1 Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________ February 26, 1998 _________________ GSBCA 13733-RATE In the Matter of TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO. Robert D. Norcom, Auditor, Tri-State Motor Transit Co., Joplin, MO, appearing for Claimant. Jeffrey J. Thurston, Director, Office of Transportation Audits, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, appearing for General Services Administration. Col. James F. Quinn, Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters, Military Traffic Management Command, Department of the Army, Falls Church, VA, appearing for Department of Defense. VERGILIO, Board Judge. The claimant seeks additional payment for three shipments. For two shipments, the underlying claims were untimely submitted. For the third, the claimant has provided no basis to increase the per hundred weight charge originally billed and paid. The claimant also seeks to utilize mileages based upon its own Compu-Map system. However, the shipments occurred under agreements which specified that governing mileage guides would be utilized to calculate applicable mileages. The Compu-Map system was not a governing mileage guide. The claimant has not demonstrated entitlement to additional payment. The claimant, Tri-State Motor Transit Co., seeks additional payment for three shipments. The particulars of two shipments, under Government bills of lading (GBLs) C-1,294,120 and C-0,759,216, are not material. The shipment of GBL C-1,227,685 occurred between February 18 and 20, 1988. Tri-State billed and was paid for the shipment in accordance with an initial invoice. The invoice specifies tariff 200, the total miles as 2284, and describes the article shipped as an explosive, class C. The charges were calculated based upon a rate ($.4605 per hundred weight) for a minimum weight, plus charges for dual driver protective services (a rate multiplied by the 2284 miles) and for motor surveillance services (a rate multiplied by the 2284 miles). Thereafter, Tri-State submitted a claim for $76.75, a balance it asserted was due. It calculates the amount due based upon a rate of $.48 per hundred weight, plus charges for the other two services at the same rates but utilizing 2424 miles. It cites as authority for its claim quotation TSMT 200, with the explanation: "To charge for shortest route necessary to comply with governmental regulations governing transportation routing of the hazardous material(s) contained in this shipment. See Item 450(c), MFTRP No. 1 and Compu-Map attached hereto." The Office of Transportation Audits (OTA) responds that the claim for additional mileage on class C explosives is a violation of the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage agreed to under the governing publications. OTA states that the Household Goods Mileage Guide was the governing publication for computing mileage, not Tri-State's Compu-Map system. In conclusion, OTA contends that the shipment was originally billed and paid under the correct mileages; it was understood in the original billing which mileages applied. The Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) asserts, alternatively, that the claim is time-barred and fails on its merits. MTMC maintains that the claim is time-barred because it was received outside of the period permitted by statute. Regarding the merits, MTMC contends, "When circuitous routing is used for carrier convenience, charges will be based on the shortest route mileage determined from the governing mileage guide, regardless of mileage traveled." The Comptroller General, who resolved rate claims prior to this Board, has already decided questions regarding the timeliness of Tri-State's presentation of its requests for supplemental payment. Requests relating to GBLs C-1,294,120 and GBL C-0,759,216 were deemed untimely and the request regarding GBL C-1,227,685 was deemed timely. Tri-State Motor Transit Co., B-253916 (Mar. 16, 1994). No basis has been put forward by any of the participants to revisit what became final, binding determinations. Accordingly, the Board addresses only the merits of the claim underlying the shipment under GBL C-1,227,685. Tri-State has not provided support to increase the per hundred weight rate for the shipment. That is, the record does not demonstrate any agency error in paying at the original rate of $.4605 and not at the subsequently billed rate of $.48. Regarding Tri-State's claim for charges based upon 2424 miles as opposed to the originally billed and paid 2284 miles, Tri-State relies upon its Compu-Map system for determining the mileage of the route traveled. However, the applicable rules referenced by Tri-State specify that route mileage is to be determined from the governing mileage guide. MFTRP 1A, Item 200. A mileage guide published by the Household Goods Carriers Bureau was the governing mileage guide, not Tri-State's Compu-Map system. MFTRP 1A, Item 5. Thus, even if the Compu-Map system was reliable and useful, such is not relevant to the calculation of reimbursement. Tri-State has not demonstrated entitlement to additional payment. ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge