Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 RECONSIDERATION DENIED: March 21, 2000 GSBCA 15097-TD-R THE WRITING COMPANY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent. Jerroll M. Sanders, President and CEO of The Writing Company, St. Louis, MO, appearing for Appellant. Edward N. Ramras, Office of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and GOODMAN. GOODMAN, Board Judge. On March 13, 2000, this Board issued a decision granting respondent s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On March 17, 2000, appellant, The Writing Company, filed a timely request for reconsideration pursuant to GSBCA Rule 132, and on March 20, 2000, respondent filed a response to appellant s request, asking the Board to deny reconsideration. As discussed below, we deny appellant s request for reconsideration. Background The Board s decision of March 13, 2000 dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In that decision, the Board held, inter alia, that appellant s letter dated January 28, 1999, which appellant characterized as a dispute, did not meet the requirements of a monetary claim pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA) and the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as no sum certain was requested in that letter. To the extent that appellant s letter might have been considered a claim under the CDA in that it contained requests for the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract, such requests were rendered moot by the termination for convenience. Respondent s responses to appellant s letter were not appealable contracting officer final decisions. The specific requests for relief sought by appellant in its notice of appeal and reply to the Government s motion to dismiss are either premature or seek remedies which this Board has no authority to grant. Appellant s request for reconsideration reads in its entirety: In accordance with Rule 132, Appellant wishes to introduce new evidence substantiating that the [GSBCA] does in fact have jurisdiction over appellant s claims requesting contract reinstatement. Rule 133 provides several grounds that form the basis of this request including (2) which is Justifiable or excusable mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect. Appellant, which is forced to represent itself, argues that it inadvertently omitted evidence substantiating that the contract reinstatement claim is within the jurisdiction of the [GSBCA]. Leading authorities in government contract law indicate that a Termination for Convenience is final. Specifically, Section E. Finality of Contract Termination on page 1085 of Administration of Government Contracts by Cibinic and Nash states: Once a contract has been terminated for convenience, the act is treated as final, and the contractor s obligations to complete the terminated work are considered to be at an end. . . .[[foot #] 1] Since [the] CDA grants the [GSBCA] jurisdiction over appeals from contracting officers decisions, Appellant argues that its claim for reinstatement is within the jurisdiction of the Board, since it is considered a contracting officer s final decision. Furthermore, Appellant never intended for its submission to singularly characterize the weight of its argument, given the large body of evidence submitted by both Appellant and Respondent via their Appeal Files. Since oral discussion had taken place telephonically and since the Judge indicated the parties would ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Appellant has attached the referenced page from which it quotes. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- reconvene telephonically to further discussions once Appellant s Appeal File was received by the Board, Appellant expected it would be given an opportunity to further support its jurisdictional argument with additional evidence. As such, we request that the Board convene a telephone conference and reconsider Appellant s reinstatement claim. Discussion Rule 132 of this Board reads in relevant part: RECONSIDERATION; AMENDMENT OF DECISIONS; NEW HEARINGS (a) Grounds. Reconsideration may be granted, a decision or order may be altered or amended, or a new hearing may be granted, for any of the reasons stated in Rule 133(a) and the reasons established by the rules of common law or equity applicable as between private parties in the courts of the United States. Reconsideration, or a new hearing, may be granted on all or any of the issues. Arguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence are not sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration. 48 CFR 6101.32 (1999). Rule 133 of this Board reads in relevant part: RELIEF FROM DECISION OR ORDER (a) Grounds. The Board may relieve a party from the operation of a final decision or order for any of the following reasons: (1) Newly discovered evidence which could not have been earlier discovered, even through due diligence; (2) Justifiable or excusable mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect; . . . 48 CFR 6101.33. Appellant states that because it is not represented by counsel there has been an inadvertent failure to submit evidence to support its position that this Board has jurisdiction over its claim for reinstatement of the contract. The information which appellant has submitted with its request for reconsideration is not evidence. Rather, it is legal research that is submitted to support an erroneous legal argument that appellant has previously made. As such, appellant s request does not state grounds for reconsideration. The additional information submitted by appellant does not support jurisdiction of this Board. Appellant quotes a legal treatise which states that a termination for convenience is treated as final act. The Board does not disagree with this statement. However, as explained in the Board s previous decision, a termination for convenience is not in and of itself an appealable contracting officer s decision. Appellant s appeal cannot be construed as an appeal of the decision to terminate the contract for convenience. The Board s decision was explicit on this point. The Writing Company v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 15097-TD, slip op. at 12 (Mar. 13, 2000). Appellant also states that its claim for reinstatement is within the jurisdiction of the Board, since it is considered a contracting officer s final decision. This is an erroneous statement. The remedy sought by appellant, i.e., reinstatement of the contract, is clearly not within the Board s jurisdiction. As explained in the Board s previous decision, it is settled law that boards of contract appeals do not have jurisdiction to grant specific performance, and reinstatement of the contract is a form of specific performance. The Writing Company, slip op. at 16. Appellant s request that this Board reinstate the contract is not a claim - it is a request for a remedy which the Board has no jurisdiction to grant. Decision Appellant s request for reconsideration is DENIED. _________________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge We concur: _________________________ ____________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge Board Judge