available, or that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Prati v. United States, 82 Fed.Cl. 373, 376 (2008) (citing Bishop v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 281 (1992)). The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration “lies largely within the discretion” of the Court. Yuba Natural Res. Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1990). However, a party may not prevail on a motion for reconsideration “by raising an issue for the first time on reconsideration when the issue was available to be litigated at the time the complaint was filed.” Matthews v. United States, 73 Fed.Cl. 524, 525-26 (2006) (citing Lamle v. Mattel, Inc., 394 F.3d 1355, 1359 n. 1 (Fed.Cir. 2005)); see also Bluebonnet Savings Bank v. United States, 466 F.3d 1349, 1361 (Fed.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Corrigan v. United States, 70 Fed.Cl. 665,
holding that an argument made for the first time in a motion for reconsideration comes too late and is ordinarily deemed waived holding issue raised for first time in motion for reconsideration constituted waiver holding that where party made argument for first time in motion for rehearing in court of appeals error if any was waived holding that an argument raised for the first time in a rule 59e motion is waived on appeal holding that under the circumstances of that case an argument made for the first time in a motion for rehearing was waived