ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
Iron Bow Technologies, LLC ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W91QUZ-07-D-0010 ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 59181 
James C. Fontana, Esq. 
David B. Dempsey, Esq. 
Dempsey Fontana, PLLC 
Reston, VA 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
MAJ Joseph K. Venghaus, JA 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON THE 
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
Before the Board is the government's motion to dismiss appellant's appeal for 
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because the motion presents 
matters outside the complaint, the Board treats the motion as one for summary judgment. 
See FED. R. C1v. P. 12(d). The Board finds that the parties have had a reasonable 
opportunity to present all the material 
that is pertinent to the motion. See id. The Board 
denies the government's motion. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
1. On 20 July 2012, the Department of the Army (through the United States 
Property and Fiscal Officer for the Maine National Guard) (the government) and Iron 
Bow Technologies, LLC (appellant), entered into Contract No. W91QUZ-07-D-0010 for 
the provision of video teleconferencing equipment (R4, tab 1 ). The certificate of 
appointment of the contracting officer (CO) who signed the contract (R4, tab 2), dated 
19 December 2011, provides that the CO had: 
Sole authority to (a) sign and award contracts not to exceed 
$500,000; sign and issue modifications not to exceed 
$500,000; (b) administer contracts; ( c) issue notices of 
termination for the convenience of the Government; issue 
termination agreements not to exceed $500,000; ( d) sign 

and issue delivery orders without monetary limitations 
against GSA schedule contracts. 
2. The contract provided for a base year with two option years (R4, tab 1 ). The 
contract recited that the "TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT" was $231,533, and indicated 
that the value of the option years was $230,628 and $229,724, respectively (id. at 1, 3). 
The government did not exercise either option (R4, tab 4). 
3. Appellant presented a certified claim to the CO dated 1 November 2013 
alleging that the CO's failure to exercise the option years was a "violation" of the 
contract (R4, tab 11). The claim was denied on 10 December 2013 (R4, tab 14). This 
appeal was timely filed on 27 February 2014. 
DECISION 
The government's motion for failure to state a claim relies on matters outside the 
pleadings; under such circumstances the Board will treat the motion as one for summary 
judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d); D&F Marketing Inc., ASBCA No. 56043, 09-1 
BCA ~ 34,108 at 168,663. Summary judgment shall be granted ifthe movant shows that 
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment 
as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 
812 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The government questions whether the CO 
possessed the authority to bind the government to the contract. However, there is no 
dispute as to any material fact. The parties do not dispute that (1) the contract's base 
year amount was $231,533; (2) the first option year amount was $230,628; and (3) the 
second option year amount was $229,724 (SOF ~ 2). Nor do the parties dispute that the 
CO possessed authority to "sign and award contracts not to exceed $500,000," and to 
"sign and issue modifications not to exceed $500,000" (SOF ~ 1). 
The contract recites that the "TOTAL AW ARD AMOUNT" was $231,533 
(SOF ~ 2), the amount of the base year. That amount was within the CO's authority to 
sign and award contracts (SOF ~ 1 ). In addition, the CO possessed authority to issue 
modifications not to exceed $500,000; consequently, the CO possessed the authority to 
issue modifications exercising the option years, neither of which exceeded $500,000. 
Even if the CO had issued a single modification exercising both option years, the 
amount of that modification would have been $460,352 ($230,628 plus $229,724) 
(SOF ~ 2), less than the $500,000 limit of the CO's modification authority (SOF ~ 1). 
For these reasons, we interpret the CO's appointment certificate to provide the 
necessary authority to bind the government to the contract, and to modify the contract 
by exercising its option years. Accordingly, the government is not entitled to 
judgment in its favor on the issue of the CO's authority, and the Board denies the 
government's motion. 
2 

The Board does not find that appellant has abandoned any of the counts of its 
complaint. In addition, although the government, in its reply, contends that 
"appellant's contention that the government's failure to exercise option periods of a 
contract equates to termination for convenience is legally baseless" (gov't reply at 2), 
that issue 
has not yet been adequately presented to the Board, and the Board does not 
now address it. 
The government shall answer appellant's complaint within 21 days of the date 
of this Decision. 
Dated: 9 July 2014 
I concur 
Admin· trative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
~ ,~~~~~·t;:?~5*'~o~>~.~,~ MARK~~ PETERD. TING 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
Administrative Judge 
Acting 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 No. 59181, Appeal oflron 
Bow Technologies, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals