Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405

      _____________________________________________________

         MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: April 3, 2003 
      _____________________________________________________


                          GSBCA 15698-R



               TOM AND TONY'S AUTO WRECKER SERVICE,

                                                       Appellant,

                                v.

                 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                                       Respondent.

     Sam Zalman Gdanski, Suffern, NY, counsel for Appellant.

     Kelly A. Gillin, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges PARKER, NEILL, and HYATT.

PARKER, Board Judge.

     Tom and Tony's Auto Wrecker Service moves the Board to reconsider its decision
dismissing the company's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  In the appeal, Tom and Tony's
alleged that the General Services Administration (GSA) breached an implied contract by
telling Government agencies in the Fort Campbell, Kentucky, area not to use Tom and Tony's
for their auto repair work.  The Board held that Tom and Tony's was simply an open market
source for such repair work and that no contract existed on which Tom and Tony's could base
its claim of breach.  Tom and Tony's Auto Wrecker Service v. General Services
Administration, GSBCA 15698 (Jan. 28, 2003).

                            Discussion

     Tom and Tony's asks the Board to reconsider its decision on two bases:  (1) the
Board's decision was incorrect as a matter of law; and (2) newly acquired evidence merits
reconsideration.  With regard to the first basis, it is well-established that the Board does not
grant reconsideration on the basis of arguments already made and reinterpretations of old
evidence.  Rule 132(a) (48 CFR 6101.32(a) (2002)); Gilroy-Sims & Associates, GSBCA
8720-R, 8721-R, 8722-R, 8839-R, 8840-R, 88-3 BCA   21,085;  Federal Systems Group,
Inc., GSBCA 9394-P-R, 88-3 BCA   20,968;  Control Data Corp., GSBCA 8880-P-R, 87-3
BCA   20,071;  Memorex Corp., GSBCA 7927-P-R, 85-3 BCA   18,327.  We carefully
considered Tom and Tony's arguments in connection with our original decision, and we are
no more persuaded by them now than we were initially.

     In support of its second asserted ground for reconsideration, Tom and Tony's has
submitted a document which purports to be a memorandum from a Fort Campbell Motor
Officer to Fort Campbell ambulance drivers regarding wrecker service for disabled vehicles. 
The memorandum states that GSA fleet vehicles are provided with wrecker service under
"GSA contract agreement" with several local vendors.  The memo goes on to list the vendors,
but Tom and Tony's is not among them.

     The Board's rules allow the Board to reconsider a decision due to "newly discovered
evidence which could not have been earlier discovered, even through due diligence."  48
CFR 6101.32(a), 6101.33(a)(1).  Tom and Tony's has not demonstrated that the memorandum
meets the rule's requirements.  It offers no reason why the document, which was written on
March 13, 2001, could not have been discovered earlier, even with due diligence.  This is
ample cause to reject the document as a basis for reconsideration.

     There is an even more compelling basis for us to deny the motion, however.  The
memorandum does not help Tom and Tony's case because it does not demonstrate that Tom
and Tony's had a contract with GSA, much less that GSA breached that contract.  To the
contrary, the memorandum lists the vendors that the author believes have contracts with GSA
-- and Tom and Tony's is not among them.  This type of evidence does not merit
reconsideration of our earlier decision.
                             Decision

     The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.





                                   _____________________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge


We concur:





______________________________          ______________________________
EDWIN B. NEILL                     CATHERINE B. HYATT
Board Judge                             Board Judge