OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Appellant, Gary W. Noble, held a contract for the highway transportation of mail for Respondent, United States Postal Service. At the time Appellant’s contract was up for renewal, Respondent restructured a number of highway contract routes in his area in order to end its practice of supplying the trailers used by contractors for transporting the mail. The result for Appellant was that his contract service and his compensation were substantially reduced for the renewal term of the contract. Appellant agreed to the reduced scope of the renewal contract, but appealed Respondent’s action to the Board. In Gary W. Noble, PSBCA No. 4094, 99-2 BCA ¶ 30,413, the Board denied the appeal.

Appellant has now filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision, specifically challenging the Board’s determination that the evidence did not show that Respondent acted in bad faith when determining to reduce Appellant’s route. He contends that the evidence shows that Respondent failed to exercise business judgment and that the reduction of his route was not in Respondent’s best interest. Appellant contends these facts demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent’s officials acted in bad faith in reducing his contract. However, the standard of proof to show bad faith in this appeal far exceeds a preponderance of the evidence. Bad faith on the part of Respondent’s officials must be shown by almost irrefragable proof that they acted with a specific intent to harm Appellant. See Krygoski Constr. Co. v. United States, 94 F.3d 1537, 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1210 (1997); Kalvar Corp. v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 192, 198-199, 543 F.2d 1298, 1301-1302 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 830 (1977); Richard R. Wilson, PSBCA No. 3469, 98-1 BCA ¶ 29,499. Because Appellant has not shown this intent to harm, he has not shown a basis for overturning our conclusion that bad faith was not demonstrated.

Appellant also alleges that, notwithstanding Respondent’s stated reason for the route adjustments—that it desired to cease supplying Postal Service trailers to highway transportation contractors—Respondent still supplies the trailers used by the contractor who now performs the part of the route taken from Appellant. This is evidence that, if true, could have been presented at the hearing, which occurred well after the routes had been adjusted and the service transferred to the other contractor. Consequently, such allegations and the arguments based on them are not a basis for reconsideration. See Patricia J. Stevens, PSBCA No. 3272, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,951; Montgomery-Ross-Fisher, Inc., PSBCA No. 1096, 84-3 BCA ¶ 17,607.

Appellant has not shown in this motion any factual or legal errors which would warrant changing our decision. See Montgomery-Ross-Fisher, Inc., PSBCA No. 1096, 84-3 BCA ¶ 17,607.

The motion for reconsideration is denied.

Norman D. Menegat

Administrative Judge

Board Member

I concur:

James A. Cohen

Administrative Judge

Chairman

I concur:

David I. Brochstein

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman