MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: February 24, 1993 GSBCA 10394-COM-R LAKE UNION DRYDOCK COMPANY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Respondent. G. H. Stebbins, Jr., Vice President of Lake Union Dry Dock Company, Seattle, WA, appearing for Appellant. Jerry A. Walz, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Finance & Litigation, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC; and Michael Bancroft, Office of General Counsel, NOAA/GCNW, Seattle, WA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, PARKER, and NEILL. NEILL, Board Judge. In accordance with the Board's Rule 32, appellant asks that we reconsider our decision denying this appeal. The appeal concerned the denial of three claims brought by appellant in connection with a contract awarded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the upgrade, drydocking, and repairs of the NOAA Ship McARTHUR. The claims amounted to a total $85,863 and were for costs which appellant claimed resulted from (1) the failure to award certain contract items, (2) unanticipated asbestos removal, and (3) curtailed availability. In support of its request for reconsideration, appellant has submitted a twenty-six page brief together with additional exhibits. The Board's Rule 32 provides that reconsideration may be granted for any of the reasons stated in Rule 33(a) and the reasons established by the rules of common law or equity applicable as between private parties. Rule 33(a) sets out the following reasons: 1. Newly discovered evidence which could not have been earlier discovered, even through due diligence; 2. Justifiable or excusable mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect; 3. Fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; 4. The decision has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior decision upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated . . . ; 5. The decision is void, whether for lack of jurisdiction or otherwise; or 6. Any other ground justifying relief from the operation of the decision or order. 48 CFR 6101.32 (1991) Respondent in opposing this request for reconsideration states: The Petition does not state grounds for reconsideration, as required by Rule 32(a) . . . . Rather, the Petition repeats some of Appellant's familiar arguments, combined with statements of opinion and fact that are not supported by evidence of record in this case. . . . Nothing in the petition suggests that the Board's decision was not based on the record or is undercut by anything outside that record. Respondent's Opposition to the Request for Reconsideration at 1. We agree with respondent. We find nothing new in the argumentation presented by appellant. Appellant is dissatisfied with our decision and seeks another opportunity to present its case. An offer is made to provide additional evidence and even to retain counsel in the event the Board agrees to accord appellant the opportunity for a new hearing. The time for the presentation and briefing of this case has passed. Appellant's representative does itself a disservice in concluding that it did not do an adequate job in presenting its case. Appellant acknowledges that the Board's decision in this case "displays [an] admir[able] grasp of the facts." Request for Reconsideration at 22. Undoubtedly this is attributable in great part to the conscientious efforts of appellant's representative in working with the Board before, during, and after trial to develop a fully documented record on which the Board could rely for its decision. As a pro se litigant, appellant has conducted itself in a commendable fashion. The very fact that we find nothing new in the arguments advanced in the request for reconsideration evidences the thoroughness with which appellant has already tried and briefed the issues in this case. Appellant has had more than an ample opportunity to develop the record for this case. In recognition of the fact that appellant was not represented by counsel, the Board spent more than the usual amount of time in discussing pretrial preparation with appellant's representative and counsel for respondent. The record shows that there was a total of eight prehearing conferences for this case. Several conferences lasted well over an hour and some even lasted more than two. Considerable time was spent planning and monitoring pretrial discovery. The hearing for this appeal lasted a full three days. During that period, appellant was accorded ample time for the presentation of its case. Following the hearing, the Board authorized the submission of both posthearing and reply briefs. Thereafter, the Board issued an unusually long decision, in excess of thirty pages, in which it attempted to address all of appellant's principal concerns. Based on representations contained in appellant's request for reconsideration and the record as currently constituted, we do not believe that a new hearing would provide any significant new evidence or in any way change the outcome of our original decision. Furthermore, it would be grossly unfair to respondent to grant appellant's request for a new hearing. Respondent has conducted itself throughout these lengthy proceedings in a highly cooperative and patient fashion. At this point, it can be said with certainty that the dispute between appellant and respondent has been thoroughly vented. Understandably appellant is displeased with the result. No arguments, however, have been offered which convince us that our decision was based on an incorrect grasp of the evidence or on an improper application of the law. In its request for reconsideration, appellant does raise one complaint which merits comment. Appellant states that at the hearing for this case, its witnesses were "left standing in courtroom corridors for hours, while government witnesses were given the opportunity to testify under privacy protection." Request for Reconsideration at 25. What appellant refers to is the Board's ruling on respondent's request for the exclusion of witnesses. This was clearly a ruling to which respondent was entitled and, although our ruling may have proven inconvenient to appellant, it did not affect in any unfair way the presentation of appellant's case. The Board has repeatedly stated that it does not grant reconsideration on the basis of arguments already made and reassertions of old evidence. Appellant's continuing conviction that this case was wrongly decided does not justify a request for reconsideration. Gilroy-Sims & Associates, GSBCA 8720-R, 88-3 BCA 21,085, at 106,453, aff'd, 878 F.2d 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Decision Appellant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. ____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge We concur: _______________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA Board Judge _______________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge