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


                __________________________________
                                 
                    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
                   DENIED:  September 22, 2003
                __________________________________
                                 

                          GSBCA 16050-R
                                 

                           STAN DIEKER,

                                        Appellant,

                                v.

                 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                        Respondent.

     Stan Dieker, pro se, Placitas, NM.

     A.R. Dattolo, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Atlanta,
GA, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman) and BORWICK.     [Foot # 1 ] 
     

****************** Footnote Begin **********
[Foot # 1 ]         The Board's decision as to which reconsideration is sought was issued
by  a panel which included Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams as well as Judges Daniels and
Borwick.  Since the issuance of that decision, Judge Williams has resigned from the Board. 
On reconsideration, a board of contract appeals may not change the panel of judges to which
the case is assigned.  This decision is consequently being issued by the two remaining
members of the original panel.  ICF Severn, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space
Administration, GSBCA 11552-C-R (11334-P), 94-3 BCA   27,162, at 135,355 n.1;
Integrated Systems Analysts, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, GSBCA 10750-P-R, 94-1
BCA   26,257, at 132,196 n.1; Unit Data Service Corp. v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
GSBCA 10775-P-R, 93-3 BCA   25,964, at 129,126 n.1 (all citing Universal Restoration,
Inc. v. United States, 798 F.2d 1400, 1406 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
****************** Footnote End ************

 BORWICK, Board Judge.
     
     Appellant seeks reconsideration of our decision in Stan Dieker v. General Services
Administration, GSBCA 16050, 03-2 BCA   32,283.  That appeal involved the sale of an
automobile and respondent's delivery of the wrong vehicle to appellant after the sale.  We
denied appellant's appeal, which sought damages.  We concluded that the description
warranty clause of the contract, which provided for a refund of the bid price in the case of
a misdescription, provided the exclusive remedy available to appellant.  The contracting
officer had offered appellant such a refund.  We rejected appellant's argument that the
Government had acted fraudulently.

     On reconsideration, appellant repeats the same arguments he made initially. 
Arguments already made and reinterpretation of old evidence are not sufficient grounds for
granting reconsideration.  Rule 132(a).  Appellant's arguments are no more convincing upon
the second telling than they were the first time.  Appellant does correctly note that the
document the respondent's officials allegedly altered was a title certificate, not a certificate
to obtain title.  The result does not change.  The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.  


                                   _______________________________
                                   ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                   Board Judge

I concur:



_________________________________  
STEPHEN M. DANIELS                 
Board Judge