1 Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _____________ March 5, 1998 _____________ GSBCA 13751-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 two foreign military sale shipments for allegedly required circuitous routing calculated using its Compu Map system (a proprietary truck routing system). However, the shipments were controlled by tariffs 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 foreign military sales shipments of class C explosives under two Government bills of lading (GBLs), D- 0,703,393 (GBL D) and C-5,814,109 (GBL C). These shipments occurred on November 9 and 14, 1989, respectively. The Government did not specify a particular route for either shipment. For GBL D, Tri-State initially invoiced and was paid $2,204.20. The initial invoice identifies tariff 4006F 18100 and a total miles of 1164. The billing is calculated utilizing a flat charge of $400 and 1164 miles at a rate of $1.55 per mile. Thereafter, Tri-State submitted a claim for a balance of $158.10. It states the basis of the claim: "To charge for circuitous mileage required by law." Tri-State utilizes the same rate, but applies it to 1266 miles, a figure it supports through its Compu Map system, which generated a "most practical route" with a stated route bias of 70% time, 30% miles, and 15% total roads. Tri-State maintains that the Compu Map system provides a computer generated route which is the shortest legal and available for transporting various hazardous or other materials. For GBL C, Tri-State initially invoiced and was paid $1,965.16. The initial invoice identifies tariff 4006F 25000 and a total miles of 1346. The billing is calculated utilizing 1346 miles and a rate of $1.46 per mile. Thereafter, Tri-State submitted a claim for a balance of $211.70. It states the basis of the claim: "To charge for circuitous mileage required by hazardous materials regulations. Note: the absence of a requirement 'that the carrier prepare a written route plan' does not in anyway absolve the carrier of obeying regulations that require circuitous routing of hazardous materials according to the [Department of Transportation]." Tri-State utilizes the same rate, but applies it to 1491 miles, a figure it supports through its Compu Map system, which generated a "most practical route" with a stated route bias of 70% time, 30% miles, and 15% total roads. Tri-State cites a provision of what it claims to be the applicable tariff, which specifies that mileage shall be "determined by use of the governing mileage guide." The governing mileage guide is identified as a guide published by the Household Goods Carriers Bureau, not Tri-State's Compu Map system. The Office of Transportation Audits (OTA) responds that the claim for additional mileage is a violation of the terms and conditions of the agreed-to contract of carriage. OTA maintains that the shipments were originally billed under the correct mileages in accordance with the relevant guide. Further, OTA contends that it was clearly understood in the original billings which mileages applied, and that it would be inappropriate to now deviate from the agreements. Tri-State relies upon its Compu Map system for determining the mileages of the routes traveled. However, Tri-State has not demonstrated that its system was a governing guide for use. Thus, even if the Compu Map system was reliable and useful, such is not relevant to the calculation of reimbursement under the tariffs. Tri-State has not shown that the mileages used in the initial invoices deviated from the agreements of the parties. That is, the record does not demonstrate that the either shipment traveled by circuitous route, or that use of the Household Goods guide to determine billable mileage for the necessary routes would result in figures different from those actually paid. Tri-State has not demonstrated entitlement to additional payment. ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge