Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405



                                                 

                        December 11, 2001
                                                 


                         GSBCA 15389-RATE


         In the Matter of OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.


     Glenn Jacobs of Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., High Point, NC, appearing for
Claimant.

     James F. Fitzgerald, Director, Audit Division, Office of Transportation and Property
Management, Federal Supply Service, Washington, DC, appearing for General Services
Administration.

     Colonel Harry L. Dorsey, Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters, Military Traffic
Management Command, Department of the Army, Alexandria, VA, appearing for
Department of Defense.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     This case requires us to decide whether payments should have been made for the
carriage of household goods for a Government agency under a particular tender issued by the
carrier.

     Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., transported several shipments of household goods
under Government bills of lading for the United States Coast Guard.  Old Dominion billed
for the shipments under tenders it had made to the Department of Defense (DOD), and the
Coast Guard paid in accordance with the terms of those tenders.  The General Services
Administration (GSA), in auditing these payments, determined that those tenders did not
apply to the shipments.  Instead, GSA concluded, the Coast Guard should have paid in
accordance with a GSA freight rate tender, whose rates were lower than those of the DOD
tenders Old Dominion had used.

     Old Dominion believes that its tender number 1052 to DOD should apply to these
shipments because "the Coast Guard is considered Military."  The carrier does not suggest
that if tender number 1052 is inapplicable to the shipments, some rate authority other than
the one selected by GSA should be applied.

     The iterations of tender number 1052 which are included in our record were effective
from October 1, 1997, to September 30, 2000.  They state that the tender is a standard tender
of freight services to DOD, pertains to crated household goods and unaccompanied baggage,
and is governed by MTMC (Military Traffic Management Command) Freight Traffic Rules
Publication No. 1A (MFTRP No. 1A).

     The Coast Guard is not a part of DOD.  Rather, it is a part of the Department of
Transportation.  14 U.S.C.   1 (1994); C. I. Whitten Transfer Co., GSBCA 13911-RATE,
97-1 BCA   28,860, at 143,989.  From a date no later than October 20, 1992, until August 1,
1999, MFTRP No. 1A pertained to "motor transportation service needs of the Department
of Defense" alone   and not the Coast Guard   "for the movement of its freight traffic." 
MFTRP No. 1A, item 5.1 (Feb. 1, 1997).  Effective on August 1, 1999, the Publication was
amended in response to our Whitten decision to include the sentences, "Movements of
ammunition to, by, or on behalf of the United States Coast Guard (USCG) are also covered
by this publication.  References throughout this publication to DOD shall be understood to
include such shipments for the United States Coast Guard as well."  64 Fed. Reg. 34,636
(June 23, 1999); MFTRP No. 1A, item 5.1 (Aug. 1, 1999).

     To the extent that any of the shipments in question occurred between October 20,
1992, and August 1, 1999, Old Dominion DOD tender number 1052 could not have been an
appropriate authority for applicable rates because the tender was governed by MFTRP No.
1A, and that Publication did not apply to Coast Guard freight traffic.  To the extent that any
of the shipments in question occurred after August 1, 1999, Old Dominion DOD tender
number 1052 could not have been an appropriate authority for applicable rates because the
tender was governed by MFTRP No. 1A, and that Publication did not apply to movements
of goods other than ammunition   such as household goods   to, by, or on behalf of the Coast
Guard.  Since all of the shipments occurred during one of these periods of time, Old
Dominion DOD tender number 1052 could not have been an appropriate authority for
applicable rates for any of them.

     We note that effective September 30, 2000, MFTRP No. 1A was replaced by MFTRP
No. 1B.  The new version of the Publication is more expansive in its coverage of Coast
Guard shipments than the old version was   even as that old version was amended effective
August 1, 1999.  MFTRP No. 1B states, "Movements for the United States Coast Guard"  
not merely movements of ammunition to, by, or on behalf of the Coast Guard   are also
covered by this publication."  MFTRP No. 1B, item 5.1 (Sept. 30, 2000).  If this rule had
been in effect when the shipments in question were made, the result in this case might be
different.  Similarly, DOD has a Personal Property Shipment and Storage Program which
applies to "military services," including the Coast Guard, and if Old Dominion's DOD tender
number 1052 had been governed by the rules of that Program, the result in this case might 
be different.  But MFTRP No. 1B was not in effect at the relevant time and the tender under
which Old Dominion asks to be compensated was not governed by the DOD Personal
Property Shipment and Storage Program, so this speculation does not help us to resolve the
claim before us.

     Old Dominion's claim is denied.





                                   __________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge