_______________________________________________
                                     
                         CLERICAL ERROR CORRECTED;
                 RECONSIDERATION DENIED: October 16, 1997
              _______________________________________________
                                     

                          GSBCA 13088-R, 13254-R
                                     

                   PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.,

                                        Appellant,

                                    v.

                     GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                        Respondent.

     William M. Rosen and Kendrick C. Fong of Dickstein Shapiro 
Morin & Oshinsky, L.L.P., Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant.

     Sharon J. Chen and Amy J. Brown, Office of General Counsel,
General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for
Respondent.    

Before Board Judges BORWICK, WILLIAMS, and VERGILIO.
     
BORWICK, Board Judge.

     Respondent seeks reconsideration and clarification of our
decision in Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. General
Services Administration, GSBCA 13088, et al. (Aug. 7, 1997).  We
clarify one aspect of the decision, correct a clerical error, and
deny reconsideration.  

     Appellant seeks clarification that the rent start date of
August 18, 1993, applies only to the fifth, sixth and seventh
floors.  As indicated in our findings 86, 87, 89, 90, and 93 of
that opinion, Principal Mutual, slip op. at 25-27, the dispute as
to the rent start date concerns the fifth, sixth and seventh
floors.  Respondent is correct that, as to the date GSA commenced
rental payments for those floors, finding 89 should have
referenced December 19, 1993, instead of December 20.

     In the opinion, we rejected GSA's argument that if there
were to be a rent start date earlier than December 19, 1993, that
date should have been September 1 and not August 18.  Principal
Mutual, slip op. at 25 (Finding 87).  On reconsideration
respondent raises the issue once more. "Arguments already made
and reinterpretations of old evidence are not sufficient grounds
for granting reconsideration."  Board Rule 132.  

     Respondent maintains that in establishing the rent start
date of August 18, we should have required appellant to offset
its rental by certain avoidable costs.  Quantum, however, was not
put in issue by the parties.  As indicated in our opinion, the
issue decided by the contracting officer and appealed to the
Board was the date of the start of the rent, not the quantum of
rent.  Principal Mutual, slip op. at 26 (Finding 93), 31 n.10. 
The Government did not raise quantum in its pleadings, at the
hearing on the merits or in its post-hearing briefs.  We will not
consider issues raised for the first time in a motion for
reconsideration.  Hof Construction, Inc., GSBCA 8354-R, 92-1 BCA
 24,669.  

     Respondent seeks correction of square footage figures in our
finding 90.  As is evident from review of the cited exhibit, the
square footage in that finding accurately refers to the net
usable square feet of the measured space, not, as respondent
supposes, to the net usable square feet on the fifth, sixth and
seventh floors.  

                                 Decision

     For the above reasons, reconsideration is DENIED.  





                              __________________________
                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                              Board Judge

We concur:




___________________________   ___________________________
MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS    JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
Board Judge                   Board Judge