GSC Construction, Inc.
Docket: ASBCA 58747
Decision date: 2014-08-18

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of--
GSC Construction, Inc. 
Under Contract No. N69450-07-C-l 770 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 58747 
William A. Scott, Esq. 
Francis M. Ervin, II, Esq. 
Dane J. Sowinski, Esq. 
Rogers Townsend & Thomas, PC 
Charleston, SC 
Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 
Navy Chief Trial Attorney 
Stephanie Cates-Hannan, Esq. 
Assistant Director 
Rawn M. James, Jr., Esq. 
Trial Attorney 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PEACOCK 
ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
This appeal involves a challenge to the Navy's final performance evaluation under 
the captioned contract to construct a medical clinic. The appeal has been consolidated 
with two other appeals (ASBCA Nos. 58496 and 58748) involving numerous claim items 
relating to performance of the contract cumulatively totaling in excess of $4.6 million. 
ASBCA Nos. 58496 and 58748 are referenced hereinafter collectively as the companion 
appeals. Appellant moves for summary judgment in ASBCA No. 58747 and the Navy 
opposes. We deny the motion. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MOTION 
1. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NA VF AC) Southeast awarded 
Contract No. N69450-07-C-l 770 to GSC Construction, Inc., (GSC) on 28 December 
2006, in the amount of $41,590,506 for the construction of a consolidated medical clinic 
at the Naval Weapons Station in Goose Creek, South Carolina (R4, tab 11at3219, 3221). 
The contract established an original completion date of 27 January 2009 (R4, tab 11 
at 3224). Modification No. P00047 extended the completion date until 21 July 2010 (R4, 
tab 58 at 3384). 

2. NA VFAC prepared a final performance evaluation dated 23 February 2011, 
indicating that GSC's work was accepted on 6 August 2010. The evaluation rated GSC's 
overall performance as marginal. Although GSC's performance was rated satisfactory in 
many areas, it was rated unsatisfactory in five areas and marginal in eight areas. (App. 
mot., appx. at 18-20) 
3. GSC's Vice President, expressed its disagreement with the final evaluation in 
an 18 March 2011 letter to the contracting officer (CO), alleging various factual and 
procedural errors (app. mot., appx. at 21-24). The Navy disputes these errors. 
4. The CO issued a second final performance evaluation rating GSC's 
performance marginal on 20 May 2011 adopting the conclusions of the earlier evaluation 
(supp. R4, tab 216 at 2, 7). There are factual disputes concerning the authorship and 
significance of certain remarks inserted in the final performance evaluation (supp. R4, 
tab 216 at 4-7; see app. mot., appx. at 3-9, 21; gov't opp'n, ex. A, Fichter decl. ~ 4). 
5. GSC submitted an 18 September 2012 claim to the CO challenging the final 
performance evaluation. GSC's claim alleged that the final performance evaluation was 
not performed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and 
pertinent NA VF AC Instructions. GSC also maintained that the factual analysis and 
conclusions in the final performance evaluation were clearly erroneous and arbitrary and 
capricious because the Navy failed to consider the adverse impact of changes, disputed 
work, defective specifications, and the Navy's administration of the contract on the 
contract work and schedule which form the subject matter of the companion appeals. 
(Supp. R4, tab 214) 
6. GSC appealed the deemed denial of its claim by notice of appeal dated 21 June 
2013. The Board docketed the appeal as ASBCA No. 58747. The consolidated companion 
appeals involve claims under the captioned contract totaling in excess of $4,600,000. The 
claims in ASBCA No. 58496 alone consist of approximately 20 sub-items involving 
numerous aspects of the work, alleged delays and assertions of entitlement to unabsorbed 
overhead. 
DECISION 
In moving for summary judgment, GSC raises two principal issues: (1) whether 
the Navy failed to follow applicable regulations, policies, and procedures in preparing its 
final performance evaluation, and (2) whether the final performance evaluation is 
inaccurate, clearly erroneous, and arbitrary and capricious (app. mot. at 1). 
Summary judgment is only appropriate where the movant establishes that there is 
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 
2 

