B-254650 January 14, 1994

B-254650: Jan 14, 1994

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

A carrier submited a supplemental bill (claim) for additional charges under a Government Bill of Lading transaction involving services which were originally paid on October 23. Indiana even though your voucher was properly addressed to the Carrier Payment Branch at the Navy Material Transportation Office (NAVMTO) in Norfolk. The claim was received in Indianapolis on October 30. It was returned to your firm to be forwarded to NAVMTO. The claim was received at NAVMTO on December 10. That your claim was time-barred. Your claim is untimely for two reasons. Since the original payment was made by the Navy on November 23. More than 6 months would have elapsed between the Administrator's action (May 13.

B-254650 January l4, 1994

A carrier submited a supplemental bill (claim) for additional charges under a Government Bill of Lading transaction involving services which were originally paid on October 23, 1988, and which did not involve other payment activities, including refunds or deductions. The General Services Administration denied the claim on May 13, 1992. Under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3726(g), this Office must receive the carrier's request for review of GSA's settlement before November 13, 1992.

E. Chambers Auditor T.F. Boyle Transportation, Inc. P.O. Box 21464 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73156

Dear Mr. Chambers:

We refer to your request for review of the General Services Administration's audit action with respect to Government Bill of Thading R-1,860,402.

GSA's report indicates that your company mailed its claim for additional charges of $24.16 to the Defense Finance & Accounting Service in Indianapolis, Indiana even though your voucher was properly addressed to the Carrier Payment Branch at the Navy Material Transportation Office (NAVMTO) in Norfolk, Virginia. The claim was received in Indianapolis on October 30, 1991, but it was returned to your firm to be forwarded to NAVMTO. The claim was received at NAVMTO on December 10, 1991. NAVMTO had paid your firm's original bill for services on November 23, 1988.

In a letter that we received on August 24, 1993, you included a copy of a letter dated November 30, 1992, in which you requested that we review GSA's audit action denying your claim for additional charges. On September 2, 1993, we informed you that we had no record of receipt of your November 30 letter prior to August 24, 1993. In your November 30 letter, you state that GSA informed you on May 13, 1992, that your claim was time-barred.

Your claim is untimely for two reasons. First, it did not arrive at either GSA or at the agency out of whose activities the claim arose (the Navy) within 3 years of the original payment date. See 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3726(a) and 41 C.F.R. Sec. 101-41.602(b), copies enclosed. Since the original payment was made by the Navy on November 23, 1988, your claim had to be received at NAVMTO before November 23, 1991 --it actually arrived there on December 10, 1991.

Second, under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3726(g), our Office had to receive your request for review not later than 6 months after the Administrator of General Services had taken action or within the time period allowed under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3726(a).

Therefore, even if we had received your November 30, 1992, letter in early December 1992, more than 6 months would have elapsed between the Administrator's action (May 13, 1992) and our receipt of your request for review.

The burden is on the claimant to present evidence of receipt of a claim in the proper office within the statutory period of limitations. See Peralta Shippinq Corporation, B-l9766l, May 22, 1980. In these circumstances, we dismiss your claim as untimely.