Is a litigant entitled to have the correct standard of law applied by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or does a 'right for any reason' doctrine apply?

Questions Presented 1. Is a litigant entitled to have the correct standard of law applied by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or does a “right for any reason” doctrine apply? 2. Is a litigant entitled to have the scope of fact and law determined prior to an evidentiary hearing; or may a tribunal hold an evidentiary hearing, exclude evidence, thereby deterring the proffer of additional evidence on an issue, only to later determine the evidence was admissible while simultaneously refusing additional proffers of evidence on the issue in question? 3. Is it appropriate for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to affirm a ruling without an opinion pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 36, when both the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Government acknowledge that the wrong standard of review was applied by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals? i