ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of --
MicroTechnologies, LLC 
Under Contract No. FA4890-13-F-Ql06 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 59911, 59912 
Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq. 
Assistant General Counsel 
Col Matthew J. Mulbarger, USAF 
Air Force Chief Trial Attorney 
Gregory A. Harding, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK UPON THE 
GOVERNMENT'S SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE 
MicroTechnologies, LLC (MicroTech) appeals from a 
3 March 2015 contracting 
officer's decision denying two claims dated 3 February 2015 (ASBCA No. 59911) and 
4 February 2015 (ASBCA No. 59912), issued under a task order with the United States 
Air Force, Air Combat Command (compl. and answer~ 4; R4, tab 6 at 1, tabs 25-27). It 
seeks a total of $76,672 for an alleged government delay and work performed prior to a 
stop work order. MicroTech's claims also allege that it was entitled to have its Contract 
Assessment Performance Report (CPAR) revised to reflect MicroTech's actual 
performance (R4, tab 25 at 2, tab 26 at 5). Among the relief sought by MicroTech's 
original complaint was a request "that the Air Force be ordered to revise the CP AR to 
accurately reflect MicroTech's performance." In a decision dated 29 September 2015, 
the Board granted a government motion to strike 
that request on the ground that the 
Board lacks jurisdiction to grant specific performance or injunctive relief. 
MicroTechnologies, LLC, ASBCA Nos. 59911, 59912, 15-1BCA~36,125. 
MicroTech was granted leave to file an amended complaint. In it, MicroTech 
describes the underlying reasons for its monetary claims. Paragraph 75 of the 
amended complaint relies upon those same reasons to support MicroTech's claim that 
its CPAR is erroneous and an abuse of discretion. Paragraph 76 therefore contends the 
CPAR violates the government's contractual obligation to provide a fair and accurate 
performance assessment. MicroTech's new Wherefore clause requests the Board 
"declare that [its] CPAR is erroneous and remand the matter ... back to the Contracting 
Officer and require the Air Force to provide MicroTech with a fair and accurate 
evaluation." (Am. compl. at 10) 

The government has filed another motion to strike, asking that paragraphs 75 
and 76 of the amended complaint be stricken, along with the portions of the Wherefore 
clause challenging the CPAR. The government suggests that MicroTech's allegations 
that the CPAR is an abuse of discretion and violates the government's obligation to 
provide a fair and accurate performance assessment were never the subject of a claim 
to the contracting officer. The government argues that MicroTech's claims merely 
sought a change to its CP AR rating but never contested its CP AR evaluation. In 
response, Micro Tech notes that its claims requested revision of its CPAR evaluation to 
reflect its contract performance. It contends it sufficiently placed the contracting 
officer on notice of the relief it sought and what substantive issues were raised by it. 
In reply, the government seems to abandon its attempt to distinguish between a CPAR 
rating and an evaluation. Instead, it argues for the first time that the Board lacks 
subject matter jurisdiction to consider an appeal by MicroTech about its performance 
evaluation, or in the alternative that the claims do not adequately identify the reasons 
for MicroTech's challenge. 
A claim is a "written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting 
parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the 
adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating 
to the contract." FAR 2.101. A claim need not be in any particular form or wording, 
but must only provide adequate notice as to its basis and amount. See K-Con Bldg. 
Sys. Inc. v. United States, 778 F.3d 1000, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2015). MicroTech's claims 
provided a description of the allegedly flawed treatment it received from the Air Force 
and sought revision of its CP AR for those reasons and to reflect its actual 
performance. Thus, it notified the contracting officer of the basis of its claims, 
something the contracting officer seemed to acknowledge by treating the submissions 
as claims and denying them. See Transamerica Ins. Corp. Inc. v. United States, 
973 F.2d 1572, 1578 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Contrary to the government's suggestion, 
the Board possesses jurisdiction to consider MicroTech's challenges to its CPAR 
evaluation. It is an appeal from the denial of claims "relating to the contract." 
FAR 2.101; Todd Constr., L.P. v. United States, 656 F.3d 1306, 1312-1315 (Fed. Cir. 
2011 ). The Board may determine whether "the government acted arbitrarily and 
capriciously in assigning an inaccurate and unfair performance evaluation." Todd 
Constr., 656 F.3d at 1316. 
Accordingly, the government's motion to strike paragraphs 75 and 76 of the 
amended complaint is denied, as well as its request that the Wherefore clause be 
stricken to the extent it seeks a declaration that the CPAR is erroneous. However, the 
Board has already ruled in this appeal that it lacks jurisdiction to grant specific 
performance or injunctive relief, and has therefore stricken a request by MicroTech 
that the Air Force be ordered to revise the CPAR. The amended complaint's new 
request for remand of the CP AR back to the contracting officer with a requirement that 
2 

the Air Force provide a fair and accurate evaluation essentially seeks the same relief. 
Accordingly, the Board strikes that request. 
Dated: 21 April 2016 
I concur 
MARK N. STEMPLER 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
~ 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
~ 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59911, 59912, Appeals of 
MicroTechnologies, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals