GSI Pacific, Inc.

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

GSI Pacific, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 63520

)

Under Contract No. W9128A-17-C-0004 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Marisa M. Bavand, Esq.

Emily A. Yoshiwara, Esq.

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Seattle, WA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Jonathan A. Swanson, Esq.

Jacob N. Haddad, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys

U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O’CONNELL ON THE

PARTIES’ CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The parties have cross moved for summary judgment in this dispute concerning

the scope of work required by a contract to remove and dispose of munitions and

explosives left on a site on the Big Island of Hawaii. The Board grants the motions in

part and denies them in part.

STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTIONS

The following facts are undisputed or uncontroverted, except as noted.

1. This appeal involves a site referred to as the Area M Munitions Response

Site, which consists of 5,074 acres on the northwest side of the island of Hawaii.

Area M is located south of the former Lalamilo Firing Range and contained military

munitions. (R4, tab C-001 at 009 (hereinafter “C-1 at 9”), tab C-2 at 6)

2. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) previously awarded

contracts for the removal of munitions in Area M starting in the northern portion and

moving south. These contracts cleared just over half the site, or 2,635.7 acres. During

those removals the contractors removed a variety of munitions from the ground surface

and subsurface. (R4, tab C-1 at 13-14, tab C-2 at 6)

3. USACE conducted a Feasibility Study to evaluate remedial alternatives for

the remaining portion of Area M and issued a report in September 2015. The

Feasibility Study resulted in the identification of four remediation alternatives.

(USACE resp. to app. statement of undisputed material facts (ASUMF) ¶¶ 9, 12; app.

supp. R4, tab 6).

4. On March 16, 2017, after a public comment period, USACE issued a

Decision Document which described the four alternatives from the Feasibility Study,

including Alternative 3, which was entitled “Surface and Subsurface Munitions

Removal (Uninvestigated Areas-Unobstructed) and Land Use Controls (Entire MRS

[Munitions Response Site])” (R4, tab C-1 at 32-33, 35-36). The Decision Document

stated that USACE had selected Alternative 3 (id. at 38).

5. USACE had contemplated awarding a contract to clear all remaining areas in

Area M. However, due to funding limitations, USACE proceeded with the

remediation of 850 acres. The contract described the location of the 850 acres as a

“sliver along the western boundary of Area M,” and an area extending from the

southern border of the previously cleared area. (R4, tab C-2 at 7, 26)

6. USACE awarded the above-captioned contract to appellant, GSI Pacific, Inc.

(GSI) for $4,596,660.98, on July 17, 2017 (R4, tab C-2 at 1). The contract stated that

the objective was to remove and dispose of munitions and explosives of concern in the

850 acre-site to reduce the risk to human health and the environment (id. at 5).

7. On September 28, 2019, the parties entered a bilateral modification with no

change in price to reduce the acres cleared to “650 acres by analog method and

approximately 50 acres by Digital Geophysical Methods” (R4, tab C-5 at 1, 4).

Analog remediation means that the contractor uses a metal detector (compl. ¶ 19; R4,

tab D-9 at 2). 1

Facts Related to Whether the Contract Required Removal in Both the Surface

and Subsurface Areas

8. Section 4.5, Task 5, of the contract (Perform MEC [munitions and

explosives of concern] Remedial Action at Area M-Project 7 (850 acres)), described

the work as follows:

1

Although not necessary to decide the pending motions, we note that the government

represented to the Board at a February 28, 2025, status conference that Digital

Geophysical Methods refers to what is essentially a more sophisticated metal

detector (Bd. memo. of conf. call dtd. February 28, 2025).

2

The Contractor shall supply all personnel, tools,

equipment, communications, transportation, materials, and

supervision to integrate, manage, and safely execute the

destruction and/or disposal of MEC and MD [munitions

debris] at portions of Area M as specified in section 3.1.3

of this PWS. Subsurface removal shall be to a depth of

detection of the instrument . . . .

(R4, tab C-2 at 13)

9. Section 3, Background and History, stated at section 3.1.3 that USACE had

conducted a “Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)” and that the “RI/FS

effort resulted in a Decision Document” (id. at 6-7).

10. Section 3.1.3.1 described the approved alternative 3 in the Decision

Document as: “Surface and subsurface munitions removal at 2,438.3 acres . . .”

(id. at 7).

11. Section 4.5.4, MEC Accountability, provided “[t]he Contractor shall

maintain a detailed accounting of all MEC and MEC components encountered . . . to

include . . . location and depth of MEC. . .” (id. at 14).

12. GSI contends that the contract required subsurface removal in less than

10 acres of the site. The contract does not state this, but GSI relies upon the Decision

Document and the Feasibility Study for its contention (e.g., ASUMF ¶¶ 34-35

(disputed by USACE)).

13. The contract references both the Feasibility Study and the Decision

Document but treats them somewhat differently. With respect to the former, the

contract merely states in the “Background and History” section, that USACE

conducted a “Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study” that “resulted in a Decision

Document” (R4, tab C-2 at 6-7).

14. With respect to the Decision Document, the Section 1 of the contract

affirmatively states that the “work is to be performed in accordance with” the Decision

Document (id. at 5).

3

The Decision Document

15. GSI calls our attention to a statement in the Decision Document that

describes the selected Alternative 3:

Under Alternative 3, a remedial action to cleanup surface

and subsurface munitions would be performed in

Uninvestigated Areas that are not obstructed by pavement

or structures (2,436.3 acres). In areas where the rugged

‘a‘a lava is present with minimal cover soil, this alternative

would primarily be a surface removal. However, various

cracks and crevices are present in the ‘a‘a lava’s areas. It

is possible for MEC to be present in deeper cracks and

crevices, which may be beyond the depth of detection of

the instrument.

(R4, tab C-1 at 32) (emphasis added)

16. The Decision Document also contains information about the geology of

Area M as follows:

The northern areas of Area M are comprised of the

Hāpuna-Waikui-Lālāmilo complex, a very cobbly medial

silt loam formed in volcanic ash with 20-in to 40-in thick

deposits typically overlaying fragmented ‘a‘a lava. The

soil types in the southern portions of Area M where the

relatively recent ‘a‘a lava flows are present are classified

as lava flow or extremely cobbly sand. Slopes range from

2 to 20%. The southern areas of Area M are classified as

very stony lands, consisting of very scattered patches (less

than 1%) of shallow soil material and a high proportion of

a`a lava outcrops which result in a very rugged terrain. In

most areas, there is no soil cover and the outcrops are bare

of vegetation, except for mosses, lichens, ferns, and a few

small ohia trees.

(Id. at 25) (emphasis added)

4

17. USACE draws our attention to the Decision Document’s repeated

characterization of the work as surface and subsurface remediation. Some examples

include:

 “The selected remedy for the Area M MRS is Surface

and Subsurface Munitions Removal (Uninvestigated

Areas - Unobstructed) and Land Use Controls for the

entire MRS acreage” (R4, tab C-1 at 10) (emphasis

added).

 “The selected remedy for the Area M MRS is the

removal of surface and subsurface munitions in the

areas of the [site] that have not been previously had

[sic] a response action and are not obstructed . . . for the

entire MRS ” (id. at 14) (emphasis added).

 “The selected remedy includes a cleanup of detected

surface and subsurface munitions in the uninvestigated

areas which are not covered by pavement or structures

(2,436.3 acres) . . . across the entire Area M MRS . . .”

(id. at 39).

The Feasibility Study

18. GSI also relies upon statements in the Feasibility Study. Thus, it draws our

attention to a statement in the Feasibility Study that describes the selected

Alternative 3:

This alternative will include a surface and subsurface

removal of MEC from within the entire 2,455.1 acres

identified as Uninvestigated Areas . . . . The area was

revisited by [remedial investigation] field teams and

deemed accessible, but the very minimal amount of soil

present required surface clearance only. There are a few

scattered patches of subsurface soil present. Since these

areas comprise such a small portion of the site, they are

grouped with the surface MEC removal alternative. The

acreage is estimated to be 1% of the entire acreage for cost

estimation.

(App. supp. R4, tab 6 at 83) (emphasis added)

5

19. GSI relies upon a table in the Feasibility Study summarizing the four remedial

alternatives. In summarizing the selected alternative 3, the table states:

Alternative Description of Alternative

* ** ***

3 –Surface MEC Removal . . . Full Surface MEC Removal of all

(Subsurface MEC removal in areas with Uninvestigated Areas with no physical

soil present. Estimated to be 0.1%) obstruction and are accessible.

(App. supp. R4, tab 6 at 86)

20. GSI also cites Appendix B to the Feasibility Study entitled “Cost

Estimates” (app. supp. R4, tab 7). A spreadsheet containing a cost estimate for

alternative 3 states “[a] surface clearance of all uncleared areas not covered by

pavement or structures. Assume Surface (99% at 3 acres/day) and minor Subsurface

(estimated 1% maximum at 0.75 acres/day)” (id. at 78) (emphasis in original).

Facts Related to Seeding Requirements

21. The parties agree that the contract provided for the monitoring of the

effectiveness of GSI’s removal operation by the placement of seeds, which are small

metal objects that resemble munitions found in the area. The seeds placed by GSI

were referred to as quality control seeds and those placed by USACE as quality

assurance seeds. (App. resp. to respondent’s statement of undisputed material facts

(RSUMF) ¶¶ 55-56)

22. The contract provided that USACE would perform quality assurance

checks of all phases of GSI’s work. It required GSI to perform another sweep of areas

that failed the quality assurance check, providing: “[i]f any ferrous object is found that

is similar in size and mass to the MEC [munitions and explosives of concern] expected

in that area, within the depth of detection, that grid will be failed, and shall be

completely re-swept by the Contractor at no cost to the Government.” (R4, tab C-

2 at 14)

23. The contract required GSI to prepare a quality assurance project plan

(id. at 9).

24. In December 2017, GSI submitted a draft of its quality assurance project

plan (Haddad decl., ex. O).

6

25. USACE provided the following comment on GSI’s quality assurance

project plan:

You state you will bury detection seeds to a maximum of

90% depth of detection. According to EM-200-1-15

“Detection and recovery must be demonstrated

consistently for the hard to detect items; therefore, seed

items (e.g., ISOs) that are representative of the largest

expected MEC and the smallest expected MEC shall be

placed between 95% and 100% of their respective

maximum consistent detection depth.” Adjust the depth

you will place your seed items.

(Id. at 2)

26. In response, GSI wrote “Concur . . . paragraph has been revised to read

‘Seeds will be placed at 95% to 100% of their respective maximum consistent

detection depth . . .’” (id.). 2

Facts Related to Right-of-Entry on Private Property

27. The contract provided:

7.4 RIGHTS-OF ENTRY (ROE)

The Government will be responsible for obtaining signed

ROE from private landowners in Area M. However, the

Contractor shall comply with all applicable terms and

conditions negotiated by the Government with third-party

landowners and/or property interest holders (e.g., a lessee

or easement holder) to gain access to the FUDS Project site

to conduct field work, including but not limited to naming

the landowner and/or property interest holder as additional

insureds on the Contractor's liability insurance policy or

policies.

(R4, tab C-2 at 19)

2

GSI states “Disputed” in response to USACE’s findings of fact concerning this

document (app. resp. to RSUMF ¶¶ 63-64). However, we do not understand

GSI to be disputing what the document states but rather the interpretation. GSI

does not dispute that the final version of its quality assurance project plan

provided for removal of seeds at 95% to 100% of their respective maximum

consistent detection depth (app. resp. to RSUMF ¶ 72).

7

28. It is undisputed that USACE obtained all necessary rights-of-entry required

by the contract (app. resp. to RSUMF ¶ 74).

The REA and Certified Claim

29. GSI submitted a request for equitable adjustment (REA) dated December 29,

2020, seeking an additional $4,511,682.37 (R4, tab D-9). Neither party has referred us

to a decision on this REA.

30. On February 9, 2022, GSI submitted a certified claim seeking a slightly

higher amount, $4,530,424.76 (R4, tab D-10). GSI contended that USACE directed it

to perform a surface and subsurface sweep of the entire site even though the contract,

in GSI’s view, required a surface and subsurface sweep only on the “9.88 acre

sand/soil portion of the site” (id. at 5). It is not clear where this 9.88-acre number

comes from. Counsel for GSI informed the Board during a February 28, 2025,

conference call that this was GSI’s estimate/calculation of the sand/soil portion of the

site (Bd. memo. of conf. call dtd. February 28, 2025). USACE states that no

documents it provided to GSI contained such a number, and it accuses GSI of having

“fabricated” the number (gov’t resp. to ASUMF ¶ 35).

31. For purposes of the motion, the Board will state that it is unclear and

disputed as to how much of the 850 acres was sand/soil and how much was ‘a‘a lava.

The description of the geology in the Decision Document as containing loam in the

“northern areas” and ‘a‘a lava in the “southern areas” (SOF ¶ 16) is less than precise.

Viewing the project site on a map, one could describe the bulk of the project site as

being located in the northern part of the southern half of Area M, but it also included

some land in the northwest corner (R4, tab C-2 at 26). USACE contends that the lava

is denser in the more than 1,000 acres of Area M that lie south of the project site (gov’t

resp. to ASUMF ¶ 15).

32. GSI also alleged in the claim that it had performed extra work because it

had been forced to search for 37-mm projectiles over the entire site (R4, tab D-10

at 9); that USACE had enforced unattainable quality standards for placement of QA

seeds (id. at 7); and that it had to place QC seeds below the ground surface throughout

the entire site (id. at 7-8).

33. Finally, GSI also alleged in the claim that it had to coordinate access issues

with private landowners and that those landowners repeatedly blocked GSI from

entering the site either by locking the access gates or placing physical barriers across

the entry point or, during the digital geophysical mapping portion of the work, the

landowners had not adequately cleared the site of equipment and other materials

(id. at 8-9).

8

34. The contracting officer (CO) denied the claim by a written decision dated

December 5, 2022 (R4, tab B-1).

35. GSI filed a timely appeal on January 25, 2023.

The Pending Cross-Motions

36. The dispute concerning subsurface remediation is clear at a basic level:

GSI contends that the contract required subsurface removal at less than 10 acres of the

site, and USACE contends that it was required in all 850 acres. It is less clear how that

played out during the project. After reading the cross-motions, the Board was left

wondering what subsurface remediation entails in areas that the contract refers to as

‘a‘a lava but, in reality, is a type of rock. For example, was the contractor expected to

locate munitions that were buried under lava flows (which are now solid rock)? GSI’s

proposed facts state only that USACE “demanded that GSIP perform subsurface

remediation” (ASUMF ¶ 45) and that this “greatly impacted GSIP” (ASUMF ¶ 46).

37. In its opposition to USACE’s cross-motion, GSI went into slightly more

detail, identifying the problem as the seeding requirements. It contended that

“subsurface seeding (which was performed) required placing seeds in deep crevices,

and under lava/rocks – in essence burying the seeds in the lava rock” and that it “did

not anticipate having to perform subsurface seeding.” GSI further stated: “[g]iven the

rocky terrain and deep crevices, subsurface seeds were considerably more time

consuming to find, and when a seed was missed GSIP had to re-sweep the entire lot.”

(App. resp. at 15)

38. The Board conducted two conference calls with the parties attempting to

identify the extra work that GSI alleges it was required to do. After the second

conference call, the Board thought that it had identified two allegations that generally

seem to be consistent with the GSI’s contention at page 15 of its opposition brief. As

stated in the Board’s memorandum of the second conference call:

The Board asked the parties to clarify the nature of the

dispute concerning the placement of seeds. Counsel for

both parties agreed that the dispute concerns the placement

of seeds in cracks and crevices of the a’a’ lava, and the

placement of seeds under piles of rocks.

