Full Opinion

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - ) ) Arctic Swan Construction Inc. ) ASBCA No. 64085 ) Under Contract No. FA5004-22-C-0002 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Edmund Charles Palmer President APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Caryl A. Potter, III, Esq. Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WOODROW ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Arctic Swan Construction Inc. (Arctic Swan or appellant) timely moves for reconsideration of our June 16, 2026 decision granting the government’s motion for summary judgment and denying the appeal in ASBCA No. 64085. Arctic Swan Construction Inc., ASBCA Nos. 63510, 64085, 26-1 BCA ¶ 39,079. The government has stated that it will not file a response. For the reasons below, we deny the motion. DISCUSSION A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate matters that have already been decided or to offer arguments that could have been raised earlier. To prevail, the moving party must show newly discovered evidence, a mistake in the Board’s findings of fact, or an error of law that provides a compelling reason to modify the decision. Zulco Int’l, Inc., ASBCA No. 55441, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,799 at 167,319; U.S. Coating Specialties & Supplies, LLC, ASBCA No. 58245, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,926 at 184,190; LKJ Crabbe Inc., ASBCA No. 60331, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,250 at 181,308. Arctic Swan does not identify newly discovered evidence. Nor does it identify a factual finding that was mistaken or a legal error in our June 16, 2026, decision. Instead, Arctic Swan renews its prior arguments that the government required use of a pre-populated and locked pricing workbook; that the workbook did not include a separate line item for certified installation labor; that the estimated quantities could be confirmed only through performance; and that post-award communications and actual performance showed that a hearing was required (app. mot. at 3-4). Arctic Swan made substantially the same arguments in opposing the government’s motion for summary judgment (app. opp. at 3-4). We considered those arguments in our decision. A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for another opportunity to advance them. Arctic Swan’s asserted facts do not establish a genuine dispute of material fact. The relevant contract documents, including the Performance Work Statement and bid schedule, were before the Board and their contents were undisputed. The disagreement concerned the legal effect of those documents; specifically, whether the unit prices for washers and dryers included the required installation, connection, and disconnection work. Contract interpretation is a question of law and may be resolved on summary judgment when the relevant contract language and material facts are undisputed. Varilease Tech. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 289 F.3d 795, 798 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (contract interpretation is amenable to summary judgment). The pricing workbook required appellant to provide a single unit price for each washer and dryer. Arctic Swan, 26-1 BCA ¶ 39,079 at 190,422. The absence of separate lines for labor, certification, connection, or disconnection did not prevent appellant from including those individual cost components in its unit price. Nor do the estimated quantities change the question resolved in our decision: whether the unit prices were required to include the costs of work expressly required by the Performance Work Statement. They were. Id. at 190,424. Arctic Swan also again relies upon its post-award communications and the parties’ course of performance (app. mot. at 4-5). Those matters do not establish that the contract was ambiguous or create a material factual dispute requiring a hearing. As we held in our prior decision, the contract language, read as a whole, required the installation-related work at issue. Arctic Swan, 26-1 BCA ¶ 39,079 at 190,424. Alternatively, to the extent Arctic Swan believed the bid schedule created uncertainty about how to price that expressly required work, that uncertainty was apparent before bidding. Id. Arctic Swan does not contend that it sought clarification before submitting its bid. Finally, Arctic Swan contends that the Board should have restored the appeal to the hearing docket before granting summary judgment (app. mot. at 5). A hearing is not required when no genuine dispute of material fact exists, and the appeal can be resolved as a matter of law. D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp., 714 F.2d 1144, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (holding that the absence of a pre-judgment hearing did not warrant remand for an unnecessary trial where summary judgment was proper); Varilease, 289 F.3d at 798. Arctic Swan has not identified a specific factual dispute that, if resolved in its favor, would alter the basis for our prior decision. Its disagreement with the Board’s interpretation of the contract does not itself create a factual dispute requiring witness testimony or an evidentiary hearing. 2 CONCLUSION Arctic Swan has not shown newly discovered evidence, a mistake in fact, or an error of law warranting reconsideration. Therefore, we deny Arctic Swan’s motion for reconsideration of the decision in ASBCA No. 64085. Dated: September 22, 2026 KENNETH D. WOODROW Administrative Judge Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals I concur I concur J. REID PROUTY DAVID D’ALESSANDRIS Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Vice Chairman Armed Services Board Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 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 in ASBCA No. 64085, Appeal of Arctic Swan Construction Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter. Dated: September 22, 2026 PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 3