Skip to main content

B-142095, MAY 10, 1960

B-142095 May 10, 1960
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

INC.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 18. FOR WHICH YOU CONTEND EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE WAS REQUESTED AND FURNISHED. A COPY OF YOUR DELIVERY RECEIPT NO. 421007 WHICH INDICATES THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS PICKED UP AT 11:45 A.M. WHILE THIS EVIDENCE TENDS TO SHOW THAT EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE WAS REQUESTED. THERE APPEARS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE VEHICLE WAS IN FACT ACCORDED THE SHIPMENT. NOR DOES IT SHOW AFFIRMATIVELY THAT THE REQUESTED SERVICE WAS PERFORMED. IT DOES NOT GO TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT EXCLUSIVE-USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE WAS GIVEN TO THIS SHIPMENT. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON CARRIERS CLAIMING AMOUNTS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO ESTABLISH THEIR CLEAR RIGHT TO PAYMENT AND THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT MAY PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN PAID CONDITIONALLY SUBJECT TO LATER AUDIT AND RECOVERED BY DEDUCTION UNDER 49 U.S.C. 66.

View Decision

B-142095, MAY 10, 1960

TO HENNIE FREIGHT LINES, INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 18, 1960, REQUESTING A REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED FEBRUARY 15, 1960, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR $177 ADDITIONAL CHARGES ON BILL NO. 421007 FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A SHIPMENT OF AIRCRAFT PARTS FROM WERNER ROBINS, GEORGIA, TO BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, UNDER GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING AF- 7890581, DATED DECEMBER 31, 1957, AND FOR WHICH YOU CONTEND EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE WAS REQUESTED AND FURNISHED.

IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION YOU FURNISH A COPY OF GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING AF-7890581, BEARING THE NOTATION "EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE REQUESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT" AND ALSO, A COPY OF YOUR DELIVERY RECEIPT NO. 421007 WHICH INDICATES THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS PICKED UP AT 11:45 A.M., ON DECEMBER 31, 1957, AND THAT THE CONSIGNEE SIGNED FOR DELIVERY ON JANUARY 1, 1958. WHILE THIS EVIDENCE TENDS TO SHOW THAT EXCLUSIVE USE OF VEHICLE WAS REQUESTED, THERE APPEARS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE VEHICLE WAS IN FACT ACCORDED THE SHIPMENT.

THE RECORD OF THIS OFFICE DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT MOVED UNDER SEALS, NOR DOES IT SHOW AFFIRMATIVELY THAT THE REQUESTED SERVICE WAS PERFORMED. WHILE THE DELIVERY RECEIPT WHICH INDICATES A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD FROM PICK-UP TO DELIVERY MAY BE SOME INDICATION OF EXPEDITED SERVICE, IT DOES NOT GO TO PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT EXCLUSIVE-USE OF VEHICLE SERVICE WAS GIVEN TO THIS SHIPMENT. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON CARRIERS CLAIMING AMOUNTS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO ESTABLISH THEIR CLEAR RIGHT TO PAYMENT AND THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT MAY PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN PAID CONDITIONALLY SUBJECT TO LATER AUDIT AND RECOVERED BY DEDUCTION UNDER 49 U.S.C. 66. UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD CO., 355 U.S. 253.

THEREFORE, ON THE PRESENT RECORD AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT EXCLUSIVE USE WAS ACCORDED THE SHIPMENT, WE HAVE NO RECOURSE BUT TO SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE ABLE TO PRODUCE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT NO OTHER GOODS WERE LOADED INTO THE TRUCK SO THAT IN FACT THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE VEHICLE WAS GIVEN THE INVOLVED SHIPMENT THE MATTER WILL BE GIVEN FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs