PSBCA Nos. 5387-5393

Appeals of
DENISE BAIAMONTE

Under Contract Nos. HCR 863H7, et al.

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Denise Baiamonte

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Gary E. Shapiro, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
United States Postal Service

OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

            Appellant, Denise Baiamonte, has filed a timely motion seeking reconsideration of the Board’s June 1, 2007 Opinion, Denise Baiamonte, PSBCA Nos. 5387-5393, 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,588.  In that Opinion, the Board held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act to consider the merits of these appeals because the underlying disputes did not relate to contracts between Appellant and Respondent – i.e., that Appellant was not a contractor with respect to the contracts involved here.  Respondent opposes Appellant’s motion.

            As bases for seeking reconsideration, Appellant first cites the Board’s failure to rule on her earlier motion to compel production of documents and admissions of facts.  However, Appellant did not argue in her opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss or in her motion for reconsideration that information to be gleaned from the discovery requests would be material to a decision on the jurisdictional question at issue here.  In addition, the Board has now examined Appellant’s discovery requests and concludes that none of the information that might have been disclosed in response to those requests would have had any bearing on the question of whether Appellant was a contractor.

            In her second argument, Appellant contends that the Board misconstrued the definition of “contractor” in the Contract Disputes Act, codified at 41 U.S.C. §601(4), in ruling that Appellant did not fit that definition.  Appellant argues that, as a “person,” she fits a dictionary definition of “party,” as that term in used in 41 U.S.C. §601(4).^[1]  However, Appellant neglects to address the second part of the definition – i.e., a party to a Government contract.  While Appellant is a “person,” not every person is a party to a Government contract.  It was the Board’s determination that Appellant was not a party to the relevant Postal Service contracts that led to the dismissal of her appeals, and she has not shown that conclusion to be in error.

            Appellant has not shown any factual or legal errors that would warrant changing the decision, or raised any newly discovered or unavailable evidence that would support reconsideration.  See Gary W. Noble, PSBCA No. 4094, 00-1 BCA ¶ 30,602; Patricia J. Stevens, PSBCA No. 3272, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,951. 
            Accordingly, Appellant’s motion for reconsideration is denied and the original Opinion is affirmed.

David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman

I concur:                                                                      I concur:
William A. Campbell                                                     Norman D. Menegat
Administrative Judge                                                  Administrative Judge
Chairman                                                                    Board Member

[1]  “(4) the term ‘contractor’ means a party to a Government contract other than the Government.”