Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________________________________________________ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: September 28, 1999 _________________________________________________________ GSBCA 14057-R TRAVEL CENTRE, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Fred Morahan, President of Travel Centre, Danvers, MA, appearing for Appellant. Michael D. Tully and John E. Cornell, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, and HYATT. PARKER, Board Judge. In what we hope will be the final installment of a long- running saga, Travel Centre has asked that the Board reconsider two portions of our decision granting in part Travel Centre s claim for breach damages.[foot #] 1 In the decision, the Board awarded to Travel Centre damages in the amount of $42,546.51 as a consequence of the General Services Administration s (GSA s) breach of a contract to provided travel management services to federal agencies in the New England area. Travel Centre v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 14057 (Aug. 18, 1999). Travel Centre claims that the Board made two errors in the decision. First, according to Travel Centre, the Board applied the wrong historical commission rate (the amount that airlines pay to travel agents for selling airline tickets) in calculating the revenue that Travel Centre lost as a result of the breach. Without citing to any evidence of record, Travel Centre ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Travel Centre s motion was captioned Motion to Correct the Calculation of Damages. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- suggested in its motion that airline commissions were paid at the rate of ten percent during the contract period, rather than at the eight percent rate applied by the Board. In its response to the motion, GSA correctly pointed out that the eight percent figure was taken directly from Travel Centre s proposal and is the only one supported by the record. Travel Centre then responded by submitting, for the first time, a document purporting to be an Agent Sales Summary, which shows that Travel Centre received a commission of ten percent on eight tickets sold sometime in 1996. Travel Centre had never produced this document in response to GSA s numerous discovery requests for documents supporting Travel Centre s claimed damages and did not submit the document as part of its case. We deny Travel Centre s request to adjust the rate used for calculating lost commissions. First, the Agent Sales Report, without more, does not prove that a ten percent commission rate should have been applied to all of Travel Centre s lost sales during the contract period. At best, the document shows that Travel Centre received a ten percent commission on eight tickets sold in 1996. It does not show whether airlines generally paid commissions at such a rate during the contract period or why this rate is different than the one contained in Travel Centre s proposal. More important, however, is the fact that the document was filed for the first time approximately ten months after the record had closed and had never been provided to GSA during discovery. In these circumstances, the document can hardly be considered newly discovered evidence which might justify reconsideration. See 48 CFR 6101.132(a), 6101.133(a) (1998). The second alleged error concerns the ending date for the contract. Travel Centre argues in its motion that the Board should have awarded damages based on a contract period of December 1, 1995 (the date Travel Centre began performance) through November 30, 1996. We confess to being at somewhat of a loss as to the basis for this request. The contract period ended on September 30, 1996. Appeal File, Exhibits 2, 4. Travel Centre has never claimed that the contract ended on November 30. See Respondent s Record Submission and Brief (Nov. 5, 1998), Exhibit I at 14 (Appellant s Admission No. 10); Appellant s Quantum Submission and Brief (Aug. 17, 1998) at 13. There is no basis for reconsidering the Board s finding that the contract period ended on September 30, 1996. 3 Decision Travel Centre s request for reconsideration is DENIED. _____________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge I concur: _______________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge HYATT, Board Judge, concurring in part. I agree that Travel Centre's motion does not present a proper basis for the majority to revise its underlying decision. I continue to maintain, however, for the reasons stated in my dissent, that the Government did not breach this contract and that, even if it had, the damages awarded by the majority are not the proper measurement of the contractor's recovery. _______________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge