BNUMBER:  B-261306.2
DATE:  July 1, 1996
TITLE:  [Letter]

**********************************************************************

B-261306.2

July 1, 1996

Resource Protection
Attention:  Bobby L. Cates
P.O. Box 3417
Tampa, FL  33601-3417

Dear Mr. Cates:

This is in response to your letter of September 15, 1995, requesting 
reconsideration of our decision Allied Van Lines, B-261306, Sept. 1, 
1995, which denied your claim for refund on behalf of Allied of $1,248 
for loss/damage to a shipment of household goods which Allied picked 
up from nontemporary storage.

Our September 15 decision found that since the warehouse produced the 
inventory, which you argued was not available to the Allied driver 
when he picked up the shipment, the list of goods made by the driver 
was a rider to the original inventory and not a new inventory.  
Therefore, we denied the claim because as the last carrier, Allied 
should bear the loss.

In your request for reconsideration, you argue that the inventory 
produced by the warehouse was completed when the household goods were 
picked up and was only signed by the military member and the 
warehouseman, not by an Allied representative.  Therefore, there is no 
proof of tender of the items to Allied.

The inventory of a shipment of household goods going to nontemporary 
storage would only be signed by the above two parties since Allied did 
not enter the picture until after the period of storage.  That is the 
purpose of having the delivering carrier complete a rider noting any 
discrepancies between the inventory and the tendered items.

As our Office noted in Resource Protection, B-265682, Feb. 20, 1996, a 
case involving similar facts, when the original inventory was not 
available, the driver should have contacted the service to ascertain 
if it had a copy of the original inventory or to obtain instructions 
as to how to proceed.  By failing to do this, the carrier assumed the 
risk of any missing items from the original inventory. Caisson 
Forwarding Company, Inc., B-256686, Nov. 7, 1994.

Finally, you now argue that the government bill of lading shows that 
Allied should have picked up 2,620 pounds from the warehouse but that 
only 2,340 pounds was transported by Allied.  This shows, you allege, 
that items were missing from the original inventory when the shipment 
was tendered to Allied.  However, this is the first time you have 
presented this argument, four years after the removal from the 
warehouse and delivery to the member.  Since the government had two 75 
days to present a claim against a warehouseman under the Tender of 
Service in effect at that time, the government has lost any right to 
pursue the warehouseman.  Therefore, we find the service can still 
properly look to Allied for the loss as the last carrier of the 
shipment.

We affirm the prior decision.

Sincerely yours,

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
B-261306.2

July 1, 1996

DIGEST

Prior decision that carrier is liable for missing items from a 
household goods shipment which it picked up from nontemporary storage 
because contrary to carrier's assertion, warehouse furnished inventory 
to service which carrier says was not available and therefore 
inventory which carrier prepared was a rider not a new inventory, is 
affirmed.