MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTIAL
 
SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED: JANUARY 13, 2011
 
CBCA 1820, 2194
 
J. GOODISON COMPANY, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 
Respondent. 
Melissa M. Horne of Winograd, Shine & Zacks, P.C., Providence, RI, counsel for 
Appellant. 
J. Stephen Brophy, Office of Procurement Law, United States Coast Guard, 
Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges GILMORE , STERN , and SHERIDAN . 
GILMORE , Board Judge. 
ORDER 
J. Goodison Company, Inc. (appellant or Goodison) appealed the final decision of a 
contracting officer of the Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard 
(respondent or Coast Guard), denying appellant’s claim for costs it incurred to remobilize 
after the blower it was installing aboard a Coast Guard ship fell during installation. 
Appellant’s claim is in the amount of $32,686. This appeal was docketed as CBCA 1820. 

                                                                                                                         
            
              
           
             
             
            
                
              
             
               
    
              
            
            
                
              
               
      
             
               
                
  
              
            
          
             
               
 
                
            
                    
              
               
                  
       
2 CBCA 1820, 2194 
After this appeal was docketed, a Coast Guard contracting officer issued a final 
decision advising appellant that it owed the Coast Guard $43,904.09 for costs the Coast Guard 
incurred in repairing the damaged blower and remobilizing personnel to complete the 
blower’s installation. Appellant appealed this final decision and it was docketed as CBCA 
2194. The two appeals were consolidated since they involved the same subject matter. 
Respondent has filed a motion for summary relief, or for partial summary relief, 
contending that the material facts are not in dispute and respondent is entitled to relief as a 
matter of law. Respondent’s position is that the undisputed facts show that appellant was 
responsible for the proper installation of a blower, but performed in a negligent manner, 
causing damage to the blower, and is thus responsible for costs the Coast Guard expended in 
repairing and installing the blower. 
Appellant, in its response to the motion, contends that there are material facts in dispute 
which preclude granting summary relief to respondent. Appellant contends that the technical 
representative the respondent hired to supervise the installation, and not appellant, was the 
party that caused the damage to the blower, resulting in added costs to repair and install the 
blower. For reasons stated below, we cannot grant the Coast Guard’s motion for summary 
relief on either entitlement or quantum, because we find that there are material facts in dispute 
which preclude the granting of such relief. 
Background 
On June 19, 2009, appellant and respondent entered into a firm fixed-price contract that 
required appellant to remove a 3000 pound blower from the main engine of a Coast Guard 
ship and to install a similar replacement blower. Appeal File, Exhibit 1at 9. The contract 
amount was $68,850. Id., Exhibit 5.  Work was to start on June 22, 2009, and be completed 
on June 29, 2009. The replacement blower was a reconditioned blower that was manufactured 
by Fairbanks Morse Engine Company (FMEC) and furnished by respondent. The contract 
provided that respondent would provide an on-site technical representative (“Tech Rep”) 
under whose supervision Goodison would perform the blower replacement. Id., Exhibit 1 at 
9. Respondent awarded a separate contract to FMEC for the Tech Rep services. Appellant’s 
Appendix to Statement of Genuine Issues of Fact, Tab 3.  FMEC designated William Porter 
to be its Tech Rep on the blower replacement contract. Appeal File, Exhibit 45 at 1. 
The contract stated that an arrival conference would normally be held within forty-
eight hours of the scheduled start date. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 5. It is not clear from the 
record who was responsible for scheduling the arrival conference or who was required to 
attend the arrival conference. A meeting was held on June 22, 2009, between representatives 
of both appellant and respondent. The Tech Rep was not at the meeting and did not arrive at 
the ship until after the meeting had ended. 

                                                                                                                         
        
               
                   
               
                
               
             
              
              
                   
              
              
 
               
                   
              
               
      
               
                 
                
                    
 
             
            
                
            
 
               
               
              
           
             
             
     
               
                 
3 CBCA 1820, 2194 
The replacement blower was inspected by the Coast Guard and the Tech Rep when it 
arrived on site; the timing gears checked out and the blower spun freely. Appeal File, 
Exhibits 14, 45 at 1. On June 24, 2009, the Tech Rep removed the drive gear from the old 
blower and installed it on the replacement blower. Id. It appears that on this same day, the 
plywood covering on the top of the blower had been removed by the Tech Rep and not 
reinstalled before the blower was moved. Appeal File, Exhibits 21-22. Around 3:00 p.m. on 
June 24, 2009, while Goodison was moving the replacement blower between the ship’s main 
engines, the forward beam clamp slipped. This caused the blower to drop approximately six 
inches to the deck, pinning a Goodison employee between the blower and the ship’s safety 
rail. Complaint ¶ 16; Answer ¶ 8. The employee’s injuries are not a part of the disputes in 
these appeals. The Tech Rep had already left the ship by the time Goodison started moving 
the replacement blower into the engine room, and he was not present when the accident 
occurred. 
On June 25, 2009, the day following the incident, the Tech Rep tried to rotate the 
blower shaft and found that it would not rotate. Appeal File, Exhibit 45 at 2. The blower was 
sent to the manufacturer, FMEC, to determine the cause of the blower’s failure. Goodison 
had asked for permission to witness the inspection and was not provided a response to its 
request. Appeal File, Exhibit 17.  FMEC determined that debris had gotten into the blower, 
including a “small rivet or machine screw” that had locked up the blower. Appeal File, 
Exhibit 20. The debris that FMEC found in the blower, including the screw or rivet, was not 
provided to Goodson to examine. There are pictures in the appeal file showing the debris and 
rivet found in the blower. Id. The blower was repaired and sent back to the ship on July 7, 
2009. 
On July 10, 2009, the appellant returned to the ship and installed the blower, with the 
Tech Rep supervising the installation. FMEC billed the Government $16,181.70 for Tech 
Rep services provided from July 9 through 16, 2009, and $27,722.39 for repair of the blower. 
The Coast Guard contends that appellant is responsible for these costs, which total 
$43,904.09 . 
Discussion 
Summary relief is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the 
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  The moving party bears the burden 
of establishing the absence of genuine issues of material fact. All reasonable inferences must 
be drawn in favor of the party opposing summary relief. North Wind , Inc. v. Department of 
Agriculture , CBCA 1779, 10-1 BCA ¶ 34,419, at 169,905 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 
488 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242 (1986)). 
While the facts surrounding the dropping of the blower itself are not in dispute, there 
are facts in dispute regarding how and when the debris, including the small rivet, entered into 
the blower shaft, as well as who was responsible for covering the top of the blower prior to 

                                                                                                                         
                 
                
             
     
                
            
                
              
                 
               
               
               
       
                  
                 
             
        
                
                  
             
             
                
                
      
                  
             
                
         
                
             
             
                  
        
_____________________________ 
  
 
4 CBCA 1820, 2194 
installation. The debris in the blower, and not the dropping of the blower, appears to be the 
cause of the blower’s failure. The Coast Guard contends that appellant was the party that was 
responsible for the proper installation of the blower and performed the installation in a 
negligent manner. The Coast Guard, thus, argues that appellant is the party that is liable for 
the damage to the blower and the costs expended by respondent to repair the blower and to 
compensate the Tech Rep for the additional installation services. Appellant counters, stating 
that its contract with the Coast Guard required it to install the blower under the Tech Rep’s 
supervision. Appellant cites evidence in the record showing that the Tech Rep was directing 
its work and had removed the plywood cover on top of the blower and failed to reinstall the 
cover before the blower was moved. Appellant contends that the failure to reinstall the cover 
allowed debris to get into the blower shaft, causing the blower to fail. Appellant has also 
questioned the reasonableness of the costs paid to FMEC for the added Tech Rep services and 
repair of the blower.  The initial contract between the Coast Guard and FMEC for Tech Rep 
services was in the amount of $11,292.94, and the amount paid for the Tech Rep to return to 
the site for the later installation was $16,181.70. The cost for FMEC to repair the blower was 
$27,722.39 , and the estimated cost to purchase the reconditioned blower that was repaired was 
$21,475. Respondent did not address these cost issues. 
The burden is on the moving party to show that there are no material facts in dispute 
and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Respondent has not made the required 
showing. There is a genuine factual dispute regarding the contractual obligations of appellant 
and the Tech Rep under their respective contracts with the Government. The exact 
supervisory duties required of the Tech Rep are not clearly defined in the present record. The 
record shows that the Tech Rep installed the drive gear on the new blower after it arrived on 
site.  It is also not clear who was responsible for maintaining the cover on the blower during 
installation, and how and when the rivet found in the blower at the time of the later inspection 
entered the blower shaft. Regarding respondent’s claim costs, there is a genuine factual 
dispute regarding the costs for the repair of the blower and the additional Tech Rep services. 
Respondent did not explain why the Tech Rep’s services for the later installation were more 
costly than the cost estimated for the Tech Rep services under the initial contract, and why the 
cost to repair the blower was more than the cost to purchase the blower. 
Decision 
In conclusion, respondent has not established that there are no material facts in dispute 
and that it is entitled to relief as a matter of law. Respondent’s motion for summary relief or, 
in the alternative, for partial summary relief, is DENIED . 
BERYL S. GILMORE 
Board Judge 

                                                                                                                         
 
______________________________ ________________________________ 
    
  
5 CBCA 1820, 2194 
We concur: 
JAMES L. STERN PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN 
Board Judge Board Judge