MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED: March 2, 2015
CBCA 2621
JOSEPH GRASSER t/a GRASSER LOGGING,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Respondent.
Joseph L. Luciana III of Dingess, Foster, Luciana, Davidson & Chleboski, LLP,
Pittsburgh, PA, counsel for Appellant. 
Vince Vukelich, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Agriculture,
Milwaukee, WI, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges GOODMAN, STEEL, and KULLBERG.
STEEL, Board Judge.
Joseph Grasser t/a Grasser Logging (Grasser) entered into a timber sale contract with
the United States Forest Service (FS).  Grasser claims that it is entitled to a rate
redetermination under the contract or monetary damages under common law in an amount
of either  $1,021,815 or $1,651,357, because of the defective condition of some of the timber
– black cherry trees – which was to be cut.  A FS contracting officer denied the claim, and
Grasser appealed his decision.  Grasser now moves for summary relief on a key issue in the
appeal.  We deny the motion.


CBCA 2621 2
Background
In August 2008, the FS advertised for bids to cut timber in a portion of the Allegheny
National Forest in Pennsylvania.  The advertisement contained a list of estimated quantities
and rates for each of six species of timber available for harvesting.  The total quantity
available was estimated to be 3003 hundred cubic feet (CCF).  The species with the greatest
estimated quantity was black cherry, with 1357 CCF.  The black cherry was advertised as
sawtimber, with a rate of $654.31 per CCF.  At this rate, the estimated value of the black
cherry timber was $887,898.67.  The estimated value of all the timber was $931,743.58.
The FS’s invitation for bids included a clause entitled “Disclaimer of Estimates and
Bidder’s Warranty of Inspection.”  This clause states:
Before submitting this bid, the Bidder is advised and cautioned to
inspect the sale area, review the requirements of the sample sale contract, and
take other steps as may be reasonably necessary to ascertain the location,
estimated volumes, construction estimates, and operating costs of the offered
timber or forest product.  Failure to do so will not relieve the Bidder from
responsibility for completing the contract. 
The Bidder warrants that this bid/offer is submitted solely on the basis
of its examination and inspection of the quality and quantity of the timber or
forest product offered for sale and is based solely on its opinion of the value
thereof and its costs of recovery, without any reliance on Forest Service
estimates of timber or forest product quality, quantity or costs of recovery. 
Bidder further acknowledges that the Forest Service: (i) expressly disclaims
any warranty of fitness of timber or forest product for any purpose; (ii) offers
this timber or forest product as is without any warranty of quality
(merchantability) or quantity and (iii) expressly disclaims any warranty as to
the quantity or quality of timber or forest product sold except as may be
expressly warranted in the sample contract.  
The Bidder further holds the Forest Service harmless for any error,
mistake, or negligence regarding estimates except as expressly warranted
against in the sample contract.
Grasser visually inspected the trees and submitted a bid in the amount of
$1,310,519.90.  This amount was predicated in part on a bid rate of $940.07 per CCF for
black cherry timber.  The parties entered into timber sale contract number 03-155879 on
December 3, 2008.

CBCA 2621 3
The contract contains several provisions which are cited by the parties in this case. 
Principal among them is BT2.133, “Damage by Catastrophe.”  This provision states in
pertinent part:
As provided under BT8.32 [“Modification for Catastrophe”],
undesignated live and dead timber within Sale Area, meeting Utilization
Standards, and affected by Catastrophic Damage.  “Catastrophic Damage” as
used hereunder is a major change or damage to Included Timber of Sale Area,
to Sale Area, to access to Sale Area, or a combination thereof:
(a) Caused by forces, or a combination of forces, beyond control of
Purchaser, occurring within a 12-month period, including, but not limited to,
wind, flood, earthquake, landslide, fire, forest pest epidemic, or other major
natural phenomenon and
(b) Affecting the value of any trees or products meeting Utilization
Standards, within Sale Area and estimated to total either:
(i) More than half of the estimated timber quantity stated in
AT2 [the volume estimates noted above] or
(ii) More than two hundred thousand cubic feet (2,000 CCF)
or equivalent.
The contract also contains provision BT8.12, “Liability for Loss,” which states in
pertinent part:
If Included Timber is destroyed or damaged by an unexpected event that
significantly changes the nature of Included Timber, such as fire, wind, flood,
insects, disease, or similar cause, the party holding title shall bear the timber
value loss resulting from such destruction or damage; except that such losses
caused by insect or disease after felling of timber shall be borne by Purchaser,
unless Purchaser is prevented from removing such timber for reasons that
would qualify for Contract Term Adjustment.
Additional contract provisions cited by the parties are BT8.32, “Modification for
Catastrophe,” and BT3.32, “Rate Redetermination after Catastrophic Damage.”  These
provisions state in pertinent part:

CBCA 2621 4
BT8.32:  In event of Catastrophic Damage, . . . Forest Service may propose
contract modification to permit the harvest of catastrophe-affected timber.  If
Purchaser accepts Forest Service proposed modifications, this contract shall
be modified to include rates redetermined under BT3.32 and other related
revisions as necessary.
BT3.32:  In event of Catastrophic Damage and adjustment, if any, of Included
Timber, Contracting Officer shall make an appraisal to determine for each
species the catastrophe-caused difference between the appraised unit value of
Included Timber remaining immediately prior to the catastrophe and the
appraised unit value of existing and potential Included Timber immediately
after the catastrophe.
The FS knew, as a result of its inquiries to Grasser in evaluating the firm’s
responsibility to perform under the contract, that Grasser believed it could maximize its profit
from the contract by selling black cherry as veneer and export logs.  Grasser began harvesting
timber under the contract in 2009.  Grasser maintains that all of the black cherry logs that it
harvested had “defoliation rings” and internal staining and discoloration.  The rings caused
kiln-dried lumber to separate.  Consequently, Grasser was unable to sell black cherry as
veneer and export logs, as it had planned to do.
Grasser maintains that because the FS had entered into at least three salvage sales in
the environs of this sale area, and because the agency knew from 1990s studies that insect
infestation in the general area had increased tree mortality, the agency must have known that
a forest pest epidemic in the sale area had caused catastrophic damage to the black cherry
trees.
Grasser says that it had projected that cutting black cherry trees in the sale area would
generate total revenue of $2,695,405, but that after harvesting approximately two-thirds of
these trees, it had obtained total revenue of only $921,026.28 from these trees.  Grasser
estimates that if it had felled the remaining black cherry trees, its total revenue from these
trees would have been $1,042,818 – $1,652,587 less than it had projected.
On April 27, 2011, Grasser submitted a claim to the contracting officer seeking a rate
adjustment under contract clause BT8.12 or contract clause BT3.32, a contract adjustment
for mutual mistake, or damages for misrepresentation, all based on the damage to the black
cherry trees.  Grasser valued its claim as $1,021,815 due to a reduction in the contract price,
or alternatively, $1,651,357 due to misrepresentation that the trees were free from defects
because the sale was not advertised as a salvage sale.  Grasser certified its claim on May 27,

CBCA 2621 5
2011.  The FS contracting officer denied the claim by decision dated September 20, 2011. 
Grasser appealed the decision to the Board on November 7, 2011.
Discussion
Grasser has filed what it styles a “motion for summary relief on the issue of
catas[t]rophic damage to black cherry trees.”  In this motion, the appellant “requests that the
Civilian Board of Contract Appeals . . . hold that defoliation rings in the black cherry trees
in the sale area constitute damage by catastrophe due to forest pest epidemic such that
Grasser Logging is entitled to a modification to the Timber Sale Contract in an amount to be
subsequently determined.”
Resolving a dispute on a motion for summary relief is appropriate when the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, based on undisputed material facts.  The
moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material
fact.  All justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmovant.  Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).  
As the FS points out, whether damage is catastrophic is dictated by whether it meets
the standard established by contract clause B2.133.  This clause requires that two elements,
(a) and (b), be fulfilled.  Grasser focuses on element (a), that the damage be caused by forces
beyond the control of the purchaser and occurring within a twelve-month period; the
appellant maintains that the damage was caused by insect infestation and that while the
infestation may have begun before the twelve-month period, it continued through that
period.  The FS contends that the cause of the damage is unknown and that in any event, it
appears to have occurred prior to the twelve-month period.  Regardless of whether Grasser
can meet element (a), it clearly cannot meet element (b).  That portion of BT2.133 requires
that to qualify as catastrophic, the damage must have affected “[m]ore than half of the
estimated timber quantity stated in [the FS’s volume estimates for the sale]” or more than
2000 CCF of timber.  The black cherry trees, as to which Grasser contends catastrophic
damage occurred, were estimated to constitute only 1357 CCF of the 3003 CCF of timber
in this sale – less than half of the estimated quantity and less than 2000 CCF.  Consequently,
the damage cannot be deemed catastrophic under the terms of the contract.  The fact that the
black cherry trees had an estimated value of more than half of the estimated value of the
timber in the sale is immaterial; BT2.133 is based on a measure of quantity, not value.
The fact that the FS knew, prior to awarding the contract, that Grasser planned to sell
black cherry timber as veneer and export logs, and knew, afterwards, that the appellant had
been unable to sell the timber for these purposes, does not make the damage catastrophic. 
Grasser bid for this contract after having read a FS “Disclaimer of Estimates and Bidder’s

CBCA 2621 6
Warranty of Inspection.”  This disclaimer required the bidder to warrant that its bid “is based
solely on its opinion of the value [of the timber] and its costs of recovery, without any
reliance on Forest Service estimates of timber or forest product quality, quantity or costs of
recovery.”  Grasser valued the black cherry trees as being worth nearly 44% more than the
FS’s estimate – $940.97 per CCF, rather than $654.31 per CCF.  That higher valuation was
based on Grasser’s opinion, not the FS’s.  Grasser acknowledges that even though it
harvested only two-thirds of the black cherry trees in the sale area, it obtained from them
more revenue than the FS had estimated – $921,026.28 rather than $887,898.67.  Although
we understand that Grasser did not achieve all the revenue it projected from this contract,
we have difficulty in appreciating why the FS should be forced to pay the appellant the
difference.
Decision
The appellant’s motion for summary relief on the issue of catastrophic damage to
black cherry trees is DENIED.
      _________________________________
      CANDIDA S. STEEL
      Board Judge
We concur:
_______________________________          __________________________________
ALLAN H. GOODMAN       H. CHUCK KULLBERG
Board Judge       Board Judge