________________________________________________

             MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: July 31, 1997
             ________________________________________________


                               GSBCA 14063-R


                             WAYNE T. PALMER,
                                                          Appellant,

                                    v.

                     GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                      Respondent.

    Wayne T. Palmer, pro se, Bailey, CO.

    Leigh Ann Holt, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services
Administration, Denver, CO, counsel for Respondent.

NEILL, Board Judge.

    Appellant asks that the Board reconsider its decision of May
12, 1997, denying his claim for $1348.82.  Wayne T. Palmer v.
General Services Administration, GSBCA 14063 (May 12, 1997).  The
amount in question was spent by appellant in replacing the 
transmission in a vehicle purchased at auction over three months
earlier from the General Services Administration (GSA).  

    In accordance with appellant's original request, our decision
was rendered pursuant to the Board's small claims procedure.  Under
that procedure decisions are rendered by a single judge, are final
and conclusive, and are not set aside except in case of fraud. 
Rule 202(b).

    GSA opposes the motion on the ground that appellant has not
pled any of the specific grounds enumerated in Board Rule 132(a). 
In reply to this objection, appellant cites Rule 133(a)(3) which
lists as a grounds for relief from a decision "Fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party."  

    The basis of Mr. Palmer's allegation of fraud in this case is
not new.  Early in this litigation he alleged that evidence in the
record demonstrated that the vehicle he purchased had been damaged
in an accident and that the transmission had not been maintained in
keeping with the requirements of the manufacturer's warranty. 
Before this case was decided, he argued that this information
should have been made available previous to his purchase of the
vehicle.  Our conclusion, after a review of the entire record, was
that the single warranty provided by the Government was one of
description only and did not extend to the condition of the
vehicle.  We found no evidence of misdescription or that GSA had in
some other way broken faith with appellant.  

    Appellant offers no new evidence in support of the allegation
that he was misled by GSA.  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.  Accordingly,
the request for reconsideration is DENIED.

    Because this case was considered under the Board's small
claims procedure and was, therefore, decided by a single judge, the
motion for reconsideration is likewise decided by the same single
judge.  

                                  

                                  _______________________
                                  EDWIN B. NEILL
                                  Board Judge