The record is replete with genuine issues of material fact which we need only address 
summarily in denying this motion. 
GSC first alleges that the Navy committed procedural violations in the preparation 
and dissemination of the final performance evaluation. The Navy disputes the alleged 
violations and contends that, regardless of whether procedural violations occurred, 
appellant has failed to offer any proof that it was prejudiced as a result thereof. We 
agree. To prevail, GSC must show that the performance evaluation would have been 
more favorable but for the purported procedural violations. Todd Constr., L.P. v. United 
States, 656 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Assuming solely for purposes of argument 
that one or more procedural violations occurred, GSC's motion wholly fails to proffer 
uncontested facts establishing that the Navy's violations had any substantive adverse 
impact on the ratings set forth in the performance evaluation. 
GSC also alleges that the Navy's final performance 
evaluation is arbitrary and 
capricious because it is based on erroneous factual conclusions regarding its performance 
under the contract (app. mot. at 1, 3, 5, 11), which necessarily requires an examination of the 
details of GSC's performance that underlie the Navy's adverse ratings. See Todd Constr., 
656 F .3d at 1316-17 (complaint challenging negative performance evaluation which alleged 
that many, but not all, substantial delays were excusable failed to state a claim upon which 
relief could be granted); Versar, Inc., ASBCA No. 56857 et al., 12-1 BCA ~ 35,025 
at 172,128, recon. denied, 12-2 BCA ~ 35,126 (denying claim challenging negative 
performance evaluation where contractor's allegations of defective specifications, 
constructive changes, and breaches of the duties of good faith and fair dealing and to 
cooperate were unmeritorious). In short, the adequacy and propriety of the evaluation is 
inextricably intertwined with the plethora of genuine factual issues presented in the related 
companion appeals. The motion cannot be granted. Cf, e.g., The Pub. Warehousing Co., 
ASBCA No. 57510, 13 BCA ~ 35,314 at 173,363 (citing Adickes v. S. H Kress & Co., 
398 U.S. 144, 160 (1970)). 
In the majority of our appeals requiring extensive factual analysis and often 
involving complex issues and voluminous records, summary disposition is generally 
inappropriate. Just resolution of disputes involving even ultimately undisputed facts 
often necessitates fuller development of the evidentiary record in order that facts may be 
properly organized and analyzed in their proper context and chronology. 1 See, e.g., 
Askew v. Hargrave, 401U.S.476, 478-79 (1971); International Raw Materials, Ltd. v. 
Stauffer Chemical Co., 978 F.2d 1318, 1333 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 988 
(1993); Eby v. Reb Realty, Inc., 495 F.2d 646, 648-49 (9th Cir. 1974); Miller v. General 
Outdoor Advertising Co., 337 F.2d 944, 948 (2d Cir. 1964) (summary judgment "too 
1 Moreover, to the extent that the parties in the case of cross-motions are convinced that 
summary resolution is appropriate, they have the option of submitting their cases 
for decision on the record pursuant to Rule 11. 
3 

blunt a weapon" where complex factual and legal issues are present); S.J. Groves & Sons 
Co. v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 315 F.2d 235, 237-38 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 
375 U.S. 824 (1963); Palmer v. Chamberlin, 191 F.2d 532, 540 (5th Cir. 1951). 
Conflicting interpretations and inferences that can be drawn from even undisputed facts 
are also generally best evaluated on a complete record. See, e.g., Lighting Fixture & 
Electric Supply Co. v. Continental Insurance Co., 420 F.2d 1211, 1213 (5th Cir. 1969); 
S.J. Groves & Sons, 315 F.2d at 237-38; Chenette v. Trustees of Iowa College, 431 F.2d 
49, 53 (8th Cir. 1970); United States v. Lange, 466 F.2d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 1972); see 
also Virgil v. Time, Inc., 527 F.2d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 998 
(1976) (noting the importance of the exercise of judicial discretion in denying summary 
judgment motion pending development of complete record); Lind v. UPS, Inc., 254 F .3d 
1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). 
The motion is denied. 
Dated: 18 August 2014 
I concur 
~~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
4 
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 
.A.rrned Services Board of Contract .A.ppeals in .A.SBC.A. No. 58747, .A.ppeal of GSC 
Construction, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
5 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
R..ecorder, .A.rrned Services 
Board of Contract .A.ppeals