Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 __________________ May 19, 1998 __________________ GSBCA 14106-RATE In the Matter of C.I. WHITTEN TRANSFER CO. Robert D. Norcom, Auditor, C.I. Whitten Transfer 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. BORWICK, Board Judge. Claimant, C.I. Whitten Transfer Co., seeks review of the General Services Administration Office of Transportation Audits (OTA) denial of claims on three Government Bills of Lading (GBLs). Claimant maintains that it should be paid at a rate applicable to Department of Defense (DOD) unique commodity code 14255 items because the items were actually missile guidance and control apparatus or rocket frame assemblies, instead of electric instruments or transmitting and receiving sets as set forth in the GBLs. OTA denied the claims because claimant did not prove that the items were DOD unique commodity code 14255 items. We sustain OTA's determination. By GBL E-1,205,928, dated April 15, 1993, the Defense Distribution Depot, Anniston, Alabama, shipped to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, items noted on the GBL as electrical appliances and instruments. The tariff/special rate authority was TSMT 000763, which contained a rate applicable to shipment of freight all kinds. By GBL E-1,206,430, dated May 24, 1993, the Defense Distribution Depot shipped to Fort Bliss, Arkansas, items de- scribed as transmitting and receiving sets, electrical appliances and instruments, under tariff/special rate authority TSMT 9800. By GBL H-0,083,417, the General Dynamics Corporation shipped to another office of General Dynamics items noted on the GBL as electrical instruments , under tariff/special rate authority TSMT 000763. Subsequently, claimant filed claims for balances due carrier of $124.75 on GBL E-1,205,928; of $159.75 on GBL E-1,206,430 and of $160.75 on GBL H-0,083,417. Claimant maintained that either missile guidance control systems or missile or rocket frame assemblies containing electronic apparatus were shipped by those GBLs and that claimant was entitled to be paid at the applicable rates for items classified under DOD unique commodity code 14255. OTA denied the claims because claimant had not established that DOD unique commodity code 14255 items were shipped. Claim- ant filed a request for review by this Board of OTA's denial. Claimant had filed requests pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act for the receiving reports, DD Form 1348-1, for the applicable GBLs. The agency had disposed of the receiving reports after three years in accordance with the Modern Army Record Keeping System (MARKS) as implemented in Army Regulation 25-400-2 (Feb. 1993). The Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), however, has provided a requisition and invoice shipping document for GBL H-0,083,417 that shows that the item shipped by that GBL was an autopilot battery section being returned to the manufacturer for warranty repair. The claimant has the burden of establishing the liability of the agency and the claimant's right to payment. Board Rule 301(b) (48 CFR 6103.1(b) (1997)). Normally, the bill of lading description of the shipped article is prima facie evidence of the identity of the article and entitled to great weight. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. United States, 454 F.2d 740,744 (Ct. Cl. 1972);Tri-State Motor Transit Co., GSBCA 13877-RATE, 98- 1 BCA 29,406. Claimant has not established that it carried other than the described items. As regards GBL H-0,083,417, the record shows an autopilot battery section as the shipped item. In the absence of an applicable DOD unique commodity code, that item was properly classified as freight all kinds and shipped at the rate contained in TSMT 000763. In its most recent filing, claimant maintains that as to that item, "the shipper, Hughes Missile Systems Company, specializes in manufacturing the very articles described by DOD [unique commodity code] 14255." Putting aside the fact that General Dynamics, not Hughes, is listed in the GBL as the shipper, claimant's argument amounts to outright speculation that the item shipped in that GBL was a type of missile guidance and control system. Claimant has not met its burden and established that the items shipped by the other GBLs werecovered by DOD unique commodity code 14255, either.[foot #] 1 ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Unlike Tri-State Motor Transit Co., GSBCA 13877- ___________________________ RATE, 98-1 BCA 29,406, claimant has not here established by other GBLs from the same shipper that claimant actually (continued...) ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- The decision of the OTA is sustained. __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 (...continued) transported missile guidance control systems which were deliberately disguised as electronic apparatus.