(Bd. memo. of conf. call dtd. February 28, 2025)

9

39. The government filed a response, indicating its general agreement with this

statement but asking the Board to add that the government contended that placement

of the seeds in cracks and crevices was not beyond the scope of the contract

(gov’t status rpt. dtd. March 5, 2025).

40. GSI filed a response that proposed the deletion of the Board’s summary of

the two discrete types of extra work and asked that it be replaced with the following:

GSIP contends that the issue of how seeds were to be

placed is dependent on whether the contract requires

surface vs. subsurface seeding. Seed placement should

differ depending on whether the contract scope required

surface or subsurface removal. If the contract required a

primarily surface removal, then the seeds should have only

been required to be placed on the surface of the a’a’ lava

terrain. If the contract required subsurface removal in the

a’a’ lava terrain, then the seeds could have been buried or

placed in cracks or crevices. GSIP believes a question of

fact then exists as to what specifically that means for the

placement of seeds and what was actually performed.

There has been limited evidence submitted as to what

seeding methods actually employed on the Project. GSIP

maintains that this is a question of fact for the parties to

present evidence of in the future.

(App. status rpt. dtd. March 6, 2025)

DECISION

I. Summary Judgment Standards

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)). When

considering a motion for summary judgment, the Board’s function is not to weigh the

evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a

genuine issue for trial. Id. at 249. Conclusory statements and mere denials are not

sufficient to ward off summary judgment. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States,

812 F.2d 1387, 1390-91 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The fact that both parties have moved for

summary judgment does not mean that the Board must grant judgment as a matter of

law for one side or the other. Rather, the Board must evaluate each party’s motion on

10

its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against

the party whose motion is under consideration. Id. at 1391.

II. The Pending Cross-Motions

The government has filed a motion for summary judgment on all aspects of

GSI’s claim. GSI has filed a motion for partial summary judgment on what it

describes as a “specific issue: what work was required under” the contract (app. mot.

at 1). GSI states in its reply brief that “the fundamental question before the Board is

what constitutes the Contract . . .” (app. reply at 2). Specifically, GSI contends that

both the Decision Document and the Feasibility Study are incorporated in the contract

while USACE contends that neither are incorporated. The Board agrees that this is the

appropriate place to start our analysis.

A. The Contract Incorporated the Decision Document

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that “the language used in

a contract to incorporate extrinsic material by reference must explicitly, or at least

precisely, identify the written material being incorporated and must clearly

communicate that the purpose of the reference is to incorporate the referenced material

into the contract . . . .” Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 535 F.3d

1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The court contrasted incorporated materials with those

that are “merely … relevant to the contract” such as “background law or negotiating

history.” Id. The “requirement that contract language be explicit or otherwise clear

and precise does not amount to a rule that contracting parties must use a rote phrase or

a formalistic template to effect an incorporation by reference.” Id. Thus, no “magic

words” are required to incorporate a document. Id. at 1346.

The Federal Circuit’s decision in CSI Aviation, Inc. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

31 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2022), is instructive. In that case, a contractor submitted an

offer to the agency. The parties later executed a contract that listed documents that

were “incorporated and made a part of the contract,” including the solicitation and the

offer. The list of incorporated documents did not include the contractor’s terms and

conditions. Id. at 1352. A dispute later arose as to whether those terms and conditions

had been incorporated in the contract. The Court held that they were. The Court

relied upon the offer’s table of contents, which listed documents that were submitted

as part of the offer, including the contractor’s terms and conditions. Id. at 1352, 1355.

The offer’s table of contents also listed the contractor’s Pricing Policy, which stated

the contractor’s “Terms and Conditions . . . will apply to all operations and are

included for reference.” Id. The Court held that the offer “use[d] sufficiently clear

and express language to establish the identity of the document being referenced and to

incorporate the CSI Terms and Conditions into the Schedule Contract by reference.”

Id. at 1355.

11

In this appeal, there is no dispute that the contract refers to the March 16, 2017,

Decision Document. The only question is whether the contract clearly communicated

an intent to incorporate the Decision Document. We conclude that it did. We hold

that the language in the contract providing that the “work is to be performed in

accordance with” the Decision Document (SOF ¶ 14) is comparable to the language in

CSI Aviation providing that the terms and conditions at issue “will apply to all

operations . . . .” CSI Aviation, 31 F.4th at 1355. Indeed, we can think of no other

meaning of the phrase that the “work is to be performed in accordance with” the

Decision Document other than that the contractor was bound to follow it as if it were

an express provision of the contract. The government offers no plausible alternative

interpretation.

B. The Feasibility Study is not Incorporated in the Contract

We come to the opposite conclusion with respect to the Feasibility Study

because there is no language in the contract that clearly conveys an intent to

incorporate that document. The only substantive references to the Feasibility Study

are in a section of the contract titled “Background and History” and those references

convey nothing more than that USACE conducted the Feasibility Study and that the

process resulted in a Decision Document issued about 1.5 years after the Feasibility

Study (SOF ¶ 13). There is no language in the contract concerning the Feasibility

Study that is comparable to the requirement that the “work is to be performed in

accordance with” the Decision Document.

GSI relies upon the language in contract section 4.5 that required GSI: “to

integrate, manage, and safely execute the destruction and/or disposal of MEC and MD

at portions of Area M as specified in section 3.1.3 of this [contract]” (SOF ¶ 8)

(emphasis added). GSI essentially contends that the phrase “as specified in

section 3.1.3,” combined with the fact that the Feasibility Study is mentioned in

section 3.1.3 is enough to incorporate that document in the contract. The Board

disagrees. We believe that the most logical interpretation of the phrase “at portions of

Area M as specified in section 3.1.3” simply means that the work is to be performed in

the portions of Area M discussed in section 3.1.3, that is, in the parts of Area M that

that had not been remediated. Moreover, this does not change our central point that

section 3.1.3 mentions the Feasibility Study only by way of background. By contrast,

section 1 of the contract contains language clearly conveying an intent to incorporate

the Decision Document, but section 1 does not mention the Feasibility Study.

Accordingly, we hold that the Feasibility Study is a document that may be

relevant to the contract by way of background, but it is not part of the contract.

Northrop Grumman, 535 F.3d at 1345; CSI Aviation, 31 F.4th at 1355 (quoting

Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (A “mere

12

reference to another [document] is not an incorporation of anything therein.”) (citation

omitted)). 3

C. The Consequences of Incorporating the Decision Document but not the

Feasibility Study

Contract interpretation begins with the language of the written agreement. NVT

Techs., Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1153, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Foley Co. v.

United States, 11 F.3d 1032, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). When interpreting the contract,

the document must be considered as a whole and interpreted to harmonize and give

reasonable meaning to all of its parts. Id. (citing McAbee Constr., Inc. v. United

States, 97 F.3d 1431, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). An interpretation that gives meaning

to all parts of the contract is to be preferred over one that leaves a portion of the

contract useless, inexplicable, void, or superfluous. Id. (citing Gould, Inc. v. United

States, 935 F.2d 1271, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

Because the Feasibility Study is not part of the contract, we will only consider

whether we can harmonize and give reasonable meaning to the contract and the

Decision Document. As we have already described, the contract contained no

indication that anything less than 850 acres of surface and subsurface remediation was

required (and later 650 acres by analog method and approximately 50 acres by Digital

Geophysical Methods) (SOF ¶¶ 7, 12). Similarly, the Decision Document contains

repeated references to surface and subsurface remediation across the entire site (SOF

¶ 17). The question then is whether there is any language in either document that leads

to a different conclusion.

