ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeal of -- ) 
) 
GSC Construction, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W9126G-11-D-0061 ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA No. 59402 
Karl Dix, Jr., Esq. 
Douglas L. Tabeling, Esq. 
Lochlin B. Samples, Esq. 
Smith Currie & Hancock LLP 
Atlanta, GA 
Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 
Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
Stephanie R. Darr, Esq. 
Keith J. Klein, Esq. 
Alexandria P. Tramel, Esq 
Lauren M. Williams, Esq. 
Engineer Trial Attorneys 
U.S. Army Engineer District, Tulsa 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON THE 
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
The government moves for summary judgment in ASBCA No. 59402 that 
its 
termination of Task Order No. DSOl of Contract No. W9126G-11-D-0061 for default 
was justified, contending that appellant violated the contract's labor standards 
provisions, specifically, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.222-4, CONTRACT 
WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT- OVERTIME COMPENSATION (CWHSSA) 
(JULY 2005)," and FAR 52.222-6, DA VIS-BACON ACT (DBA) (JULY 2005). The motion 
is denied. 
Summary judgment shall 
be granted if the movant shows that there is no 
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 
matter oflaw. Avant Assessment, LLC, ASBCA No. 58867, 15-1BCA,-r36,067 at 
176,129 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a)). Although the Board does not possess 
jurisdiction to determine whether a contractor has violated labor laws, it possesses 
jurisdiction, for purposes of determining whether a contract default termination is 
justified, to determine whether the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has found under 
its established procedures that the contractor has committed such a violation; in other 
words, whether DOL's finding of a violation is final. See Herman B. Taylor 

Construction Co. v. Barram, 203 F.3d 808, 811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Puget 
Sound Environmental Corp., ASBCA Nos. 58827, 58828, 14-1BCA~35,585 at 
174,370, 174,372 (finding no final DOL ruling and dismissing appeal); Hunt Building 
Co., ASBCA No. 55157, 06-1BCA~33,213 at 164,597-98 (same). If a contractor 
accepts DOL' s investigative findings and does not request a hearing, or if a DOL 
administrative law judge finds that the contractor has violated a contract's labor 
standards, those findings are final. Id. at 813-14. However, ifthe contractor and DOL 
settle a labor standards dispute without either the contractor admitting liability or an 
adjudicative finding that the contractor violated labor standards, then there is no final 
determination by DOL that the contractor violated a contract's labor provisions. Id. 
Here, there is no dispute that the contract incorporated FAR clauses 52.222-4 
and 52.222-6 (R4, tab 28n at 1896), or that a DOL investigation found that appellant 
violated those provisions (mot. ex. 4). However, 
there is no evidence that DOL 
adjudicated whether appellant 
violated those provisions. Therefore, resolution turns on 
the issue of material fact whether appellant ever accepted DO L's investigative findings, 
making them final. That issue is in genuine dispute. Although there is no evidence that 
DOL and appellant entered into a written settlement agreement, appellant points 
to its 
1 October 2014 letter to 
DOL stating that payments that it made to employees as a 
result ofDOL's investigation "represent[] a compromise and not an admission of 
liability" (opp. at 24, ex. 5), as well as the affidavit of its owner in which he states that 
he "negotiated a settlement [with 
DOL] for a fraction of the DOL's demand that was 
conditioned on the investigation being closed without any finding of fault or liability" 
(opp. ex. 6 ~ 8). For its part, the government points to a 2 March 2016, DOL letter 
addressed to appellant stating that "DOL's findings regarding [appellant's] DBA and 
CWHSSA violations are final" (gov't 4 March 2016 filing, ex. A). Because resolution 
of this issue would require us to find whether, as a matter of fact, DOL's investigative 
findings are final, the issue is not amenable to summary judgment. 
Dated: 5 May 2016 
(Signatures continued) 
2 

I concur I concur 
~./~···-~---
'MARKN. STEMPL~ --._ RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative 
Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
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 No. 59402, Appeal of GSC 
Construction, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals