Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________ May 26, 2000 _________________ GSBCA 15071-RATE In the Matter of AVAILABLE SHIPPERS, INC. Arnold D. Woo, Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP, Los Angeles, CA, appearing for Claimant. James F. Fitzgerald, Director, Transportation Audits Division, Office of Transportation and Property Management, General Services Administration, 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. HYATT, Board Judge. Available Shippers, Inc. (Available) has requested the Board's review of the General Services Administration's (GSA's) disallowance of its claims for supplemental payments under Government Bills of Lading (GBLs) G-6,781,767; G-6,781,779; and G-6,781,799. Specifically, Available contends that it mistakenly undercharged the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) for transportation services provided under these GBLs. Available seeks supplemental payments in the amount of $55,900. Background In August 1998, the subject GBLs were issued by the Fleet Hospital Support Office in Alameda, California for the transportation of freight all kinds (FAK) from the Fleet Hospital Support Office in Stockton, California to the Fleet Hospital Support Office at Cheatham Annex in Williamsburg, Virginia. The Standard Point Location Code (SPLC)[foot #] 1 for the place of origin was designated as 875640290. Each GBL was issued to Available citing Available's Department of Defense (DOD) rate tender 000637. This rate tender was a territorial rate offering prices for transport between California and Virginia. Although tender 000637 had been canceled in May 1998, Available continued to offer territorial rates between California and Virginia in tender number 000680. Available transported the goods and submitted its bills in August and early September 1998. Available's bills charged MTMC under tender 000680 for 2888 miles at a rate of seventy-two cents per mile per trailer. Under GBL G-6,781,767, using this rate, the total bill, for the 27 trailers used, came to $55,350. For GBL G-6,781,779, the total bill was $26,650; for GBL G-6,781,799, the bill came to $51,250. The bills were paid in early to mid- October 1998. In late September, Available submitted supplemental bills, contending that the services were actually covered by a point-to- point tender. According to Available, the point-to-point tender that was applicable to this transaction was "Department of Defense Standard Tender of Freight Services" tender number APPR 000688, which Available contends applies to shipments from Rough & Ready Island, California to various destinations. Tender 000688 was submitted to DOD in June 1998. This tender specifies a flat rate of $2910 per vehicle. Using GBL G-6,781,767 as the example, that rate, applied to 27 trailers, generates a total amount due of $78,220. Available claims it is owed the difference of $23,220. Recalculating charges under the other two GBLs, using the point-to-point tariff, yields additional amounts ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The Continental Directory of Standard Point Location Codes (SPLC) is published by the National Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc. Motor carrier points are identified generally by a six-digit number. The first digit identifies a region; the first and second digits together identify a state; the third and fourth digits identify a county or county equivalent within the state; and the fifth and sixth digits identify a point within the area identified by the first four digits. For further refinement of carrier points, the SPLC contains three-digit sub-codes. Sub-codes 240-299 apply to military locations. Sub-codes 290-299 are reserved for Navy installations. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- due of $11,180 (GBL G-6,781,779) and $21,500 (GBL G-6,781,799), for a total claimed additional amount of $55,900. The three GBLs identify origin points as follows: G-6,781,767 Fleet Hospital Support Office BLDG 609/Rough & Ready Island Stockton, CA 95203 G-6,781,779 Fleet Hospital Support Office NAVCOMSTA Stockton, BLDG 609 Stockton, CA G-6,781,799 Fleet Hospital Support Office NAVCOMSTA BLDG 609 Stockton, CA Although there are slight variations in the addresses, these appear to be the same point of origin -- the Naval Communications Station's Fleet Hospital Support Office in Stockton, California. A Transportation Facilities Guide issued by the Navy identifies this facility as the Naval Communications Station, San Francisco, located in Stockton, California, San Joaquin County, Rough and Ready Island. The Guide further provides that this location should be designated as Stockton on GBLs for freight shipped by motor carrier. The SPLC for the Naval facility in Stockton, which is situated on Rough & Ready Island, is 875640290, which is the code used in the GBLs. Available's tender 000688, on its face, refers to SPLC 876430291, with the location stated to be "FltSptOffR&RIsld, CA." The SPLC specified in tender 000688, however, is for shipments originating in Oakland, California, not Stockton. MTMC states that it keyed the tender into its computer data base using the SPLC number provided by the carrier. Although there is an SPLC number applicable to the Naval facility on Rough & Ready Island, this number is listed as Stockton. There is no SPLC number that specifically references Rough & Ready Island within the city limits of Stockton.