ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
GSC Construction, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W9126G-11-D-0061 ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 59402, 59601 
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 APPELLANT'S 
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 
Appellant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the government's allegations that 
appellant violated labor standards contract provisions, specifically, Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) 52.222-4, CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS 
ACT-OVERTIME COMPENSATION (JUL y 2005), and FAR 52.222-6, DA VIS-BACON ACT 
(JULY 2005), asserting that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) possesses exclusive 
jurisdiction to determine whether such a violation has occurred (mot. at 5). The government 
contends that appellant's violation of those provisions justifies the termination of Task Order 
DSOl of the contract referenced above (resp. at 3). Although the Board does not possess 
jurisdiction to determine whether a contractor has violated a contract's labor provisions, it 
possesses jurisdiction to determine whether findings by DOL that a contractor has violated a 
contract's labor provisions are final, or whether DOL and the contractor settled their dispute, in 
order to decide (as here) whether a contract default termination is justified. See Herman B. 
Taylor Construction Co. v. Barram, 203 F.3d 808, 811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2000); GSC Construction, 
Inc., ASBCA No. 59402, 16-1BCA,36,367. 
Appellant also raises the issue whether labor provision violations were a basis for the 
contracting officer's termination decision (mot. at 9). To the extent that appellant suggests 

that the Board lacks jurisdiction on that basis, we disagree. We may uphold a termination for 
default on any ground existing at the time of the termination, Kaman Precision Products, Inc., 
ASBCA No. 56305, 10-2 BCA ~ 34,529 at 170,286, even where the contracting officer's final 
decision 
relies upon other grounds. Range Technology Corp., ASBCA No. 51943, 03-2 BCA 
~ 32,290 at 159,773. The government requested summary judgment that its termination of 
Task Order No. DSO 1 of the contract referenced above for default was justified based upon 
what the government contends are violations of the contract's labor provisions. GSC 
Construction, 16-1 BCA ~ 36,367 (denying summary judgment). That issue remains for 
consideration. See id. 
For these reasons, the motion is denied. 
Dated: 12 July 2016 
I concur 
~~ 
RK N. STEMPLER 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
tiMo~~ciL 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
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 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59402, 59601, Appeals of 
GSC Construction, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
2 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals