A protester requested reconsideration of a settlement disallowing a claim for administratively set off amounts owed by the protester to the government. The deduction represented the value of damages to a shipment of aircraft fuel tanks transported by the protester from one air force base to another. The protester contended that it waived inspection of the damaged crates upon arrival at the air force base because the government inspector who originally inspected the crates allegedly indicated to the protester over the telephone that the damage was limited to crate damage only and that the contents of the crate were intact. The protester has never inspected the damaged tanks. The protester argued that government personnel improperly loaded the crates and that it took an exception to the condition of the crates at the transfer point. If the damage was great enough for the protester to notice at the transfer point, there was no reason why it would not have been noticed at the loading point if the crates had been in the same poor condition. The inspection report issued by the receiving Air Force base showing damage at destination and an estimate of the amount of damage done to the tanks was accepted as fact. The protester did not show any evidence to the contrary. The protester's contention that the deduction made to compensate the government for damage to the tanks entitled them to the possession of the tanks was erroneous. The government chose to make a claim against the protester for the value of the tanks less salvage value and deducted that amount from the amount owed by the government to the protester. Because salvage value was taken into account, the protester has no right to the possession of the damaged tanks. The previous action disallowing the protester's claim was correct and was sustained.
Skip to Highlights