_________________________________________________ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: July 1, 1997 _________________________________________________ GSBCA 13474-TD-R INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent. Michael A. Hordell and Laura L. Hoffman of Gadsby and Hannah, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant. Eleaner R. Loos, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, HYATT, and VERGILIO. PARKER, Board Judge. Innovative Technology Systems, Inc. (ITS) moves the Board to reconsider its decision dismissing ITS's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Innovative Technology Systems, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 13474-TD (Apr. 28, 1997). In that appeal, ITS maintained that the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), had improperly withheld money due under ITS's contract with BATF. BATF, by asserting several counterclaims against ITS, argued that no money was owed to ITS. ITS did not contest BATF's counterclaims; it argued instead that BATF could not properly withhold any payments due under the contract because ITS had assigned the contract payments to Federal Contractors Financial Services, Inc. (FCFS) pursuant to the Assignment of Claims Act. The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because, by failing to challenge the validity of any of BATF's counterclaims, ITS acknowledged that BATF owed ITS nothing. Thus, any claim by ITS for the disputed funds would have to be dismissed summarily for lack of merit. The Board found that the real claim at issue in the appeal was one by the assignee, FCFS, based upon an alleged agreement by BATF not to withhold contract payments to FCFS. The Board held that any right of FCFS to be paid notwithstanding ITS's lack thereof would have to flow from the Assignment of Claims Act, not the Contract Disputes Act. ITS asserts three bases for reconsidering the Board's decision: (1) ITS did not abandon its claim for damages against BATF; (2) ITS was misled as to the issues upon which the Board would focus in deciding the appeal; and (3) the decision as to jurisdiction was wrong. 1. ITS argues that the Board mischaracterized its claim as one on behalf of the assignee, and that ITS never abandoned its own claim for amounts due under the contract. This argument is without merit. In response to ITS's claim for $590,696.42 due under the contract, BATF asserted several bases for withholding the claimed amount: that ITS had overcharged the Government by $563,917; that ITS had failed to pay its subcontractors in the amount of $286,746.44; and that BATF had received from the Internal Revenue Service a Notice of Tax Levy stating that ITS owed the Government almost $2,500,000. In response to these counterclaims ITS argued that, whatever the status of ITS's problems with the Government, BATF had to pay to FCFS, the contract assignee, the $590,696.42 due under the contract because, under the Assignment of Claims Act, BATF was not permitted to offset from payments due under the contract any monies owed by ITS to the Government. This was the recurring theme in all of ITS's filings; ITS never challenged the merits of any of the counterclaims. By maintaining now that it never abandoned its claim for damages against BATF, ITS is in essence claiming that it had (or would have) challenged the validity of BATF's counterclaims. (Unless ITS successfully challenged the Government's counterclaims, ITS could not have recovered anything.) Notwithstanding ITS's protestations to the contrary, we are unable to find any evidence of this challenge in any of ITS's numerous filings, including its responses to BATF's motions to dismiss and for summary relief. ITS did not even explain in its motion for reconsideration how it would do so. As we explained in our decision, if ITS's claim really were for monies owed to ITS under its contract, the claim would have to be denied summarily. 2. ITS appears to argue that it was misled as to the issues upon which the Board would decide the appeal. This argument, like the last one, lacks any basis in fact. ITS states in its motion that the Board said at a prehearing conference "that the Board had jurisdiction over the appeal at issue and that [Judge Parker] would not grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction." However, what BATF correctly points out, and ITS fails to acknowledge, is that the Board stated that it was not inclined to grant respondent's motion based upon BATF's fraud arguments. Although respondent's argument concerning ITS's inability to pursue a claim on behalf of the assignee, where ITS was owed no money under the contract, did not come up directly, the Judge did point out that ITS had not challenged the validity of any of BATF's counterclaims and asked counsel for ITS whether ITS intended to do so. ITS's counsel stated that ITS's case was based upon the assignment of claims issue and that if ITS decided to challenge BATF's counterclaims, it would inform the Board. ITS never informed the Board of such a challenge. Finally, it is true, as ITS points out, that the Board requested additional briefing by the parties on two questions related to the Assignment of Claims issue. It is not true, however, that the Board promised to decide the case based upon these, or any other issues. ITS was not misled; it simply disagrees with the Board's decision. 3. ITS's final ground for requesting reconsideration is, as stated above, that ITS believes the Board's decision as to jurisdiction was wrong. The Board does not grant reconsideration on the basis of arguments already made or reinterpretation of old evidence. Certified Mechanical Contractors, Inc., GSBCA 8813-R, 90-2 BCA  22,881. Both the majority and the dissent have already considered the arguments made by ITS and have determined that reconsideration of those arguments would serve no purpose. Decision Appellant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. _____________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge I concur: ________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge VERGILIO, Board Judge, concurring. I concur with the conclusion of the majority that Innovative Technology Systems, Inc. has failed to raise a basis which dictates that the Board reconsider the underlying decision. Substantive arguments raised by Innovative in its motion for reconsideration were raised in my dissent in the underlying opinion. Through that dissent, I have expressed my view of the underlying claim and the bases for my conclusion that the Board has jurisdiction over this appeal. The majority and dissenting opinions indicate that these issues were before the Board and resolved, albeit not to Innovative's liking. The motion for reconsideration raises no basis for me to reconsider my opinion. ________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge