GSC Construction, Inc.
Court
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
Decided
May 27, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Importance
45%
Case Summary
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - ) ) GSC Construction, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 61380 ) Under Contract No. W912HN-10-D-0049 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Patrick B. Kernan, Esq. Asmar, Schor, McKenna, PLLC Washington, DC APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq. Engineer Chief Trial Attorney Allie E. Vandivier, Esq. Engineer Trial Attorney U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JAMES R. SWEET This appeal involves a task order the Army Corps of Engineers (government) issued to appellant GSC Construction, Inc. (GSC) to design and renovate Army Ranger barracks at Fort Benning, Georgia. Following our decision on the government’s motion for summary judgment and GSC’s narrowing of the issues, two claims remain. Those claims are that: (1) GSC is entitled to an equitable adjustment for the costs it incurred leveling the floors; and (2) the government improperly required GSC to remedy the defects and the damage related to two floods under a warranty clause. GSC Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 61380, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,626, at 182,666-69 (GSC I); (app. br. at 12). 1 The parties have elected to proceed under Board Rule 11. This decision addresses only entitlement. 1 As laid out in GSC I, GSC appealed the contracting officer’s denial of seven claims. Those related to alleged: (1) delay due to a failure to provide as-built drawings; (2) audio visual changes; (3) out-of-scope testing; (4) floor leveling changes; (5) fire alarm changes; (6) improperly requiring GSC to remedy the defects and the damage related to two floods; and (7) failure to pay an outstanding contract balance. GSC, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,626 at 182,663-64. Moreover, claim (4) involved two sub-claims. Those were that the government required: (a) additional furring work to bring the floor slabs’ edges into vertical alignment; and (b) the installation of Ardex floor leveling compound to make the floors acceptably level. In GSC I, we granted the government summary judgment on claims (1), (3), (4a), (5), and (7). Id. at 182,666-69. We denied the government’s motion for summary judgment on claims (2), (4b), and (6). Id. As discussed in greater detail below, the government has satisfied its burden of establishing the defense that GSC released the floor leveling claim. Moreover, the government has satisfied its burden of showing that the most probable cause of the first—but not the second—flood was GSC’s defective materials or workmanship when considered in light of other possible causes. Therefore, the government properly required GSC to remedy the defect and the damage related to the first flood, but improperly required GSC to remedy the defect and the damage related to the second flood. As a result, the appeal is denied as to the claims regarding floor leveling and the first flood, but is sustained as to the claim regarding the second flood. FINDINGS OF FACT I. Background 1. On September 7, 2010, the government awarded to GSC Contract No. W912HN-10-D-0049 (Contract), a multiple award task order contract for design/build, design-bid-build, or renovation type projects in the South Atlantic Division Area of Operation (R4, tab 3 at 30-32). 2. On August 18, 2011, the government issued a request for proposal for a task order on the Contract to design and renovate Buildings 2833 and 2834 at Fort Benning, Georgia (the Project) (R4, tab 4 at 218). 3. On September 25, 2012, the government awarded to GSC Task Order, 0007 (Task Order) on the Contract for the Project (R4, tab 6 at 1057, 1062). II. Progressive Collapse Resistance and Floor Leveling 4. The statement of work (Statement of Work) attached to the August 18, 2011 request for proposal indicated that most of the as-built drawings for Buildings 2833 and 2834 were available for GSC’s review before GSC submitted its proposal (R4, tab 4 at 260). Moreover, the Statement of Work required compliance with UFC 4-023- 03 Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse (Progressive Collapse Resistance Requirements) (id. at 294). 2 Further, in its Rule 11 briefing, GSC abandoned claim (2) (app. br. at 12). Therefore, we only address claims (4b) and (6). 2 “Progressive collapse” is “the spread of an initial local failure from element to element resulting, eventually, in the collapse of an entire
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
May 27, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - ) ) GSC Construction, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 61380 ) Under Contract No. W912HN-10-D-0049 )
APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Patrick B. Kernan, Esq.
Asmar, Schor, McKenna, PLLC
Washington, DC
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.
Engineer Chief Trial Attorney
Allie E. Vandivier, Esq.
Engineer Trial Attorney
U.S. Army Engineer District, Savannah
OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JAMES R. SWEET
This appeal involves a task order the Army Corps of Engineers (government)
issued to appellant GSC Construction, Inc. (GSC) to design and renovate Army Ranger barracks at Fort Benning, Georgia. Following our decision on the government’s motion for summary judgment and GSC’s narrowing of the issues, two claims remain. Those claims are that: (1) GSC is entitled to an equitable adjustment for the costs it incurred leveling the floors; and (2) the government improperly required GSC to remedy the defects and the damage related to two floods under a warranty clause. GSC Construction, Inc., ASBCA No. 61380, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,626, at 182,666-69 (GSC I); (app. br. at 12). 1 The parties have elected to proceed under Board Rule 11. This decision addresses only entitlement.
1 As laid out in GSC I, GSC appealed the contracting officer’s denial of seven claims. Those related to alleged: (1) delay due to a failure to provide as-built drawings; (2) audio visual changes; (3) out-of-scope testing; (4) floor leveling changes; (5) fire alarm changes; (6) improperly requiring GSC to remedy the defects and the damage related to two floods; and (7) failure to pay an outstanding contract balance. GSC, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,626 at 182,663-64. Moreover, claim (4) involved two sub-claims. Those were that the government required: (a) additional furring work to bring the floor slabs’ edges into vertical alignment; and (b) the installation of Ardex floor leveling compound to make the floors acceptably level. In GSC I, we granted the government summary judgment on claims (1), (3), (4a), (5), and (7). Id. at 182,666-69. We denied the government’s motion for summary judgment on claims (2), (4b), and (6). Id. As discussed in greater detail below, the government has satisfied its burden of establishing the defense that GSC released the floor leveling claim. Moreover, the government has satisfied its burden of showing that the most probable cause of the first—but not the second—flood was GSC’s defective materials or workmanship when considered in light of other possible causes. Therefore, the government properly required GSC to remedy the defect and the damage related to the first flood, but improperly required GSC to remedy the defect and the damage related to the second flood. As a result, the appeal is denied as to the claims regarding floor leveling and the first flood, but is sustained as to the claim regarding the second flood.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Background
1. On September 7, 2010, the government awarded to GSC Contract No.
W912HN-10-D-0049 (Contract), a multiple award task order contract for design/build, design-bid-build, or renovation type projects in the South Atlantic Division Area of Operation (R4, tab 3 at 30-32).
2. On August 18, 2011, the government issued a request for proposal for a task
order on the Contract to design and renovate Buildings 2833 and 2834 at Fort Benning, Georgia (the Project) (R4, tab 4 at 218).
3. On September 25, 2012, the government awarded to GSC Task Order, 0007
(Task Order) on the Contract for the Project (R4, tab 6 at 1057, 1062).
II. Progressive Collapse Resistance and Floor Leveling
4. The statement of work (Statement of Work) attached to the August 18, 2011
request for proposal indicated that most of the as-built drawings for Buildings 2833 and 2834 were available for GSC’s review before GSC submitted its proposal (R4, tab 4 at 260). Moreover, the Statement of Work required compliance with UFC 4-023- 03 Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse (Progressive Collapse Resistance Requirements) (id. at 294). 2
Further, in its Rule 11 briefing, GSC abandoned claim (2) (app. br. at 12).
Therefore, we only address claims (4b) and (6).
2 “Progressive collapse” is “the spread of an initial local failure from element to element resulting, eventually, in the collapse of an entire
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
May 27, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools