[Comments on Claim for Additional Charges on FAA Shipment]

B-259720 May 11, 1995

GSA reasonably denied a carrier's claim for tarpaulin service when the shipping agency did not request such service on the Government Bill of Lading, GSA cannot confirm that such service was requested, and the carrier offers only its own business records that the shipping agency's representative requested such service. While the carrier's business records are some evidence of the request, it is the rule of our Office, on disputed questions of fact between the claimant and the administrative officers of the government, to require that claimants provide clear and convincing contrary evidence where they seek to overcome facts documented in the official agency record.

Robert D. Norcom Auditor Tri-State Motor Transit Company P.O. Box 113 Joplin, MO 64802

Dear Mr. Norcom:

We refer to your December 12, 1994, request that we review the General Services Administration's (GSA) settlement of your firm's claim in the amount of $35 for tarpaulin service under Government Bill of Lading (GBL) D-0,949,446. We affirm GSA's settlement.

This matter involves the March 1991 move of a communications tower and parts for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from Kansas City, Missouri to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Tri-State's applicable Rules Tariff 100-A provided that a tarpaulin service charge applied when the carrier supplies tarpaulins which are required or requested by the shipper or consignee. GSA points out that the FAA did not request tarpaulin service on the GBL and contends that no other documentation properly supported the service. You contend that Tri-State's work order, an internal document prepared in the ordinary course of business, recorded the directly expressed requirements of an individual you named who apparently was an employee of the contractor (Wilcox Electric, Inc.) that ordered the service.

While you offered some evidence that FAA's contractor requested tarpaulin service, in our opinion, it is insufficient to meet the burden of proof applying in cases such as this, where the claimant and the administrative officers of the government do not agree on the facts. This Office generally requires clear and convincing contrary evidence to overcome facts that are documented in the official agency record before us. See McNamara-Lunz Vans and Warehouses, Inc., 57 Comp.Gen. 415, 419 (1978). We may reconsider this matter if Tri-State supplements its evidence with a detailed sworn statement from the contractor's employee or you present other evidence that meets the burden of proof.