B-121856, SEP. 7, 1955

B-121856, SEP. 7, 1955

TO MOVERS CONFERENCE OF AMERICA:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED OCTOBER 14, 1954, COMPLAINING OF CERTAIN ACTIONS OF THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE MOVING OF OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT OF THE FEDERAL CIVIL DEFENSE ADMINISTRATION FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN, BY RAY HAMILTON AND COMPANY, IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 1954.

BASICALLY, YOUR OBJECTION IS TO THE PROCEDURE WHEREBY SERVICES, WHICH, YOU CONTEND, PROPERLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERFORMED ONLY BY A "HOUSEHOLD- GOODS" CARRIER AUTHORIZED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WERE ALLOWED TO BE PERFORMED BY AN INDEPENDENT PARTY NOT LICENSED OR CONTROLLED BY THE ICC AND NOT OPERATING AS A CARRIER OF ANY KIND.

AS YOU NO DOUBT KNOW, THIS TYPE OF OPERATION WAS THE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION AND HEARINGS BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN JUNE 1954, AS A RESULT OF WHICH BOTH THE DEFENSE AND NONDEFENSE AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT MODIFIED CERTAIN OF THEIR PROCUREMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY RESULTED IN THE REJECTION OF PROPOSALS OF THE CHARACTER INVOLVED IN THE SUBJECT CASE.

PURSUANT TO SUCH REVISED PROCEDURE, THE REQUEST OF THE GSA FOR QUOTATIONS ON THE MOVE OF THE FCDA, ISSUED ON JULY 26, 1954, PERMITTED QUOTATIONS TO BE SUBMITTED BY "AUTHORIZED COMMON CARRIERS, HEAVY HAULERS AND RIGGERS, OR OTHERS," WITH THE FURTHER PROVISION THAT "SUCH OPERATORS MUST CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OR OTHER REGULATORY BODIES HAVING JURISDICTION.' THE LOWEST QUOTATION RECEIVED WAS THAT OF RAY HAMILTON AND COMPANY, CINCINNATI, OHIO, FOR A FLAT RATE OF $3.68 PER HUNDREDWEIGHT TO COVER THE COMPLETE MOVE.

UNDER THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROPOSAL THE HAMILTON COMPANY ALONE BECAME RESPONSIBLE TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE COMPLETE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE MOVE, INCLUDING THE LINE-HAUL TRANSPORTATION, WHICH IT NECESSARILY HAD TO OBTAIN FROM AUTHORIZED CARRIERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE ICC REGULATIONS AND TARIFFS. IN PROCURING THE TRANSPORTATION IT WAS ITSELF IN THE STATUS OF A SHIPPER, AND ALL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN IT AND THE CARRIER WERE ITS OWN INDEPENDENT UNDERTAKINGS TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT A PARTY. THE QUESTIONS, RAISED BY YOU AS TO THE CARRIER'S CHARGES, LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, OR VIOLATIONS OF ICC REGULATIONS, ARE THEREFORE OF NO INTEREST TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE CONTRACT, ITS SOLE OBLIGATION BEING TO PAY THE HAMILTON COMPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS QUOTATION, UPON DELIVERY AND PLACING OF THE GOODS AT THE DESIGNATED DESTINATION. SINCE THE RATE QUOTED BY THE HAMILTON COMPANY WAS A SINGLE COMPREHENSIVE PRICE COVERING BOTH TRANSPORTATION AND THE SERVICES OF PACKING, LOADING, AND UNLOADING, AND THE CARRIER'S CHARGE WAS NOT FOR PAYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH 6 QUOTED BY YOU, CONTEMPLATING PAYMENT OF THE CARRIER ON A GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING, WAS NOT APPLICABLE.

UNDER THE DECISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN RIGGERS AND ERECTORS SERVICE CORP., F.F. APPLICATION, 265 I.C.C. 738, IT APPEARS THAT THE TYPE OF OPERATION CONDUCTED BY THE HAMILTON COMPANY IS NOT SUBJECT TO LICENSING OR REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION. SINCE THE ACTUAL TRANSPORTATION IS PERFORMED BY A REGULARLY AUTHORIZED CARRIER AND THE NONTRANSPORTATION SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR ARE IN NO WAY PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED BY THE TRANSPORTATION LAWS, WE PERCEIVE NO BASIS FOR CONSIDERING THE METHOD OF HANDLING THE MOVE UNDER CONSIDERATION TO HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF ANY LAW OR POLICY PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS. WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE BEST SERVED BY ENGAGING THE SERVICES OF AUTHORIZED HOUSEHOLD GOODS MOVERS OR BY OTHER MEANS IS A QUESTION PRIMARILY FOR DETERMINATION BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY INVOLVED, AND IN THIS INSTANCE WE FIND NO GROUND FOR QUESTIONING THE DETERMINATION MADE.

YOUR NUMEROUS CHARGES OF SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF IMPROPER HANDLING OF THE DETAILS OF THE MOVE HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY INVESTIGATED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS OFFICE AND FOUND TO BE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS. THE PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED BY YOU AS SHOWING IMPROPER LOADING ARE REPORTED TO SHOW THE PROPERTY BEFORE LOADING AND NOT AS ACTUALLY PLACED IN THE TRUCKS, AND IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT, IN GENERAL, ADEQUATE COVERING AND PADDING WAS USED. YOUR ALLEGATIONS OF PARTICIPATION OF TRUCKS AND PERSONNEL OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION IN THE LOADING AND MOVING ARE REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN BASED UPON A MISUNDERSTANDING OR MISINTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS, IT APPEARING THAT SUCH TRUCKS AND PERSONNEL WERE ENGAGED ONLY IN THE MOVING OF CERTAIN ARTICLES FROM THE SAME OFFICES TO THE GSA BUILDING IN WASHINGTON, A MATTER WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE HAMILTON OPERATION. PADS AND PALLETS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN THE PROPERTY OF THE FCDA AND A PART OF THE PROPERTY MOVED AS FREIGHT. THE ONLY BOXES FURNISHED WERE THOSE REQUIRED TO PACK THE CONTENTS OF DESKS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE MOVED INTACT BUT WHICH IT WAS FOUND DID NOT NEED TO BE MOVED.

CAREFUL SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY MOVED RESULTED IN THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DAMAGES SUFFERED IN THE MOVE WERE NO MORE THAN WOULD BE REASONABLY ANTICIPATED IN A MOVE OF SUCH MAGNITUDE, AND THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DAMAGES WAS FAR LESS THAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF THE MOVE AS MADE AND THE NEXT-LOW QUOTATION. SUCH DAMAGES ARE IN PROCESS OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THE HAMILTON COMPANY, WHICH, UNDER THE TERMS OF ITS QUOTATION, IS FULLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER TO IT.

FOR THE REASONS STATED, WE FIND NO PROPER BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF THE HAMILTON COMPANY. HOWEVER, CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE HANDLING AND SUPERVISION OF THE MOVE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES INVOLVED ARE BEING CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE HEADS OF THOSE AGENCIES FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION IN FUTURE CASES.