CBCA 8156

RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED: August 22, 2025 CBCA 8156 GEOTECH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Nancy M. Camardo of Camardo Law Firm, P.C., Auburn, NY, counsel for Appellant. Anastasia Snyderman and Tami Hagberg, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges SHERIDAN, KULLBERG, and VOLK. KULLBERG, Board Judge. Geotech Environmental Services, Inc. (Geotech) appeals the contracting officer’s (CO’s) denial of its claim for costs related to the termination for convenience of its contract with the Indian Health Service (IHS), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). IHS awarded to Geotech a contract for the drilling of two wells, and Geotech submitted a termination settlement proposal (TSP) for its costs, which IHS partially reimbursed. Geotech claims costs for additional casing and drilling, legal services, and other contract-related work performed before termination of the contract. In lieu of filing its answer, HHS filed a motion for summary judgment and a statement of undisputed material facts (SUMF). Geotech filed its opposition to HHS’ motion, its response to HHS’ SUMF, CBCA 8156 2 and an affidavit from its project manager (PM), which was dated November 5, 2024, (PM Affidavit). Subsequently, HHS filed its reply to Geotech’s opposition to HHS’ motion for summary judgment (reply), and Geotech then filed its surresponse to HHS’ reply.1 Geotech’s surresponse included the PM’s second affidavit (PM Second Affidavit), which was dated January 3, 2025. For the reasons stated below, the Board denies the motion. Findings of Fact The Contract 1. On August 30, 2022, IHS awarded contract 75H70122C00012, Tsoo-Yess Water Wells, (contract), in the amount of $299,780, to Geotech for the drilling of two community water wells on the Makah Indian Reservation in the state of Washington. Exhibit 002 at 0016-20, 0055.2 The summary of work stated the following: The Government seeks to complete an [sic] 12-inch diameter well in a moderately deep alluvial aquifer. Well drilling equipment must be capable to drilling for a 12-inch casing. The capacity goal of the well is 100 gallons per minute. The anticipated screening depth is 140-feet and a finished well depth of less than 150-feet. The well will be installed with a blank section of casing below the well screen. Id. at 55.3 The summary of work indicated that “[t]wo wells in the vicinity of the proposed location have depths of 140-feet and 133-feet.” Id. at 56. Solicitation number 75H70122R00057 provided that same information. Exhibit 3 at 195. The solicitation and contract also included well logs for both wells that showed information about subsurface conditions. Exhibits 2 at 106-07; 3 at 245-46. Geotech has alleged that the referenced wells were two to five miles from the site of the wells to be drilled under the contract. Amended Complaint ¶ 5. According to Geotech “no test wells were drilled prior to preparing the design specifications and bid package, no site subsurface data was provided.” PM Affidavit at 5. 1 A surresponse is “[a] second response by someone who opposes a motion.” Surreponse, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). 2 All exhibits are in the appeal file unless otherwise noted. Subsequent cites to exhibits and page numbers will be simplified with extraneous zeros removed. 3 The summary of work paragraph inexplicably refers to the two wells to be drilled in the singular rather than the plural. CBCA 8156 3 2. The contract plans showed the locations of the two new wells on sheets T-2 and W-1. Exhibit 2 at 103-04. The contract performance period was 120 days from the date of the notice to proceed (NTP). Id. at 16. The contract included Geotech’s schedule of prices for specified tasks. Id. at 22.