BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE In the Matter of ) ) the Appeal of ) ) BOOKBINDERS OF NEW MEXICO ) Docket No. GPOBCA 06-00 Program 6713-S ) Print Order 60001 ) For the Appellant: Bookbinders of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, by Joel Widman, President. For the Government: Roy E. Potter, Esq., Associate General Counsel, U.S. Government Printing Office. Before KERRY L. MILLER, Administrative Judge. DECISION ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Bookbinders of New Mexico (Appellant) has filed a motion requesting that the U.S. Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals (GPOBCA) reconsider its earlier decision dismissing Appellant's appeal for lack of timeliness. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is DENIED. Background In its earlier decision dismissing Appellant's appeal, the Board found that the Contracting Officer sent a letter dated November 19, 1999, to Appellant rejecting a shipment of Appellant's goods because of multiple defects. The letter, addressed to Appellant's President, Joel Widman and bearing the address of Appellant's place of business, also ordered Appellant to correct the defects and re-deliver the goods to the Government by a date certain. The letter was placed in the hands of a private carrier, FedEx, for delivery. According to FedEx records they delivered the letter to Appellant's place of business on November 22, 1999, and the letter was signed for by "J. Salazar" at 8:40 a.m. that day. Appellant appealed the Contracting Officer's decision to the GPOBCA by letter dated March 1, 2000. The appeal letter was sent to the Board through the U. S. Postal Service, postmarked March 1, 2000, and received by the Board on March 7, 2000. As the appeal appeared to be untimely, the Board issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file within 90 days of receipt of the Contracting Officer's rejection letter. After considering Appellant's response to the show cause order, the Board dismissed the appeal as being untimely. Under the Disputes clause of the contract, a decision of a Contracting Officer "shall be final and conclusive unless, within 90 days from the date of receipt of such copy, the contractor mails or otherwise furnishes a written notice of appeal to the Government Printing Office Board of Contract Appeals." GPO Contract Terms, GPO Publication 310.2, Contract Clause 5. Similarly, the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, GPO Publication 110.12A, require a notice of appeal to be "mailed or otherwise filed with the Board within 90 days." GPOBCA Rule 1(a). The Board found no facts or circumstances that would justify the exercise of the Board's discretion1 to extend or waive the 90-day appeal period. Bookbinders of New Mexico, GPOBCA No. 6-00, 2000 GPOBCA LEXIS 6, 2000 WL 1016874 (July 13, 2000). Appellant thereafter filed a timely motion for reconsideration. Decision on Reconsideration Rule 29 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure allows either party to an appeal to file a motion for reconsideration within 30 days of the party's receipt of the Board's decision. The major grounds for reconsideration are newly discovered evidence that could not have been earlier discovered, or error in the Board's findings of fact or conclusions of law. Reconsideration, however, is discretionary with the Board and will not be granted in the absence of specific and compelling reasons. Wickersham Printing Co., GPOBCA No. 23-96, 1999 GPOBCA LEXIS 8, 1999 WL 498497 (March 1, 1999); Qualitype, Inc., GPOBCA No. 21-95, 1998 GPOBCA LEXIS 19, 1998 WL 350480 (June 24, 1998), slip op. at 2; Univex International, GPOBCA No. 23-90, 1996 GPOBCA LEXIS 24, 1996 WL 112554 (February 7, 1996), slip op. at 4-5, 1996 WL 112554; Sterling Printing, Inc., GPOBCA No. 20-89 1994 GPOBCA LEXIS 31, 1994 WL 377592 (July 5, 1994), slip op. at 3-4; Graphic Litho, Inc., GPOBCA No. 17-85 1988 GPOBCA LEXIS 16, 1988 WL 363516 (September 30, 1988), slip op. at 2-3. Arguments already made, reinterpretation of old evidence, and mere disagreement with the Board's decision do not provide a basis for reconsideration. Board Rule 29(a); Univex International, Inc., supra. In its Request for Reconsideration Appellant argues: 1. As set forth in our letter of December 16, 1999 to Mr. Lowell Borton, a copy of which is enclosed, the letter of November 19, 1999 was not received by us until it was faxed to us on December 15, 1999 by Mr. Borton. 2. Mr. Salazar was not our employee or agent and was not authorized to receive anything directed to Bookbinders of New Mexico or Widman Enterprises, Ltd. In fact, we were and still are in litigation with Mr. Salazar and notwithstanding numerous requests directed to him and his attorney he has failed and refused to deliver the letter to us. 3. Pursuant to your rules, the time for appeal runs from receipt of the decision of the Contracting Officer. The decision was not received by us until December 15, 1999 and, therefore, our appeal of March 6, 2000 was timely and should be considered on its merits. Request for Reconsideration (August 1, 2000). Appellant does not dispute the accuracy of the FedEx delivery records or claim that the letter was not delivered to Appellant's place of business on November 22, 1999. Instead, Appellant makes two legal arguments in support of its motion. First, Appellant claims that the person who signed for the Contracting Officer's letter was not "authorized" by Appellant to do so. According to Appellant, Bookbinders of New Mexico ceased doing business on November 17, 1999. Letter from Joel Widman to Lowell Borton (Dec. 15, 1999). The person who signed for the letter was not Appellant's "employee or agent at the time of delivery" but was an adversary in a lawsuit who "was on the premises to remove equipment pursuant to a court order." Letter from Joel Widman to Lowell Borton (Dec. 16, 1999). Therefore, Appellant argues that Bookbinders of New Mexico did not actually receive the letter when delivered by FedEx. Appellant's second argument is that while the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure require receipt, the delivery of the letter to Appellant's place of business was not receipt as that term is used in the Board's Rules. Based on a review of applicable precedent, the Board concludes that Appellant's arguments lack merit. Under the Board's Rules and the Disputes Clause of the contract, the 90-day appeal period is triggered by receipt of a Contracting Officer's decision. Neither the Rules nor the Disputes Clause require that any particular employee of Appellant receive or have actual notice of the letter's contents to trigger the 90-day time period. Images II, Inc., ASBCA No. 47943, 94-3 BCA ¶ 27,277. Similarly, the addressee is not required to have the letter in hand to constitute receipt for purposes of starting the time period. Miller- Wills Aviation, Inc., ASBCA No. 40976, 91-1 BCA ¶ 23,290. All that is required is that the contractor receive a copy of the decision. C.f. Bio-Temp Scientific, Inc., ASBCA No. 41388, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,808. The Government's obligation is to have the correspondence delivered to the last known address of the contractor. In the instant appeal, the Government utilized a private commercial carrier, FedEx, to deliver the correspondence to Appellant's last known address2 where it was signed for by someone who was not Appellant's employee. A similar fact pattern was reviewed in Penole Industries, ASBCA No. 42025, 91-2 BCA ¶ 23,857. In that appeal, a contractor went out of business and a member of the cleaning crew signed for a letter from a contracting officer. The contractor argued that the signer was not its proper representative and was unauthorized to sign the receipt. The ASBCA held that since the letter was actually delivered to the contractor's business address the letter was received for purposes of initiating the 90-day appeal period. The fact that a member of the cleaning crew may have signed for the letter did not alter the fact that the letter was actually received at the contractor's place of business. Conclusion In the instant appeal, the Board holds that the delivery of the Contracting Officer's decision letter to Appellant's designated address on November 22, 1999, was receipt for purposes of triggering the 90-day appeal period, under both the Board's Rules, and the contract's Disputes clause. Since Appellant did not file its notice of appeal with the Board until after the expiration of the 90-day appeal period, the appeal is untimely. Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's earlier decision dismissing the appeal, is denied. It is so Ordered. December 11, 2002 KERRY L. MILLER Administrative Judge 1 Unlike Executive Branch Boards that treat the 90-day time limit as jurisdictional, the GPOBCA possesses limited discretion to waive the time limit in appropriate circumstances. See, e.g., Olympic Graphic Systems, GPOBCA 01-92, 1996 GPOBCA LEXIS 32, 1996 WL 812957 (Sept. 13, 1996) (Notice of appeal misdirected by agency's mail room); McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., GPOBCA 06-91, 1994 GPOBCA LEXIS 29, 1994 WL 377581 (May 6, 1994) slip op. at 2, fn. 2 (Appellant's notice of appeal lost by agency's mail room). 2 There is nothing in the record to indicate that Appellant notified GPO of a new business address.