[Review of GAO Settlement Certificate]

A firm requested review of a Claims Group Settlement Certificate which disallowed its claim for a refund of monies withheld by the Air Force for damages to a fuel tank it had transported. The firm contended that the Air Force had not established its liability for the damage. The firm received a clear delivery receipt for the shipment, but it was advised later that the tank was dented. The Air Force stated that this damage was discovered after delivery was completed. The carrier contended that, since it was advised that repairs would cost less than $100, it waived its right to inspect the damage. The Air Force stated that it advised the carrier of the extent of the damage and claimed not to have misled the firm. Also, Air Force documents indicated that, subsequent to delivery, damage to the tank was discovered and the carrier was promptly notified. The carrier contended that this record did not demonstrate its liability. Finally, the carrier contended that the Air Force repair bill was excessive. GAO stated that, even though the government did not take exception to the delivery receipt for damages to the shipment, the carrier is not absolved of all liability since the receipt was not conclusive and was subject to rebuttal by timely notice to carrier of later discovered damage. Also, the carrier's decision to waive its right of inspection due to a nonexpert opinion was essentially a business judgment, and the carrier must bear its failure to exercise its inspection right. GAO concluded that it had no basis to question the labor costs in the damage claim because the Air Force documented the actual repairs on a step-by-step basis, and the claimant did not present any evidence to refute the reasonableness of those costs. Accordingly, the Claims Group settlement action was sustained.