Canupp Trucking, Inc.

B-261127 Feb 15, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A guaranteed traffic solicitation issued by the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) specified that charges for local services are to be calculated on a "shipment" basis. The carrier's interpretation of a "shipment" as consisting of the articles under each transportation control number (TCN) listed on an individual government bill of lading governs when the TCN method of billing is a reasonable interpretation of the contract. Where the issue is whether payment of these claims would duplicate payment for identical or overlapping services under note 12. We conclude that Canupp's charges under note 12 are valid. Note 14 also states that "the cost of this is as provided in NOTE 12.". Canupp should have computed its note 12 charges based on the total weight of the articles listed on each GBL and not based on the weight of the articles listed under each TCN. View Decision Matter of: Canupp Trucking, Inc. File: B-261127 Date: February 15, 1996 A guaranteed traffic solicitation issued by the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) specified that charges for local services are to be calculated on a "shipment" basis; however, the solicitation did not define the word "shipment." The carrier's interpretation of a "shipment" as consisting of the articles under each transportation control number (TCN) listed on an individual government bill of lading governs when the TCN method of billing is a reasonable interpretation of the contract, experienced and competent traffic officials of the government approved the TCN method of billing before the carrier submitted any bills, and the contractor billed on that basis without any objection by the government for more than 3 years after the contract began. DECISION The General Services Administration (GSA) requests a decision on the validity of the Notices of Overcharge [1] it issued against Canupp Trucking, Inc. (Canupp) at the request of the Navy Material Transportation Office (NAVMTO) for excess amounts paid to Canupp under note 12 to items 23-26 of its guaranteed traffic tender 600029. GSA also requests a decision concerning Canupp's claims under note 14 of items 23-26, where the issue is whether payment of these claims would duplicate payment for identical or overlapping services under note 12. As discussed below, we conclude that Canupp's charges under note 12 are valid, but we deny Canupp's claims for additional amounts under note 14. BACKGROUND In its solicitation to the industry dated March 26, 1990, the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), on behalf of the Navy Material Transportation Office (NAVMTO), sought guaranteed traffic offers for the transportation of Freight All Kinds (FAK) commodities [2] between the following locations: the QUICKTRANS Terminal in Norfolk, Virginia; the Norfolk, Virginia Commercial Zone; the QUICKTRANS Terminal in Jacksonville, Florida; the carrier's terminal in Charleston, South Carolina; and the QUICKTRANS Terminal in Charleston, South Carolina. Canupp submitted the winning proposal in its tender 600029. Canupp's tender 600029 contained all of the NAVMTO-directed terms, conditions and charges of the MTMC solicitation, and Canupp's proposed "per vehicle used" charges as specified in items 23-26 of the tender. Tender 600029 and the March 26, 1990, solicitation form the contract between Canupp and NAVMTO. The excess charges and additional claims disputes between Canupp and NAVMTO depend on the definition of the word "shipment" found in notes 12 and 14 to items 23-26 of the tender. Note 12 provides for charges of $2.00 per hundred weight (cwt) for pickup and deliveries in the Charleston area, with a minimum charge of $25.00 per shipment. Note 12 further states that the charge includes "handling, consolidation, and break bulk." Note 14 requires the carrier to perform terminal services, including distribution and consolidation of shipments to include transloading of local Charleston pickups destined for other points. Note 14 also states that "the cost of this is as provided in NOTE 12." In August 1990, shortly after the award but before presentation of the first billings, Canupp's representatives met with several NAVMTO representatives, including the NAVMTO division head and the contracting officer's technical representative, to review proper billing procedures. Specifically, Canupp sought guidance as to the meaning of the word "shipment" in note 12. The division head responded that each transportation control number (TCN) [3] on a GBL should be billed as a shipment. Canupp billed on a TCN basis from August 1990 until late in 1993.