MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: February 3, 1993 GSBCA 11252-R UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Kenneth K. Takahashi of Takahashi & Associates, P.C., Rockville, MD, counsel for Appellant. Martin A. Hom, Real Property Division, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), LaBELLA, and HYATT. DANIELS, Board Judge. Appellant seeks reconsideration of our decision in Universal Development Corp. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11252 (Oct. 19, 1992). The decision granted in part the appeal of a contracting officer's decision which had denied a claim for costs associated with the operation of a separate heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) unit in a building that appellant leases to respondent. Appellant's principal justification for reconsideration of the opinion is a contention that the Board erred as a matter of law in interpreting an exchange of correspondence between the parties. This matter was placed before us earlier. UDC maintained that the exchange constituted a binding agreement in which the contracting officer promised to pay costs proposed by appellant with regard to the unit. We expressly found that the Government's response to the proposal was nothing more than a direction to proceed with installation, with the price associated with this action to be determined later. This sort of arrangement is standard in Government contracting. 48 CFR 43.204(a), (b) (1992). As we have said many times, this Board does not grant reconsideration on the basis of arguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence. E. g., Contel Federal Systems, Inc., GSBCA 9743-P-R, 89-1 BCA 21,510 at 108,352, 1989 BPD 30 at 2 (citing eight other decisions). Appellant's arguments are now more learned and complex than they were earlier, but that is not sufficient reason for reopening our consideration of the case; because the issue was before the Board previously, appellant could have made this more sophisticated presentation then. Sysorex Information Systems, Inc., GSBCA 10642-P-R, 91-1 BCA 23,334, at 117,028, 1990 BPD 255, at 4. Appellant alternatively advances two other reasons for our granting reconsideration of the opinion. Appellant suggests that we were improperly critical of the fact that it heated and cooled a snack bar area with a separate HVAC unit. The movant also maintains that we violated Federal Rule of Evidence 201(e) by not permitting the parties to comment on climatological data of which we took judicial notice. Neither of these contentions is well taken. We did not criticize or praise appellant's decision to install a separate unit for the snack bar. We simply mentioned this action as a fact which complicated our task of determining how much additional electricity was required to cool the area as a consequence of its transformation from office to food vending space. The reason that we did not permit appellant to recover more utility costs than respondent estimated is, as we said, that appellant did not present any evidence on the basis of which we could make "a fair and reasonable approximation of the damages." See Dawco Construction, Inc. v. United States, 930 F.2d 872, 880 (Fed. Cir. 1991). We cited the climatological data merely as part of our musings as to what might have been appropriate to consider if appellant had presented evidence: it gets cold in the winter, even on the Gulf coast of Mississippi, and that could have an impact on the need to air condition a snack bar. Appellant is correct that a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice of adjudicative facts. Fed. R. Evid. 201(e). The data at issue were not relevant to our holding, however. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Thus they were not adjudicative facts, and appellant's lack of opportunity to comment on our taking judicial notice of them is of no consequence. Decision Appellant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge Board Judge