Name Redacted, ASBCA No. 60315

Appellant (A) appealed the government's summary judgment decision denying relief under an IDIQ contract after a stop-work order and post-award protest period; the Board issued a decision on 21 Nov 2016 granting government summary judgment and denying the appeal.
A moved for reconsideration of that decision, arguing the government breached the contract by failing to cancel the stop-work order or terminate for convenience after the protest period (citing FAR 52.233-3).
The Board had previously held that suspension of work and termination-for-convenience clauses do not provide relief when no task order/work was issued under an IDIQ and the contractor was paid the contract minimum.
A also argued it should recover costs incurred after the alleged lifting of the suspension of work; the Board found those costs were for tasks A was already obligated to perform under the contract.
The motion for reconsideration was evaluated under the standard requiring newly discovered evidence, mistakes of fact, or errors of law; mere reargument is not sufficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government breached by not canceling the stop-work order or terminating for convenience after the post-award protest period	Government should have canceled the stop-work or terminated for convenience, entitling A to relief	Where no work was ordered under the IDIQ and contractor was paid the minimum, suspension and termination-for-convenience clauses provide no relief	Denied: Board reaffirmed prior holding — no relief where no task orders issued and minimum paid
Whether A may recover costs incurred after alleged lifting of suspension	Entitled to costs incurred after suspension lifted	Costs were for work A already was contractually obligated to perform	Denied: costs were not recoverable as they arose from expected contract duties
Whether reconsideration was warranted	Argued Board erred and should modify decision	Reargument of same facts/arguments insufficient; no new evidence or error shown	Denied: no compelling reason to reconsider; motion merely reargued prior position

Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (motion for reconsideration cannot be used to reargue matters or present arguments that should have been raised earlier)