October 22, 1998
Appeal of
DEBRA LEA MCSHEFFREY
Under Contract No. HCR 18660
PSBCA No. 4061
APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Debra Lea McSheffrey
P. O. Box 272
East Montpelier, VT 05651-0272
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Deborah A. Davis, Esq.
Philadelphia Office
United States Postal Service
P. O. Box 40595
Philadelphia, PA 19197-0595
OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Opinion denying the appeal of Debra Lea McSheffrey, PSBCA No. 4061, (June 18, 1998).
Under the Board's rules, motions for reconsideration are to be filed
within 30 days of the date of receipt of a copy of the Board's decision. 39 C.F.R. § 955.30. In this instance, the Board's decision was received by Appellant on June 23, 1998, as evidenced by the certified mail receipt returned to the Board. Appellant's motion, although dated July 24, 1998, was mailed to the Board in an envelope with a postmark dated July 27, 1998 (34 days after Appellant's receipt of the Board's decision), and was received by the Board on July 31, 1998. The motion does not suggest any good cause for extending the period in which to file for reconsideration and is, therefore, untimely.
Nevertheless, we have considered the merits of Appellant's motion but find nothing therein which persuades us to change our earlier decision. In her motion, Appellant repeats argument made in her appeal that the decision to terminate her contract for default was improper because she never received prior notice of the contracting officer's intent to terminate her contract and because she (and her drivers) continued to be available to perform the contract. These arguments were addressed in our original decision. We concluded, however, that nothing in Appellant's contract required the contracting officer to provide Appellant with a warning of his intent to terminate the contract for default prior to doing so. Nonetheless, Postal officials did attempt to contact Appellant when she failed to report for work on January 16, 1997, but were unable to reach her.[1] Further, we specifically found that Appellant had repeatedly failed to show up to perform her contract and did not provide the contracting officer any explanation for this failure. Under such circumstances, we properly concluded that Appellant was in breach of her contract obligations and Respondent did not abuse its discretion in terminating the contract for default.
Appellant has not offered any previously unavailable evidence or shown any factual or legal errors which would warrant changing our decision. Accordingly, Appellant's motion for reconsideration is denied.
William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge
Board Member
I concur:
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman
I concur:
David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman