Opinion ID: 4700322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authorized and Directed

Text: Taylor argues that there were material factual disputes about whether the Government authorized and directed Couvillion’s work. Taylor points to the documents memorializing Couvillion’s agreement with the Government and Couvillion’s representative’s deposition testimony, contending that the evidence demonstrates the Government’s lack of control over Couvillion. For actions to be authorized and directed by the Government, the contractor’s actions should comply with federal directives. See CampbellEwald Co., 577 U.S. at 167 n.7. The Government’s directives to Couvillion are contained in three sets of documents—the Basic Ordering Agreement, Authorizations to Proceed, and the Statement of Work. Taylor argues that the documents lack specificity 6 Case: 20-30552 Document: 00515920762 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 No. 20-30552 and thus indicate that the Government neither authorized nor directed Couvillion’s actions. The Statement of Work refutes Taylor’s argument. The Statement of Work describes the MC20 Incident, the MC20 Site, and the conditions surrounding the site like water depth and currents, condition of the seafloor, and the location of the fallen jackets. The Statement of Work says “[t]he purpose of this effort is [to] eliminate the surface sheen at Mississippi Canyon Block 20 (MC20).” The Statement of Work details the expectations of Couvillion and its subcontractors. It lists nine tasks and eleven deliverables (to be completed at various checkpoints during the life of the agreement). Tasks included, inter alia, mobilizing to create an MC20 Containment Project Management Plan, developing and implementing a Rapid Response Solution containment design, and working with the Source Control Support Coordinator and Branch Director to begin a review of relevant site data. The corresponding deliverables required Couvillion and the subcontractors to deliver the MC20 Containment Project Management Plan, to present the Rapid Response Solution containment design, and to complete an assessment report of possible sub-surface control response options. All deliverables were due within a set number of days from mobilization. Given the specific expectations and due dates outlined in the Statement of Work, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that there was no material factual dispute about the Government’s authorization of and direction over Couvillion’s work. Taylor also argues that Couvillion’s representative’s deposition raised a genuine factual dispute. The representative testified that Couvillion (rather than the Coast Guard) designed various components of Couvillion’s containment system. 7 Case: 20-30552 Document: 00515920762 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 No. 20-30552 Taylor misunderstands the Yearsley analysis. Yearsley did not focus on whether the Government designed the river dikes that led to the plaintiffs’ injuries, but whether the contractor’s work was “done pursuant to a contract with the United States Government, and under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers of the United States . . . .” 309 U.S. at 19. The appropriate inquiry is whether Couvillion adhered to the Government’s instructions as described in the contract documents. See In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326, 345 (4th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he contractor must adhere to the government’s instructions to enjoy derivative sovereign immunity; staying within the thematic umbrella of the work that the government authorized is not enough to render the contractor’s activities the act[s] of the government.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). There are no genuine factual disputes about Couvillion’s adherence to the Government’s directives. The Government directed Couvillion to come up with an MC20 site assessment procedure for the Rapid Response Solution containment project. The Government authorized Couvillion’s plan, the design of the response system, and the installation of the system. The representative’s testimony supports this conclusion as well. He further testified that as designs and components changed throughout the life of the project, a Coast Guard officer and other Government officials (referred to as the “acceptance team”) approved various components of Couvillion’s design. The Coast Guard routinely met with Couvillion, and Couvillion went to the Coast Guard for approval before taking the next steps in the project. To the extent that Taylor argues that the Government could not have authorized and directed Couvillion because Couvillion failed to fully remove the oil sheen, we also disagree. The Statement of Work says that the “purpose of this effort is [to] eliminate the surface sheen at Mississippi Canyon Block 20 (MC20).” Couvillion’s actions eliminated at least some of 8 Case: 20-30552 Document: 00515920762 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/30/2021 No. 20-30552 the sheen, and this evidence does not create a genuine fact dispute as to whether the Government authorized and directed Couvillion’s work.