November 29, 2000
Appeal of
LINDA F. WILLETT
Under Contract No. HCR 38018
PSBCA No. 4379
APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Linda F. Willett
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Glenn L. Smith, Esq.
OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellant has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board’s Opinion denying the appeal of Linda F. Willett, PSBCA No. 4379, 00-2 BCA ¶ 31,035. In the Opinion, we upheld the decision of the contracting officer to terminate for default Appellant’s mail transportation contract based on Appellant’s failure to secure the mail by locking the compartment of her truck while transporting the mail.
Appellant attached extensive notes she apparently made, as well as affidavits, to her motion. However, Appellant has not made any showing that the additional evidence, and the arguments she has made based on that evidence, could not have been provided in the original proceeding. Consequently, the additional evidence will not be considered on reconsideration and the arguments she makes do not provide a basis for us to change our opinion. See Patricia J. Stevens, PSBCA No. 3272, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,951; Montgomery-Ross-Fisher, Inc., PSBCA No. 1096, 84-3 BCA ¶ 17,607.
In her motion, Appellant relies on a “letter from Washington” which she argues permits her to leave the cargo compartment of her truck unlocked so long as she is in the truck. Appellant cites this document as justification for not locking the compartment of her truck while transporting the mail.
The document Appellant refers to is entitled “Standard Operating Plan – Highway Contract Responsibility” and can be found at page 7 of tab 1 in the Appeal File. This document, however, is not a part of her contract, and as such, does not relax or modify contract requirements. In fact, the document states, in pertinent part, "Once any Registered mail has been loaded on the truck, the driver must be present at all times or the door must be closed and locked.” This statement simply requires that the driver be present whenever the vehicle contains registered mail, unless the vehicle is securely locked. The statement does not modify or conflict with Appellant’s contract requirement to transport the mail “in an enclosed, water-proof compartment, equipped with secure locking devices, which shall be kept locked at all times except when access thereto is required for performance of service under this contract.” The requirement to transport mail in a locked compartment exists whether or not “registered mail” is being transported[1].
The remainder of Appellant’s motion for reconsideration consists of allegations Appellant raised previously that were addressed in the Board’s Opinion. For example, Appellant again alleges that she was sexually harassed, but offers no proof to demonstrate that sexual harassment at her local facility in Memphis (which allegedly occurred over two years before the termination), played any part in the decision of the contracting officer in Atlanta, Georgia to terminate her contract for default.
Appellant repeats her complaints that other mail transportation contractors that experienced theft on their routes, or who did not transport mail in a locked compartment, did not have their contracts terminated for default. Here also, however, even if these allegations were true, they would not excuse Appellant’s breach of her own contract’s requirements that led to the contracting officer’s decision to terminate the contract for default.
Finally, Appellant again alleges that Postal officials were responsible for the theft of registered mail from her truck, but offers no evidence to support this allegation.
The decision of the contracting officer to terminate Appellant’s contract for default because of her failure to transport the mail in a secure, locked compartment was entirely justified. Appellant has not offered any previously unavailable evidence or shown any factual or legal errors which would warrant changing our decision. See B.C. Topps d/b/a Topps Transport, PSBCA No. 2241, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,764. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge
Board Member
I concur: I concur:
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman
I concur:
David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman
[1] Appellant also argues that the contract only requires that her truck be “equipped” with a lock. However, this argument completely ignores the final clause of the requirement.