ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
GSC Construction, Inc. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W9126G-1 l-D-0061 ) 
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 59046, 59957 
James S. DelSordo, Esq. 
Argus Legal, LLC 
Manassas, VA 
Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 
Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 
Ronald J. Goodeyon, Esq. 
Jason R. Chester, Esq. 
Keith J. Klein, Esq. 
Engineer Trial Attorneys 
U.S. Army Engineer District, Tulsa 
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MCILMAIL ON APPELLANT'S 
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
Appellant, GSC Construction Inc., moves for summary judgment, apparently in 
the amount of $468,808.43, related to its performance of the above-referenced contract 
to construct a Central Issue Facility at Fort Sill, Oklahoma (mot. at 2, ii 4, at 5, ii 18). 
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 of 
law. Avant Assessment, LLC, ASBCA No. 58867, 15-1BCAii36,067 at 176,129 
(citing FED. R. C1v. P. 56(a)). Where, as here, the movant has the burden of proof at 
trial, his showing must be sufficient that no reasonable trier of fact could find other 
than for the movant. Philadelphia Biologics Center, ASBCA No. 44578, 95-2 BCA 
ii 27,805 at 138,641. 
Where a contractor fails to provide accounting or other evidence to substantiate 
its allegations of a quantum recovery, it has not met its burden of proof and is 
therefore not entitled to payment. Environmental Safety Consultants, Inc., ASBCA 
No. 53485, 03-2 BCA ii 32,298 at 159,808. The evidence that GSC cites in support of 
its quantum position ($468,808.43) consists of its three-page claim to the contracting 
officer (mot. at 5, ii 18 (citing R4, tab 28)). Although the claim states that the 
government owes GSC $468,808.43 (consisting of three elements: "turnaround area," 
withheld payments, and claim preparation costs), those three pages of narrative neither 
include nor are accompanied by any accounting or other evidence sufficient that no 

reasonable trier of fact could find other than that GSC is owed $468,808.43 (or any 
amount), even assuming entitlement (R4, tab 28 at 2). Cf Philadelphia Biologics, 95-
2 BCA ~ 27,805 at 138,642 (denying motion for partial judgment where affidavit 
contained no information independent of contracting officer's final decision to support 
amount claimed). 
In addition, GSC's explanation of the relevant contract language is undeveloped 
and, at this stage, no more effective than the explanation that the government advanced 
in support of its own, unsuccessful motion for summary judgment. As did the 
government, GSC relies upon sections 6.4.6.l.(c) and (d) of the contract's Statement of 
Work, which provide, respectively, that "[t]he Government will provide primary or 
main water pipe distribution," and that "[t]he Infrastructure Contractor will design and 
construct the sanitary sewer service line between the 
sanitary sewer main to 5 feet 
from the building" (mot. at 6-7). GSC Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 59046, 14-1 
BCA ~ 35, 739 at 174,918. Of course, denial of the government's motion is not a 
reason to deny GSC's motion. See Macro-Z-Technology, ASBCA No. 56711, 13 BCA 
~ 35,225 at 172,834. However, GSC's explanation of section 6.4.6.l fails to persuade 
us that the government or a contractor other than GSC was responsible for the specific 
water line and sewer line work at issue in this dispute, for essentially the same reason 
the government's summary judgment motion failed: our view remains that "[t]his may 
be a 
case in which evidence of trade practice and custom plays an important role in 
contract interpretation, to explain the meaning of technical terms in contract provisions 
and on contract drawings," and that 
"[t]he Board might also benefit from further, 
detailed evidence from those with personal knowledge of the contract work, or from 
stipulated facts." GSC Construction, 14-1 BCA ~ 35,739 at 174,920. 
Accordingly, GSC fails to meet its burden, and its motion for summary judgment 
is denied. 
Dated: 12 July 2016 
(Signatures continued) 
2 
~I~ 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 

I concur 
$~·. -;7 ~ MARK N. STEMPLE 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
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 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59046, 59957, Appeals of 
GSC Construction, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
3 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals