Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                                                 
 
                             April 16, 1998
                                                 
 
 
                            GSBCA 14208-RATE
 
 
        In the Matter of KEYSTONE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.
 
 
        Carol    Muriella,    Collection     Department,    Keystone
   Transportation Services,  Inc., Philadelphia,  PA, appearing  for
   Claimant.
 
        Jeffrey  J.  Thurston,  Director,  Office of  Transportation
   Audits,   General   Services  Administration,   Washington,   DC,
   appearing for General Services Administration.
 
        Colonel  James F. Quinn, Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters,
   Military  Traffic  Management Command,  Department  of  the Army,
   Falls Church, VA, appearing for Department of Defense.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
        In February  1995, Keystone  Transportation Services,  Inc.,
   carried goods for the Department  of Defense (DoD) from  Bayonne,
   New Jersey to Holland, Michigan.  The DoD transportation  officer
   in  Holland refused  to  accept  the  shipment;  she  ordered  it
   returned  to  Bayonne.     Keystone  and  the   General  Services
   Administration's Office of  Transportation Audits (GSA)  disagree
   as  to the  appropriate charge  for  the return  carriage of  the
   goods.
 
        According  to Keystone,  the trip  back to  Bayonne is  best
   viewed as a "reconsignment" or  "diversion."  Under the  Military
   Traffic   Management   Command  (MTMC)   Freight   Traffic  Rules
   Publication  No.  1A  (MFTRP   No.  1A),  these  two  terms   are
   synonymous, and they mean, among other things, "[a] change in the
   route or other  instructions that require a change  in billing or
   an  additional movement  of the  shipment."   MFTRP No.  1A, Item
   180(1).  This publication provides, "When the performance of this
   service involves a change in the original destination point, this
   charge will  be in  addition to  the applicable  published tender
   line-haul rates to and from  the reconsignment point.  If carrier
   does not  have an applicable tender line-haul  rate, tender rates
   will  be negotiated  between the  carrier and  MTMC prior  to the
   submission  of carrier's voucher for payment of freight charges."
   Id., Item 180(3).
 
 
        Keystone transported the goods from Bayonne to Holland under
   the  terms of  its  tender  KEYT 000010,  which  applied only  to
   shipments originating in  Bayonne.  The charge was  $357.86.  For
   the return trip to Bayonne, Keystone calculated  the charge under
   the terms of  its tender KEYT 000013, which  applied to shipments
   originating  anywhere in the continental United States.  Keystone
   and MTMC  both say that the carrier and  DoD agreed, prior to the
   trip, that  this charge was  properly calculated as $1,845.   DoD
   paid Keystone this amount, and MTMC agrees with Keystone that the
   carrier is entitled to retain the money.
 
        GSA,  on  the other  hand,  believes  that the  return  from
   Holland to  Bayonne is best viewed as  a "redelivery."  MFTRP No.
   1A provides, in  the item with  this heading, "When  instructions
   are   furnished  carrier  ordering  return  of  the  shipment  to
   consignor at  original point of  origin, carrier will  assess the
   line-haul rate  applicable to  the original  inbound movement  or
   applicable  tender rate  for the  return  movement, whichever  is
   lower.   Carrier shall obtain a properly executed GBL [Government
   bill of  lading] from  the party  ordering the return  movement."
   MFTRP No. 1A, Item  185(6).  GSA maintains  that since the  line-
   haul rate applicable  to the original inbound  movement ($357.86,
   per KEYT 000010) is lower than the applicable tender rate for the
   return  movement  ($1,845,  per KEYT  000013),  the  inbound rate
   should  have been used for the return.  Thus, Keystone must remit
   to the Government  the difference  between the  amount which  was
   actually paid and the correct amount -- $1,487.14.
 
        In our view, GSA has the better of this argument.  The MFTRP
   No. 1A provision  under the heading "redelivery,"  which pertains
   to  "return of  the shipment  to consignor  at original  point of
   origin,"  describes  precisely the  situation  involved  with the
   shipment  in  question.   The  publication's  provision regarding
   "reconsignment"  or "diversion"  does not,  and  a dictionary  to
   which GSA directs us confirms  that a "diversion" involves a very
   different type  of  situation:    "Diversion is  the  process  of
   changing  the destination,  but  not  the  consignee,  while  the
   shipment is enroute.   Both diversion  and reconsignment must  be
   done while the shipment is enroute and not after the shipment has
   arrived at  its  original destination."   J.  L. Cavinato  (ed.),
   Transportation-Logistics Dictionary 71 (1982).
 
        Both of the tenders mentioned  in this case, KEYT 000010 and
   KEYT 000013, state expressly that  they are governed by MFTRP No.
   1A.  Thus, that publication's rules regarding redelivery apply to
   the  return of  the  goods  from  Holland to  Bayonne.    As  GSA
   contends,  since   Keystone  had   tender  line-haul  rates   for
   transportation  in  both  directions, the  lower  of  these rates
   should  be used  in calculating  DoD's  financial obligation  for
   return  carriage.    Under  the  terms  of  the  publication,  as
   incorporated into the tenders, DoD  and Keystone were not free to
   negotiate a  special rate for  this trip.  Consequently,  we hold
   that GSA acted correctly in demanding that Keystone refund to the
   Government  the difference between the $1,845 improperly paid and
   the KEYT 000010 rate of $357.86.
 
                                 _________________________
                                 STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                                 Board Judge