attorney
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WILSON
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Anis Avasta Construction Company (appellant) brings this motion for
reconsideration of the Board’s decision in Anis Avasta Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 61926,
20-1 BCA ¶ 37,743. The United States Air Force (government) opposes the motion.
That decision granted summary judgment in the government’s favor holding that
appellant’s claim was barred by the six year statute of limitations set forth in the Contract
Dispute Act’s (CDA) 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109. Familiarity with that decision is
presumed. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
DECISION
The 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.” Bruce E. Zoeller, ASBCA No. 56578, 14-1 BCA ¶ 35,803 at 175,103
(citing J. F. Taylor, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 56105, 56322, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,125). A motion for
reconsideration is not intended to present a “‘post-decision bolstering of contentions which
we have already rejected.”’ Charitable Bingo Assocs. d/b/a Mr. Bingo, Inc., ASBCA
Nos. 53249, 53470, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,088 at 164,014 (quoting Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason
Co., Inc. v. United States, 523 F.2d 1384, 1385 (Ct. Cl. 1975)). Consistent with this
principle, a party’s “[d]isagreements with the trier of fact as to the weight accorded certain
evidence and the inferences to be drawn from such evidence are not appropriate grounds
for reconsideration.” J.F. Taylor, Inc., 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,125 at 172,453 (citing Walsky
Constr. Co., ASBCA No. 41541, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,698 at 132,784).
Appellant’s motion fails to demonstrate a compelling reason to modify the
Board’s previous decision in the above-captioned appeal. The motion does not present
any new facts or evidence; appellant attempts to adjust the date of claim accrual to fit
within the six-year statute of limitations, invoking the “continuing claim doctrine.”
Appellant contends that the last follow-up with the Contracting Officer was made on
October 31, 2018, thus rendering its January 2, 2019 claim timely under the
aforementioned doctrine espoused in Gray Personnel, Inc., ASBCA No. 54652, 06-2
BCA ¶ 33,378. (App. recon. mot. at 2) However, the Board specifically rejected this
argument holding that the “gap in communication between September 2011 and
September 2012 and then again from November 2012 to October 2018” was not
considered “consistent or continuous communication.” Anis Avasta, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,743
at 183,165. Accordingly, as appellant has offered no newly discovered evidence or
mistakes in the decision’s findings of fact, or errors of law, the motion must fail.
CONCLUSION
The motion for reconsideration is denied.
Dated: March 10, 2021
OWEN C. WILSON
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman
Armed Services Board
of Contract Appeals
I concur I concur
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD MICHAEL T. PAUL
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge
Acting Chairman Armed Services Board
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
of Contract Appeals
2
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. 61926, Appeal of Anis
Avasta Construction Company, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.
Dated: March 11, 2021
PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS
Recorder, Armed Services
Board of Contract Appeals
3