There is no dispute that the contract required GSI to perform subsurface

removal in areas of sand/soil. As discussed above, the Decision Document generally

describes the northern areas of Area M as containing loam and the southern areas as

containing ‘a‘a lava (SOF ¶ 16). However, the terms “northern areas” and “southern

areas” are imprecise and at this time we cannot verify GSI’s assertion that there were

only 9.88 acres of sand/soil (SOF ¶¶ 16, 31). To the extent that the cross-motions

address the issue of whether there were exactly 9.88 acres of sand/soil, there are

disputed facts, and that aspect of the motions is denied.

3

Whether a document has been incorporated in a contract is a question of law.

Northrop Grumman, 535 F.3d at 1343. We acknowledge that GSI has

submitted excerpts of deposition testimony from government witnesses opining

which documents have been incorporated in the contract (e.g., app. reply

at 7-13). Because our review is de novo and we are deciding a legal issue, we

find this testimony to be unhelpful.

13

This brings us to one of the key issues in dispute. In areas where there was ‘a‘a

lava, did the contract require GSI to do something more than surface removal? The

language in the Decision Document that GSI relies on states:

Under Alternative 3, a remedial action to cleanup surface

and subsurface munitions would be performed in

Uninvestigated Areas that are not obstructed by pavement

or structures (2,436.3 acres). In areas where the rugged

‘a‘a lava is present with minimal cover soil, this alternative

would primarily be a surface removal. However, various

cracks and crevices are present in the ‘a‘a lava’s areas. It

is possible for MEC to be present in deeper cracks and

crevices, which may be beyond the depth of detection of

the instrument.

(SOF ¶ 15)

The meaning of this language is clear. The first sentence speaks of surface and

subsurface removal on the site. The second sentence states that in areas where the ‘a‘a

lava is present the remediation “would primarily be a surface removal.” The key word

in this sentence is “primarily” because it conveys that, while the work would be

mainly or chiefly surface removal, there would be some subsurface removal. 4 The

third and fourth sentences identify the nature of the subsurface removal. By speaking

of munitions and explosives entering the cracks and crevices of the ‘a‘a lava and

referring to the depth of detection of the metal detector, this conveys a clear need for

the contractor to remove those munitions and explosives that are within the depth of

detection of the metal detector. Harmonizing this with the rest of the contract, the

Board interprets the contract to mean that the entire 850-acre site requires subsurface

removal to the extent that there are cracks and crevices in the ‘a‘a lava. But the

contract does not require the contractor to locate and remove munitions that are buried

in solid rock, nor are we aware of any allegation that USACE required this.

Neither party offers any persuasive arguments for an alternate interpretation of

this paragraph. GSI focuses exclusively on the second sentence stating that the

removal in the ‘a‘a lava areas would be “primarily” a surface removal. But it offers no

explanation as to why the sentences that follow speak of the munitions and explosives

entering the cracks and crevices of the ‘a‘a lava if the intent was not for the contractor

to remove those items. Instead, GSI conflates the “primarily” sentence with other

contract language indicating that there are only small pockets of soil (e.g., SOF ¶ 16),

4

The Board notes that, while GSI relies heavily upon the Feasibility Study, that

document similarly provides that alternative 3 would be “Primarily a Surface

MEC removal in areas with no soil” (app. R4, tab 6 at 15).

14

comprising about 1% of the site. GSI combines these two ideas to contend that only

1% of the entire site required subsurface removal (e.g., app. resp. at 3 (“The Decision

Document and Feasibility Study are both clear—less than 1% of Area M would

require subsurface removal.”)). But these ideas are clearly distinct. The project site

might only be 1% soil, but this does not have any bearing on whether there are cracks

and crevices in the ‘a‘a lava that require remediation.

USACE contends that the Board should disregard the Decision Document

because it is merely extrinsic evidence (gov’t mot. at 15-16). We have held that the

Decision Document is incorporated in the contract, so we reject this assertion.

