-
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Application Under the Equal Access ) to Justice Act of -- ) ) Anlaratek ) ASBCA Nos. 59149, 59395 ) Under Contract No. W9124R-l 1-P-1054 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. David P. Dumas President APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. Army Chief Trial Attorney CPT Cali Y. Kim, JA Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Appellant, Anlaratek, timely moves for reconsideration of our 22 January 2015 decision upon its application pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. § 504. 1 We deny the motion. In order to prevail on its motion, Anlaratek must establish a compelling reason for us to modify the original decision. Paradigm IL LLC, ASBCA No. 55849, 12-2 BCA ~ 35,152 at 172,528. In determining ifthat standard has been met, the Board looks to see whether there is newly discovered evidence, mistakes in the findings of fact, or errors oflaw.
Id. Anlaratek doesnot meet that standard. Amaratek asserts that it was error not to award the cost of the time that its president spent litigating the appeals, but under our precedent, the cost of such time is not recoverable. See M Bianchi of California, ASBCA No. 26362 et al., 90-1BCA~22,369 at 112,403-04; Roberts Construction Co., ASBCA No. 31033, 86-2 BCA ~ 18,846 at 94,974. Goetz Demolition Co., ASBCA No. 39129, 91-2 BCA ~ 23,836, which Anlaratek cites (app. mot. at 8), is not to the contrary. There, the Board denied recovery of the cost of the time and efforts of in-house counsel.
Id. at 119,461.Nor does Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. Goldin,
16 F.3d 1177(Fed. Cir. 1994), which Anlaratek also cites (app. mot. at 4), mandate recovery of the cost of the time of Anlaratek's president; Sterling does not address the Board's caselaw interpreting 5 U.S.C. § 504. 1 Anlaratek elected to have the appeals processed pursuant to Board Rule 12.2; consequently, this decision shall have no value as precedent. Board Rule 12.2(d). For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration is denied. Dated: 14 April 2015 Administ tive Judge Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals on an application for fees and other expenses incurred in connection with ASBCA Nos. 59149, 59395, Appeals of Amaratek, rendered in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 504. Dated: JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 2
Document Info
Docket Number: ASBCA No. 59149, 59395
Judges: McIlmail
Filed Date: 4/14/2015
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 4/28/2015