MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED:  January 19, 2007 


                            CBCA 423-R


                     HOOK CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

                                        Appellant,

                                v.

                 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                        Respondent.

     Kenneth R. Hook, Vice President of Hook Construction, Inc., Solon, IA, appearing
for Appellant.

     Mark R. Warnick, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration,
Kansas City, MO, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges PARKER, DEGRAFF, and GOODMAN.

PARKER, Board Judge.

     Hook Construction, Inc. (Hook) moves the Board to reconsider its decision denying
Hook's claim for extra work performed in connection with the installation of wall covering
at the United States Courthouse in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  Hook Construction, Inc. v. General
Services Administration, GSBCA 16756, 06-2 BCA  33,404.  We deny the motion.

                           Background

     Eleven months after Hook installed wall covering in a judge's office, the General
Services Administration (GSA) discovered that the covering was delaminating at some of the
seams and promptly notified Hook of the problem.  Hook replaced the defective wall
covering and submitted an invoice that included the amount of $2209.75 for the work.  GSA
determined that the repair was covered under the contract's warranty provision, rejecting
Hook's argument that the delamination was caused by water damage that had occurred after
installation.

     On appeal, we agreed with GSA that defective workmanship, rather than water
damage, was likely the cause of the delamination:

          As to the first issue, we find that GSA has shown by a preponderance
     of the evidence that a defect in workmanship was the most probable cause of
     the wall covering becoming delaminated.  The contract required Hook to
     "examine the substrates" for "conditions affecting performance of the work"
     and to "proceed with installation only after unsatisfactory conditions have been
     corrected."  Hook was also required to "prepare substrates to achieve a
     smooth, dry, clean, structurally sound surface free of flaking, unsound
     coatings, cracks, and defects."  When the wall covering delaminated within the
     one-year warranty period, the Government's inspection showed no water
     leakage or other condition that had changed between the time the wall
     covering was installed and the time it delaminated.  Both parties agreed that
     the painted plaster surface on which the wall covering was installed was
     pulling away from the wall, causing the wall covering to separate at the seams.
     
          GSA has shown that the most likely cause of the delamination was
     Hook's failure to comply with the contract's requirement to correct any
     unsatisfactory conditions before proceeding with the work.  Hook's
     acknowledgment that it did not strip off all of the old paint because "that'd be
     costs that the GSA would have to pay" demonstrates the company's
     misunderstanding of the contract's requirements.  It was Hook's responsibility
     to examine the pre-existing conditions and make certain that any unsatisfactory
     conditions were corrected prior to installation of the wall covering.

06-2 BCA at 165,624.

                            Discussion

     Hook seeks to reargue the issue of whether the delamination of the wall covering was
caused by water damage, rather than as a result of a defect in workmanship.  In support,
Hook maintains that GSA was aware of cracks in the wall prior to installation of the wall
covering and that, recently, the carpet in the judge's office was replaced due to a roof leak. 
In response, GSA points out that the roof leak, which occurred more than a year after Hook
repaired the wall covering, was "due to structural damage caused to the courthouse roof
during tornadic activity during the summer of 2005 and the negligence of a roofing
contractor hired by GSA to make interim repairs to the courthouse roof."  Respondent's
Suggestions in Opposition to Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration.

     Hook's argument for reconsideration based on the existence of cracks in the wall prior
to initial installation of the wall covering merely reargues points previously made, which
were considered and rejected by the Board.  Arguments previously made and considered are
not sufficient grounds for granting reconsideration.  Long Lane Limited Partnership v.
General Services Administration, GSBCA 15334-R, 04-2 BCA  32,751, affd,
159 Fed. Appx. 189 (Fed Cir. 2005).  Hook's information that the judge's carpet was
damaged by water in 2005 is similarly unpersuasive.  A leak in the roof that occurred more
than a year after the wall covering was repaired does not prove that the previous damage had
been caused by water, especially considering that an investigation performed at the time of
the delamination concluded that no water damage had occurred.  GSA's explanation that the
subsequent water damage was caused by a tornado demonstrates this point perfectly.

                             Decision

     The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.




                                   _____________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge

We concur:



_______________________            _____________________
MARTHA H. DEGRAFF                  ALLAN H. GOODMAN
Board Judge                             Board Judge