USACE then contends that the word “primarily” does not mean “only” or

“exclusively” (id. at 16). While we agree that it does not mean only or exclusively,

USACE never takes the next step to tell us what it does mean. Instead, USACE

merely repeats its assertion that the entire site required “a full surface and subsurface

removal” in the entire site (id.).

D. The Seeding Requirements

USACE has moved for summary judgment with respect to GSI’s contentions

concerning seed frequency and seed placement (gov’t mot. at 18-21; SOF ¶ 32).

However, it is unclear at this point what GSI was actually required to do in the field

(SOF ¶¶ 36-40). Accordingly, the Board will defer ruling on this issue until the record

is adequately developed.

E. Withdrawn Issues

As described above, GSI’s claim sought additional compensation for having to

remove munitions as small as 37 mm (SOF ¶ 32). USACE moved for summary

judgment on this issue, but GSI did not respond in its opposition brief. During the

conference call on February 28, 2025, GSI confirmed that it was withdrawing that

claim (Bd. memo. of conf. call dtd. February 28, 2025). Accordingly, the appeal with

respect to removal of 37 mm munitions is dismissed with prejudice.

GSI’s complaint included a count for quantum meruit relief. The government

moved for summary judgment on this issue. In its response brief, GSI stated that it

was withdrawing its claim for quantum meruit (app. resp. at 13 n.1). Accordingly,

Count III of the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

15

F. Delays By Third-Party Landowners

The Federal Circuit has held that it is “settled that absent fault or negligence or

an unqualified warranty on the part of its representatives, the Government is not liable

for damages resulting from the action of third parties.” Oman-Fischbach International

(JV) v. Pirie, 276 F.3d 1380, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Dale Constr. Co. v.

United States, 168 Ct. Cl. 692, 698 (1964)). Such liability exists only where “the

parties in unmistakable terms agreed to shift the risk of increased costs [to the

government].” Id.

In its claim, GSI alleged that the neighboring landowners repeatedly blocked

GSI from entering the site, either by locking the access gates or placing physical

barriers across the entry point or, during the digital geophysical mapping portion of the

work, that the landowners had not adequately cleared the site of equipment and other

materials (SOF ¶ 33). In its response brief, GSI additionally asserts that because of

these actions it had to work around these access issues by traveling “significant

distances” and had to “traverse across difficult terrain to approach its work area from a

different—inconvenient—approach” (app. resp. at 16). However, these are

comparable complaints to those that the Federal Circuit rejected in Oman-Fischbach,

in which the contractor complained that the Portuguese Armed Forces locked a gate

providing access to a waste disposal site, which forced the contractor to take a longer

route around the base, resulting in increased costs. Oman-Fischbach, 276 F.3d

at 1382.

In its brief, GSI acknowledges that USACE fulfilled its contractual duty to

obtain signed right-of-entry forms from the landowners but it contends that they were

“effectively meaningless” because the landowners did not provide access. GSI also

alleges that the USACE project manager attempted to help coordinate the access

issues. (App. resp. at 16) However, even if both of these allegations are true, GSI has

not identified any term in the contract that unmistakably shifts the risk of a third-party

delay to the government. Accordingly, the government is entitled to summary

judgment on this issue.

16

CONCLUSION

GSI’s partial motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the

incorporation of the Decision Document in the contract. Otherwise, it is denied.

The government’s motion is granted to the extent of our determination that the

contract required subsurface removal in the cracks and crevices of the ‘a‘a lava. The

government’s motion is granted with respect to delays caused by third-party

landowners. The Board defers ruling on issues related to frequency and placement of

seeds. GSI has withdrawn its claims for the removal of munitions as small as 37 mm

and its quantum meruit theory. Those aspects of the claim are dismissed with

prejudice.

Dated: May 6, 2025

MICHAEL N. O’CONNELL

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur I concur

OWEN C. WILSON DAVID B. STINSON

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman Armed Services Board

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

of Contract Appeals

17

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 63520, Appeal of GSI

Pacific, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 7, 2025

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals

18