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 
Lt Col Matthew J. Mulbarger, USAF 
Air Force Chief Trial Attorney 
Gregory A. Harding, Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MELNICK ON THE 
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE 
BACKGROUND 
These consolidated appeals are from a contracting officer's decision denying 
two claims submitted (one each on 3 February 2015 (ASBCA No. 59911) and 
4 February 2015 (ASBCA No. 59912)) 
by appellant, MicroTechnologies, LLC 
(MicroTech), under a task order with the United States Air Force, Air Combat 
Command (notice of appeal; compl. and answer~ 4; R4, tab 6 at 1).1 MicroTech seeks 
compensation for an alleged government delay, and payment for work performed prior 
to a stop work order. Each ofMicroTech's claims also allege that its CPAR (Contract 
Assessment Performance Report) evaluations were inaccurate and requests the 
contracting officer to revise the CP AR evaluations. Micro Tech contends that "[i]f [it] 
is successful in this appeal, then the Board would also be determining that the CP AR is 
inaccurate" ( compl. ~ 70). Among other things, the "Wherefore" clause of 
MicroTech's complaint asks "that the Air Force be ordered to revise the CPAR to 
accurately reflect MicroTech's performance" (id. at 10). 
The government has moved to strike the complaint's request that the Board 
order the CP AR revised. It contends that Micro Tech is seeking injunctive relief that 
1 Micro Tech elected to process the appeal under the Small Claims (Expedited) 
Procedure provided by Board Rule 12.2. However, by letter dated 4 June 2015, 
the parties requested the Board to remove the appeal from that schedule and 
establish a procedure for briefing the 
issue addressed in this decision. That 
request was granted by order dated 9 June 2015. 

the Board lacks jurisdiction to grant. In response, Micro Tech concedes that the Board 
is not empowered to issue injunctions. However, it maintains that the Board "can find 
that the CPAR is arbitrary, capricious, otherwise erroneous, or that the Air Force 
breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing" (app. resp. at 3). It argues that "this 
latter holding would be tantamount 'ordering' [sic] the Air Force to change the CPAR 
- even ifthe Board cannot directly order the Air Force to do so" (id.). It requests that 
its complaint be read to simply seek such a declaration. Alternatively, MicroTech 
suggests that "instead of striking portions of the complaint, the Board should allow 
MicroTech to file an amended complaint to revise the relief sought" (id. n.l). 
DECISION 
The claims and complaint do not merely seek a declaration of rights. The 
claims ask that the CPAR be revised and the complaint asks ''that the Air Force be 
ordered to revise the CP AR" ( compl. at 10). As Micro Tech acknowledges, the Board 
does "not have jurisdiction to grant specific performance or injunctive relief' and 
therefore may not order a CPARrevised. Versar, Inc., ASBCA No. 56857, 10-1 BCA 
~ 34,437 at 169,959. Because the Board lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief, the 
government's motion to strike is granted. 2 
Dated: 29 September 2015 
I concur I concur 
//%- ~ .. ~- <,T _____ _ 
// / ~ _'__!________ ------
MARK N. STEMPLER // 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
2 To the extent MicroTech wishes to amend its complaint, it must file a motion for 
leave to do so that attaches its proposed amended pleading. 
2 

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 
JEFFREYD. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals