March 22, 1999

Appeal of

VINCENT OGONNAYA OFOR

Under Contract No. HCR 58061

PSBCA No. 3965

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:

Vincent Ogonnaya Ofor

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Maria R. Fuhrmann, Esq.

OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

            On March 15, 1999, Appellant filed a document with the Board in which he indicated that he disagreed with the Board's Opinion, Vincent Ogonnaya Ofor, 98-2 BCA ¶ 30,034, but did not provide any specific bases for his disagreement.  We are treating Appellant's submittal as a motion for reconsideration.  Appellant received the Opinion on October 2, 1998.  Under the Board's Rules of Practice, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within 30 days of receipt of the Opinion and must state specific grounds for sustaining the motion.  39 C.F.R. §955.30.  In this instance, Appellant's filing is untimely and fails to state any grounds for reconsideration of the Opinion.  F.W.H. Motor Transit, Inc., PSBCA No. 1317, 1985 PSBCA Lexis 47, 1985 WL 17161, November 22, 1985; N.J. Hastetter, PSBCA No. 3064, 94-1 BCA ¶ 26,421.  Accordingly, Appellant's motion is denied.[1]

David I. Brochstein

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

I concur:

James A. Cohen

Administrative Judge

Chairman

I concur:

Norman D. Menegat

Administrative Judge

Board Member

---

[1]  Appellant also contends that as a result of this appeal, "I was denied the new contract I won recently."  This complaint is in the nature of a protest concerning the award of a contract, which this Board lacks the authority to consider.  Award protests are considered by the Postal Service General Counsel's office, and any such complaint should be directed to that office.  See USPS Purchasing Manual, §3.6.

            Finally, Appellant demands the payment of an unspecified amount to help him clear various debts he has incurred.  Such a demand cannot be considered by this Board unless it has first been made to the contracting officer (see 41 U.S.C. 605(a)), and there is no indication that Appellant has taken that step, or that there is any contractual basis for his demand.  Accordingly, we cannot consider Appellant's request.