1 Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _____________ June 26, 1998 _____________ GSBCA 13765-RATE In the Matter of CF MOTOR FREIGHT Harold Strong, Manager, Government Pricing, CF Motor Freight, Portland, OR, appearing for Claimant. Jeffrey J. Thurston, Director, Office of Transportation Audits, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, appearing for General Services Administration. Donna S. Gillespie, Attorney, Corporate Law, United States Postal Service, Washington, DC, appearing for United States Postal Service. VERGILIO, Board Judge. The claimant, a freight forwarder, interprets its tender as requiring payment of charges for wharfage, taxes, and zone delivery, which the Government has denied. The claimant has not demonstrated that it timely requested review of many of the determinations. It appears that one claim is properly before the Board. The applicable tender specifies that rates found therein cannot be used in connection with any other rates. The tender specifies charges for only two types of accessorial services (storage and redelivery). The record does not demonstrate that charges for the three services, albeit identified in the claimant's tariff, should apply to the transportation at issue. Under Government bills of lading (GBLs), the claimant, CF Motor Freight, was a carrier of freight for the United States Postal Service (USPS). The claimant maintains that it is entitled to reimbursement under its tender, CFWY 20025, based upon charges identified in its tariff, CFWY 205. The Government disallowed reimbursement. By letter dated May 23, 1996, the claimant requested that the General Accounting Office (which resolved rate claims prior to this Board) make a determination regarding the proper interpretation and application of claimant's tender 20025. The letter referenced no specific GBL. However, attached to the letter was particular information regarding eight GBLs, including public vouchers for transportation charges, invoices, requests for payment, statements of differences, and/or settlement certificates. The claimant transported freight under those GBLs in 1992, 1993, and 1994. In response to the claim, the USPS states that the claimant untimely sought review of the matter regarding many of the transactions. Under statute, 31 U.S.C. 3726(g)(1) (1994), the request for review must be received, not including time of war, within six months from the date settlement action was taken (that is, the General Services Administration issued a settlement certificate), or within the period specified in 31 U.S.C. 3726(a) (three years after the later of four events: accrual of the claim; payment for the transportation; refund for an overpayment for the transportation; or a deduction under the statute), whichever is later. The claimant has not suggested, and the record does not indicate, that a refund or deduction occurred for any of the GBLs. For five of the GBLs (C-9,942,347, C-9,942,356, C-9,942,368, G-0,549,425, G-0,561,782), the letter of May 23, was sent more than six months after the issuance of the settlement certificate, and more than three years after the transportation occurred and after payment. For two of the GBLs (C-9,942,374, G-0,561,781) it appears that the letter of May 23, was sent more than three years after the transportation occurred and after payment; the claimant has not demonstrated that it submitted the letter within six months of the issuance of a settlement certificate or that it timely sought a settlement certificate. Even if one views the letter of May 23 as a valid claim, the claimant has not demonstrated that it timely sought review regarding these seven GBLs. The request for review regarding these seven GBLs is forever time barred. Tri-State Motor Transit Co., GSBCA 14161- RATE (May 28, 1998). Regarding GBL C-7,273,134 (GBL 134), the claimant is timely in its challenge of the Government's actions. At issue under GBL 134 are charges for wharfage, taxes, and zone delivery. In disallowing the charges, the Government maintained that the tariff rates for these items do not apply because the tender specified: "Rates in this tender cannot be used in connection with any other rates." Submissions indicate that tariff or tender CFWY 10119, not 20025, was at issue. The claimant has not placed that tariff or tender in the record. To the extent that it differs from tender 20025, the claimant has not met its burden of proof to demonstrate entitlement to recovery. Tender 20025 specified proportional ocean rates applicable to particular origins and destinations. The tender also provided for accessorial services, rates, and charges (to apply in addition to the proportional ocean rates) only with regard to storage and redelivery, not wharfage, taxes, or zone delivery. Thus, even assuming that GBL 134 involved provisions identical to those of tender 20025, the claimant has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to additional reimbursement. That is, the claimant has not demonstrated either that the specified ocean rates exclude charges for wharfage, taxes, or zone delivery, or that the tariff rates are proper charges to be applied in addition to the ocean rates contained in the tender. The record does not support the claimant's interpretation of its transportation agreement. The Government properly disallowed the claim. ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge