Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ February 23, 1998 ____________________ GSBCA 14307-RATE In the Matter of VALLEY MOVING AND STORAGE CO. Michael Hagerman, Valley Moving and Storage Co., Merced, CA, 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. NEILL, Board Judge. This case concerns an unpaid invoice submitted by claimant, Valley Moving and Storage Co. (Valley), for the transportation and temporary storage of household goods belonging to an officer serving in the United States military. The Office of Transportation Audits (OTA) of the General Services Administration (GSA) denied Valley's claim for payment on March 1, 1996. The claim was denied on the ground that it was untimely filed. We have been asked to review this ruling. While we disagree with OTA on the timeliness of the claim itself, we will not direct that office to reopen the case since the time afforded by statute for seeking review of OTA's determination has long since run. Background The household goods in question, after being loaded in Altus, Oklahoma, were placed in storage. Some of the items placed in storage were released shortly afterwards on January 19, 1989 for delivery to their owner. The balance of the household goods remained in storage for over a year and were not taken out of storage for delivery until February 2, 1990. The record indicates that charges for the transport and storage of the goods taken out of storage in January 1989, were paid. It is not clear from the record, however, whether the linehaul charge was billed and paid separately from the charge for storage and delivery. The GSA contends its microfiche records show two payments, one on February 3, 1989, for the linehaul charges and one on May 25, 1989, for partial storage and delivery. Valley, instead, speaks of only one invoice for $785.11, dated April 28, 1989, and paid by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) on May 25, 1989. On March 19, 1990, Valley billed DFAS an additional $3060.61 for storage and transport of the balance of the household goods. 2 On March 27, 1990, DFAS returned this final bill to Valley together with a standard form entitled "Request for Information." Language on the form explained that the supplemental bill was being returned for resubmission with a standard payment voucher (SF 1113) and a Government bill of lading (GBL). On April 12, 1990, Valley resubmitted its bill with the requested documentation. On April 27, 1990, the bill was returned a second time with a different "Request for Information." This time the "Request" indicated that Valley should resubmit its bill with a certificate (waiver) from the linehaul carrier authorizing Valley to bill the charges shown on the bill. Valley insists that it had already addressed this concern of DFAS when in responded to the first "Request for Information" on April 12. At that time, Valley claims to have explained to DFAS that the original linehaul voucher had been included with the first billings on April 28, 1989. The matter remained dormant until March of the following year, 1991. Valley has provided us with a copy of a letter from the company's owner to DFAS, dated March 29, 1991. The letter forwarded a copy of Valley's voucher for the delivery on February 2, 1990, and noted that payment still had not been made. Valley asked DFAS to advise on the status of the request for payment. Valley has also provided us with a copy of a second letter it sent to DFAS. This letter is dated April 26, 1991. It again asked DFAS for information on the pending request for payment. The letter also purported to provide a copy of the vouchers for the initial and the final delivery and a copy of the Government's check in the amount of $785.11 for the initial delivery made on January 19, 1989. A third voucher was also said to be enclosed showing the entire charge of $3845.72 with a deduction of the $785.11 previously paid for the first partial delivery. This letter of April 26, 1991, also addressed anew the issue of the certificate (waiver) from the linehaul carrier authorizing Valley to bill the charges shown on the bill. Valley explained in the letter that this authorization was already in the possession of DFAS since it had been sent with all other papers accompanying the initial billing. The record contains yet a third "Request for Information." This one is dated December 6, 1991. It stated that Valley's supplemental bill was returned, this time owing to the lack of authorization to support storage in transit charges. Valley was directed to submit a standard form DD-619-1 showing accessorial services performed. Valley remained steadfast in the conviction that all documentation necessary to process payment was in the possession of DFAS. The matter, however, appears to have languished after 1991. In 1995, when Valley was in the process of converting its pending files from ledger cards to a computerized accounting system, the unpaid voucher again surfaced. A Valley representative called DFAS on May 15, 1995, to determine the status of the voucher. Following up on the telephone conversation, Valley, by letter dated May 17, 1995, provided a copy of the DD-619-1 for the shipment in question. DFAS's Director for Transportation Payments states that with this letter of May 17, 1995, Valley submitted a billing packet with all supporting documents. He states, however, that because this submission was in excess of three years from the initial occurrence, it was considered a "doubtful claim." In accordance with applicable regulations directing agencies not to pay such 3 claims but rather to forward them to GSA for audit, 41 CFR 101-41.604-2(b) (1995), DFAS, on July 14, 1995, sent Valley's claim to GSA. Valley does not deny that it submitted a billing packet containing all supporting documents with its letter of May 17, 1995. It denies, however, that this was the first time it submitted such a packet. Rather, Valley's owner explains that the material was provided in response to a request from the DFAS employee with whom he had spoken a few days before. At that time, the DFAS employee asked for any documentation which could be used to construct a new file since documentation regarding the claim was no longer available at DFAS. On March 1, 1996, OTA issued a settlement certificate denying Valley's claim for $3060.61. The certificate denied the claim on the ground that "your claim was not received within the prescribed statutory period of limitations." Dissatisfied with the conclusion reached by OTA, the owner of Valley sought the assistance of his Congressional representative. On June 2, 1997, his Congressman referred the matter to the Associate Administrator of GSA. By letter dated July 29, 1997, GSA advised the Congressman that the matter was being referred to this Board for a decision regarding the Government's authority to pay the charges in question. This matter was docketed by the Board and the parties were invited to submit comments on the claim. A representative of the Military Traffic Management Command has advised the Board that his command takes no position regarding the timeliness of Valley's claim. He does confirm, however, that Valley did provide the required transportation and storage services pursuant to the applicable Government bill of lading. Discussion Section 3726 of title 31, United States Code, imposes a time limitation on the filing of carrier claims with GSA. Subsection (a) provides: (a) A carrier or freight forwarder presenting a bill for transporting an individual or property for the United States Government may be paid before the Administrator of General Services conducts an audit, in accordance with regulations that the Administrator shall prescribe. A claim under this section shall be allowed only if it is received by the Administrator no later than 3 years (excluding time of war) after the later of the following dates: (1) accrual of the claim; (2) payment for the transportation is made; (3) refund for an overpayment for the transportation is made; or (4) a deduction under subsection (b) of this section is made. The regulations issued by the Administrator of General Services which implement this statute provide that a claim is considered "received" by the Administrator if received by GSA or 4 its "designee," namely, "the agency out of whose activities the claim arose." 41 CFR 101-41.602(b) (1989). In commenting on this matter, OTA continues to contend that the claim is untimely filed because it was not received within the specified three year period. OTA argues that the statute of limitations has run as a result of the more than three years of inactivity on Valley's part during the period beginning sometime in 1991 and concluding in May 1995. We disagree. The record shows that the requirement for submission of a claim within the three year period was met. Valley's claim for a sum certain was submitted to DFAS, GSA's designee in this case, at least four times within the three year period after accrual of the claim. An alternative argument raised by OTA is that, because the various submissions from Valley lacked the documentation required under 41 CFR 101-41.603, there is a question of whether such a claim is even valid. The regulations referred to by GSA establish the specific documentary requirements which must be met by a carrier before the Government will process and pay a carrier's claim. We find nothing in the statute itself which supports the proposition that for a claim to be considered "received" within the three-year period, it must meet each of these various administrative requirements. Rather, it is well-settled that a notice which fairly advises the responsible official of the nature a claim but is susceptible to rejection because it does not comply with the formal requirements of a regulation can nevertheless be treated as a claim even where the formal defects are remedied after the lapse of the period established by statute for filing. See United States v. Kales, 314 U.S. 186, 194 (1941) (and cases cited therein). Unfortunately for Valley, however, there is another provision within the same statute which precludes relief regarding its claim. Until recently, subsection (g) of 31 U.S.C. 3726 provided: (g) A carrier or freight forwarder may request the Comptroller General to review the action of the Administrator if the request is received not later than 6 months (excluding time of war) after the Administrator acts or within the time stated in subsection (a) of this section, whichever is later. In 1996, this subsection was amended to provide that any such review of the Administrator's action would henceforth be made by the Administrator himself rather than the Comptroller General. 31 U.S.C.A. 3726(g)(1) (West Supp. 1997). That review authority has been delegated to this Board. The audit function of the OTA is a function delegated to OTA by the Administrator of General Services. The certificate of settlement denying Valley's claim was issued by the OTA on March 1, 1996. In this case, the six-month period provided for under subsection (g) of the statute after OTA's determination on behalf of the Administrator is undoubtedly later than the three year period described in subsection (a). Valley, therefore, had six months from March 1, 1996 to seek review of OTA's denial of its claim. There is nothing in the record for this case, however, indicating that Valley sought review of OTA's denial either with the Comptroller General or with the GSA Administrator. Rather, Valley's owner, after an undetermined period of time, chose 5 instead to seek the assistance of his Congressman. In early June 1997, the Congressman wrote GSA's Associate Administrator seeking assistance to resolve the long-standing problem of Valley's unpaid invoice. Even if this overture were to be construed as an implicit request on behalf of Valley for review of the OTA denial, it clearly came more than six months after the denial was issued. We have previously indicated that we will not consider a carrier claim unless it meets the three-year time limitation for the filing of claims ( 3726(a)) and also the time limitation on requests for administrative review of GSA actions regarding those claims ( 3726(g)). C. I. Whitten Transfer Co., GSBCA 13911- RATE, 97-1 BCA 28,860. While claimant in this case has satisfied the former, it has not met the latter requirement. In failing to lodge a timely request for review of OTA's initial denial, Valley has forfeited its right to relief on its claim under existing law. The OTA determination must now be considered final. We will not direct OTA to resume audit of Valley's claim. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge