_____________________________________________________ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: October 29, 1998 ____________________________________________________ GSBCA 11639-C(10945(7703)-REIN)-R TELE-SENTRY SECURITY, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Kenneth K. Takahashi, Rockville, MD, counsel for Appellant. Robert W. Schlattman, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, HENDLEY, and BORWICK. HENDLEY, Board Judge. Appellant, Tele-Sentry Security, Inc., filed a timely motion for reconsideration of our decision in Tele-Sentry Security, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11639-C(10945(7703)- REIN) (Feb. 9, 1993), which was docketed as GSBCA 11639- C(10945(7703)-REIN)-R. Appellant asserts that it is entitled to reconsideration because: (1) this Board "mis-read the appellant's expense itemization sheets which were made difficult by duplicating smudges;" (2) this Board "found that appellant was not entitled to recover payments made to Bob Brown ($5,012) 'as appellant's employee,' and 'salary' paid 'Ken Takahashi' ($2,520) as counsel, a total of $7,532" however, appellant "inadvertently" placed the $2,520 figure on the "Ken Takahashi" line when the the $2,520 figure "should have been carried across on [the Bob Brown Line]" and failed to cross-reference the "Bob Brown" line so as to alert this Board to the notation that "Bob Brown was notan employee of TSSI after 1983." Neither basis is sufficient for an order of reconsideration. Hence, appellant's motion is DENIED. Discussion Under Rules 32(a) and 33(a)(2) of our Rules of Procedure, we may grant a motion for reconsideration if there is a "[j]ustifiable or excusable mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect." Appellant has not identified any "justifiable or excusable mistake[s]." Hence, we decline to reconsider our decision. Appellant has the burden of proving why the alleged mistakes are "justifiable or excusable." However, appellant has not identified any reason as to why these alleged mistakes, which were made on its behalf, are "justifiable or excusable." It is not enough for an appellant to point to the mistakes and say they occurred. Appellant must explain why these mistakes are "justified or excusable." This it has not shown. We stand by our original interpretations of the evidence. Appellant has not provided us with any additional documentation to support its contention that mistakes were made, and we have no additional information to either alter our conclusions as to what the smudged photocopy said or change our view as to what alleged costs may be recovered for the appellant's expenses incurred employing Messrs. Takahashi and Brown. The appellant's current version of what it contends the document shows is no more credible than the original copy of the document provided to us. We cannot rely on shifting, self-serving versions of what appellant contends the document should show. We require clear and convincing evidence that a mistake has occurred and equally convincing evidence supporting the alleged correct figures. This appellant has failed to provide. Moreover, we believe that under these circumstances, neither basis appellant identified can be a "justifiable or excusable mistake." The errors appellant has attributed to this Board appear to result from dissatisfaction with the manner in which appellant's claim has been presented. It is incumbent upon an appellant to present a carefully documented claim to this Board. If appellant has complaints about the poor quality of the photocopying or the structuring of its claim it should address these concerns elsewhere. It is not our responsibility to correct the errors set out in its claim. See Universal Development Corp. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11252-R, 93-2 BCA 25,845 (counsel's error in failing to present fully its case before this Board is not sufficient to support a motion for reconsideration). Finally, we note that even if the alleged errors appellant posits could be construed to be a justifiable or excusable mistake, we would still not grant appellant's motion. First, appellant has not provided us with any new information sufficient to justify the granting of costs associated with the activities of Bob Brown. Appellant now tells us that Bob Brown was not an employee of Tele-Sentry during the course of this appeal.[foot #] 1 However, appellant has failed to provide us with sufficient information to enable us to determine the precise status of Mr. Brown. Through our best efforts we have been able to determine that appellant maintains, although without documentation, that Bob Brown was an electronic technician on the project in question. Appellant's Application For Fee and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, GSBCA 11639-C, at 7. However, it is unclear what capacity Bob Brown acted in during the appeal. The only evidence before us as to Bob Brown's capacity, is a statement by appellant in which appellant asserts that Bob Brown worked in conjunction with appellant's attorneys to prepare the claim. Id. Was Bob Brown an expert witness, an expert consultant, or simply a former employee brought back to help appellant's attorneys with the appeal? Did Bob Brown perform anything more than secretarial functions? We could not determine Mr. Brown's contribution to the case because the appellant did not provide us with sufficient evidence. This evidence was necessary for us to reach a conclusion under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). See 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1) (1988) ("'fees and other expenses' includes the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses, the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project which is found by the agency to be necessary for the preparation of the party's case, and reasonable attorney or agent fees"). Hence, appellant has not met its burden of proof with regard to the costs associated with Mr. Brown. There is therefore no reason to reconsider our original decision. If there was any error in our original decision concerning costs associated with Mr. Brown, it was harmless. Second, appellant argues that duplicating smudges caused this Board to err in our original decision. As a matter of fact we do not think that duplicating smudges were the problem with the item in question. In fact, our reading of line 33, page 3 of ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Appellant's new position is undercut by its past statements before this Board. For instance, appellant stated in its Application for Fee and Expenses Under Equal Access to Justice Act, GSBCA 11639-C, at 1, (emphasis added) that "[i]n 1986 Mr. Tenerowicz traveled to Tempe, Arizona, to go through TSSI's files, select documents, and discuss the case with James Watt, President of TSSI, and Bob Brown, the project ____________ superintendent." Hence, it would appear from appellant's own ______________ statement's that Bob Brown was employed by appellant at least through 1986. However, appellant apparently contradicts itself, later in the same document, when it explicitly claims that Bob Brown was not appellant's employee after 1983. Id. at 7. ___ ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- the expense itemization sheet is the same as appellant's.[foot #] 2 However, that item is cryptic. Appellant did not see fit to provide us with an explanation of that item prior to our original decision. This Board interpreted that item to the best of its ability, considering the paucity of evidence available. Appellant cannot now use a motion for reconsideration to further develop arguments it has previously lost. Universal Development, 93-2 BCA 25845. As we have said many times, this Board does not grant reconsideration on the basis of arguments already made and reinterpretations of old evidence. Appellant's arguments are now more learned and complex than they were earlier, but that is not sufficient reason for reopening our consideration of the case; because the issue was before the Board previously, appellant could have made this more sophisticated presentation then. Id. (citations omitted). Hence, we will not now consider vesting this item with a new interpretation. Decision Appellant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. ________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge We concur: ________________________ _________________________ VINCENT A. LABELLA ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 Both appellant and this Board believe that line 33, page 3 of the expense itemization sheet reads: "(5) Sets of GSA Claims -Consisting of (15) books of receipts, letters compiled by secretary & copied." Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration, at 1.