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


     _______________________________________________________

       MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED:  January 27, 2005
     _______________________________________________________


                          GSBCA 16470-R


                     HOOK CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

                                        Appellant,

                                v.

                 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                        Respondent.

     Kenneth R. Hook, Vice President of Hook Construction, Inc., Solon, IA, appearing
for Appellant.

     Mark R. Warnick, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration,
Kansas City, MO, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, and DeGRAFF.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     Hook Construction moves the Board to reconsider its January 24, 2005 decision
denying the appeal.  In the appeal, Hook alleged the General Services Administration (GSA)
improperly required Hook to supply cabinets manufactured by a specific company, and would
not allow Hook to supply cabinets manufactured by another supplier.  We denied the appeal
because Hook did not establish the cabinets it proposed to supply fulfilled the requirements
of the contract.  We now deny Hook's motion for reconsideration.

     In its motion, Hook asserts it should not have been required to submit shop drawings
for the cabinets it proposed to supply because its proposed supplier would have manufactured
the cabinets to meet the requirements set out in the specifications.  As we explained in our
January 24 decision, GSA was not required to accept Hook's assurances regarding the
capability of its supplier to comply with the specifications.  The contract required Hook to
supply shop drawings and full information regarding the cabinets it proposed to supply, and
the essential purpose of such submittals is to show the Government the proposed product
conforms to contract requirements.  Because Hook's shop drawings did not show the cabinets
it proposed to supply would meet the contract requirements and because Hook did not supply
GSA with any other information to make such a showing, GSA was not required to approve
the use of the proposed product.  

     The motion for reconsideration merely reargues points previously made, which were
considered and rejected by the Board.  Arguments previously made and considered are not
sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration.  Rule 132(a) (48 CFR 6101.32(a) (2003));
Long Lane Limited Partnership v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 15334-R, 04-2
BCA   32,751.  

     The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.




                                   __________________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge

We concur:




_________________________________  __________________________________
STEPHEN M. DANIELS                 ROBERT W. PARKER
Board Judge                             Board Judge