[foot #] 2 The firm that prepared Available's tender 000688 has provided a letter explaining that the SPLC number used was provided by Available under the belief that the number was for the Fleet Support Office in Stockton. Available contacted this firm after its claims for supplemental payments were rejected by MTMC and GSA. The tender preparer states that in response to the rejections of claims for supplemental payments she initiated an inquiry with the National Motor Freight Traffic Association and ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 There is an SPLC number for Rough and Ready, California, but this is for a totally different location in Nevada County. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- was told that the shipper should have applied for an SPLC Code for Rough & Ready Island. Discussion Military Management Traffic Command Item 60, "Alternation of Rates - DOD Tenders," provides that specific point-to-point rates will not alternate with territorial or state-to-state rates. Available, GSA, and MTMC all agree that a point-to-point rate, if applicable, would take precedence over a territorial rate. What they disagree about is whether the point-to-point rate specified in tender 000688 is applicable. Tender 000688 provides a point-to-point rate for shipments originating from SPLC 876430291, which is described by Available as "FltSptOffR&RIsld, CA," to SPLC 256730290, described as "NSC Cheatham Annex, VA." The tender information in MTMC's data base, however, generated by use of the SPLC code, describes the originating location for tender 000688 as Oakland, not Stockton or Rough and Ready Island. GSA and MTMC both argue that since the SPLC code for this tender specified Oakland, the tender cannot, with benefit of hindsight, be applied to the subject shipments. There was no way the transportation officer responsible for arranging shipments from this facility would have realized that Available intended tender 000688 to establish a point-to-point rate for the Naval Fleet Hospital Support Office in Stockton. Available argues that the location descriptor in its tender 000688 should have alerted MTMC that the SPLC code used was erroneous and thus should have caused MTMC either to reject the tender or to apply for an SPLC code for Rough & Ready Island. This argument misses the mark. There was no need for MTMC to apply for a new SPLC code for this location -- there already existed an SPLC code applicable to the Naval facility in Stockton where the shipments originated. That was the code used in the GBLs executed by Available. Nor was MTMC necessarily required to reject the tender. At best, Available's point-to-point tender contains a latent ambiguity. The SPLC used was for Oakland. The location descriptor does not mention Stockton, California so as to potentially alert MTMC to an error. There already existed an applicable SPLC code for this facility. It is the carrier's responsibility in the first instance to prepare an accurate, unambiguous tender. The carrier's subjective intent does not control the interpretation of the tender; rather, ambiguities are construed against the carrier issuing the rate tender. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., B-226378 (Aug. 15, 1988); Tri- State Motor Transit Co., B-192689 (Jan. 24, 1979). Available could have avoided this problem by using the SPLC code for Stockton in submitting its point-to-point tender. Additionally, the carrier is responsible for the content and accuracy of the GBL, even when prepared by the shipper. See C. I. Whitten Transfer Co., GSBCA 13893-RATE, 97-2 BCA 29,031. To the extent that Available contends the territorial rates used for these GBLs were in error, Available, having recently filed a tender that it apparently intended to establish a point-to-point rate for this location, was in the best position, in reviewing the terms of the GBL, to recognize this potential error. Available has not established that its point-to-point rate tender 000688 was applicable to this transaction. GSA thus properly disallowed the claims for supplemental payments. _________________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge