Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ___________________________ March 5, 1998 ___________________________ GSBCA 13750-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. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. In 1992, Tri-State Motor Transit Co. (Tri-State) transported a shipment from New York to Wisconsin for the Department of Defense (DoD), and Tri-State billed for shipping one dromedary container. DoD paid Tri-State s charges. In 1995, Tri-State claimed that DoD owed an additional amount because, according to Tri-State, it transported not one, but two dromedary containers. The Office of Transportation Audits (OTA) denied the claim because OTA did not believe that the available evidence established that Tri-State transported two dromedary containers. Tri-State has the burden of establishing its right to recover and the liability of the agency. Rule 301(b). Because Tri-State has not carried this burden, we deny the claim. Both Tri-State and OTA rely exclusively upon four documents in support of their positions. The first document is a work order prepared by Tri-State when Ireco, Inc. (Ireco), a DoD contractor, called Tri-State and asked it to pick up the shipment in New York. The second document is a shipping order copy of a commercial bill of lading prepared by Ireco. The third document is a signature and tally record prepared by Tri-State s employees. Finally, there is Government Bill of Lading (GBL) D- 2,416,980. Tri-State submitted a copy of the work order to the General Accounting Office (GAO) in February 1996.[foot #] 1 The work order, which is dated June 30, 1992, shows that Ireco ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 On July 17, 1996, this matter was transferred to us from GAO pursuant to section 211 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-53, 109 Stat. 535 (1995); a determination by the Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget dated June 28, 1996; and a delegation of authority from the Acting GSA Administrator dated July 17, 1996. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- wanted Tri-State to pick up a shipment on July 1, 1992, in New York and to deliver it to the Navy in Maryland on July 7, 1992. The work order says that Ireco requested a DM410.[foot #] 2 Handwritten directly under the request for a DM410 is the notation & reg, which Tri-State reads as a request for a second dromedary container. In a space for special instructions, the work order states, GBL will note a 410 container and a reg drom will be requested on the GBL. The work order also says that the shipment weighed 4,601 pounds and that Tri-State was supposed to bill Ireco. Tri-State submitted a copy of the work order to us in September 1996. Like the copy of the work order that Tri-State sent to GAO, the copy that Tri-State sent to us states that the shipment weighed 4,601 pounds, that Tri-State was supposed to bill Ireco, that Ireco requested a DM410, and that Tri-State was supposed to pick up the shipment in New York on July 1, 1992, and deliver it on July 7, 1992. The two copies of the work order provided by Tri-State are not identical, however. The copy that Tri-State sent to us is dated July 1, 1992, and it shows that Ireco wanted Tri-State to deliver the shipment to Accudyne Corp. (Accudyne) in Wisconsin. Unlike the copy of the work order sent to GAO, the copy that Tri-State sent to us does not contain any handwritten notation suggesting that Ireco requested a second dromedary container. In the space for special instructions, the version of the work order that Tri-State sent to us states, "GBL will note a 410 container and a reg drom will be requested on the update consignee//52." The shipping order copy of the commercial bill of lading prepared by Ireco shows that Tri-State was supposed to transport a 4,601 pound shipment consisting of five pallets to Accudyne in Wisconsin. The shipping order copy shows a shipping date of June 30, 1992. The "Routing" block contains this notation: GBL # D-2,416,980 (410 container and drom) 4 skids 1 skid According to the third document, the signature and tally record, a carrier named Boyle Transportation picked up the shipment from Ireco on June 30, 1992. The shipment consisted of five wood pallets, weighed 4,601 pounds, and arrived at Accudyne on July 8, 1992. The shipment s size was 173.4 cubic feet. The fourth document, GBL D-2,416,980, was prepared June 15, 1992. The GBL says that Tri-State was to pick up a shipment from Ireco and transport it to Accudyne. Tri-State was supposed to send its bill to the Army Finance and Accounting Center. The GBL describes the shipment as weighing 4,601 pounds, consisting of four full pallets and one partially-full pallet. The GBL says that a 410 dromedary container was ordered and was furnished on July 1, 1992. The GBL shows that Tri-State picked up the shipment on July 1, 1992. Reading the four documents together, we see that on either June 30 or July 1, 1992, Ireco asked Tri-State to pick up a shipment in New York and to deliver it to either Accudyne in Wisconsin or the Navy in Maryland on July 7, 1992, and to bill either Ireco or the Army. We also see that either Boyle Transportation or Tri-State picked up the shipment and delivered ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 A 410 dromedary container is a box that can hold up to 410 cubic feet. Other dromedary containers hold smaller amounts. Military Freight Traffic Rules Publication 1A, Items 325, 327. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- it to Wisconsin on July 8, 1992. The shipment weighed 4,601 pounds and consisted of five pallets. According to the work orders, Ireco requested a 410 dromedary container. The earlier version of the work order contained a handwritten note suggesting that Ireco requested a second dromedary container; the later version of the work order did not contain this note. No matter which of these facts are accurate, they do not establish that Tri-State actually provided two dromedary containers. Looking at other statements contained in the documents, we see that the routing block on the shipping order copy of the commercial bill of lading mentions the GBL and a "410 container and drom." The earlier version of the work order said that the GBL would "note a 410 container" and would request a regular dromedary container. The later version of the work order said that the GBL would "note a 410 container" and that some other document would request a regular dromedary container. Even if these statements on the routing block and the work orders amount to predictions that the GBL would request both a 410 and a regular dromedary container, the fact remains that the GBL requested only a 410 container. In addition, the GBL states that Tri-State furnished a 410 container, which was large enough to hold this shipment. These facts do not establish that Tri-State actually provided two dromedary containers. Because the evidence does not establish that Tri-State transported two dromedary containers, Tri-State has not established its right to recover for a second container. We agree with OTA s decision to deny Tri-State s claim. ______________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge