Appeal of
BETTY C. TWEET
Under Contract No. HCR 59366
PSBCA No. 4081

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Marvin D. Tweet
Betty C. Tweet
P. O. Box 1396
Glendive, MT 59330-1396

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Samuel J. Schmidt, Esq.
Salt Lake City Office
United States Postal Service
448 East 6400 South, Suite 450
Salt Lake City, UT 84107-7591

OPINION OF THE BOARD

            Appellant, Betty C. Tweet, has filed a timely appeal of the contracting officer’s final decision denying her claim for additional compensation under her transportation contract with Respondent, the United States Postal Service.  The parties elected to have this appeal decided on the record under the Board’s Accelerated Procedure,  39 C.F.R. §§955.12, 955.13.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  Appellant was awarded Contract No. HCR 59366, at an annual rate of $17,188.70, on June 16, 1994, for a four-year term beginning on July 1, 1994, and ending on June 30, 1998.  The contract required the casing, loading, and delivery of mail to approximately 125 boxes in an area around Glendive and Bloomfield, Montana.  (Appeal File Tabs (AF) 1-8).

            2.  The contract specifications (as contained in the solicitation and incorporated in the contract) included a Statement of Service which set forth the contract schedule, route (including point-to-point mileage), estimated daily (68) and annual (20,608.8) miles and hours (1415) as well as the total boxes to be served.  The specifications also included the following notices:

“The estimated annual miles and per trip miles are given only as information.  Prior to submitting a bid, the bidder should determine the actual miles.  (For additional information see PS Form 7469, Section D (Special Notices) Item No. 1).

The estimated annual hours are approximately the number of hours needed to operate the trips as they are shown in the schedule.  Also included in the total estimated annual hours are the number of hours needed for casing, loading/unloading and mail mark-up.  Prior to submitting a bid, the bidder must determine the actual hours.

* * *

SPECIAL NOTE: Any additional hours or miles which may result from the bidders (sic.) unique operations should be included in the bid price. . . .”  (AF 2).

            3.  Section IID.1 of the Highway or Domestic Water Transportation Contract Information and Instructions (PS Form 7469, July 1992), which was part of the solicitation and incorporated in the contract, stated:

“The distance stated in this solicitation is believed to be substantially correct.  The pay will neither be increased nor decreased if the actual distance is greater or less than advertised, if the points to be supplied are correctly stated.  No claim for additional pay can be allowed which is based on alleged mistakes or misapprehensions as to the length of the route.”  (AF 4).

            4.  The contract route and points to be supplied have never changed, and the number of boxes to be serviced have not increased during Appellant’s performance of the contract (Declaration of Donald A. Dietz).

            5.  At the request of Appellant, Postal Service officials conducted a route review and inspection of her contract route in August-September, 1996.  In this inspection, Appellant was observed performing her route in the time allowed under the contract while driving within the posted speed limits and in a safe manner.  Appellant serviced 124 boxes during this trip (one less than the 125 boxes specified in the contract).  (Declaration of Rich Burley).

            6.  The survey of Appellant’s route in August-September 1996, also included a review of the mail casing requirements under Appellant’s contract.  The surveyor determined that an experienced mail caser could case the volume of mail included in Appellant’s route in the time allotted.  Therefore, the time allotted under Appellant’s contract for casing and loading the mail was adequate to permit Appellant to perform the contract service within the time allowed.  (Declaration of Rich Burley).

            7.  By letter dated January 17, 1997, Appellant submitted a claim for $2,387.60.  Appellant claimed that she was required to drive 1.6 miles more each day than the contract documents indicated, for an additional 484.6 annual miles.  Appellant also claimed compensation for an additional 126 annual hours of contract performance due to the increased time necessary to drive the alleged 1.6 miles per day of driving distance as well as an alleged additional amount of casing time necessary to perform the contract.  (AF B10).

            8.  By final decision dated February 11, 1997, the contracting officer denied Appellant’s claim, finding that the contract’s point-to-point service and number of boxes to be serviced had never changed  (AF B12).

            9.  On March 20, 1997, Respondent again conducted a route survey of Appellant’s route.  Appellant again performed her route within the contractually specified time while driving within the speed limits and in a safe manner.  (Declaration of Dave Skorup; AF B15).

            10.  By letter dated May 5, 1997, Appellant filed a timely appeal of the contracting officer’s final decision (AF B20).

DECISION

            Appellant argues that she was misled by the contract’s statement of estimated mileage and estimated casing time necessary to perform the route.  Appellant alleges that there were fourteen errors in the specifications regarding route information, including direction, distance and road identification.   Appellant further alleges that post office personnel assured her before bidding that the mileage stated in the contract was accurate.

            Respondent argues that the contract route and number of boxes to be serviced have remained unchanged since Appellant began performance of her contract.  Respondent further argues that surveys conducted of Appellant’s performance, on two separate occasions, indicated that the route could be performed safely and within the time specified in the contract.

            We find no merit to Appellant’s claim.  It is undisputed by Appellant that the contract route and points to be served, as well as the number of boxes to be serviced en route, have remained unchanged since Appellant bid and began contract performance (Finding of Fact No. (FOF) 4).  Although there may have been errors in the specifications concerning route directions, road identifications and the exact distance between points to be serviced on the route, the specifications forewarned Appellant that the estimated per trip miles, annual mileage and annual hours necessary for contract performance were given for information purposes only and that bidders should determine for themselves the actual mileage and actual hours for performance that their method of operation would require (FOF 2, 3).  More importantly, the contract clearly warned Appellant, at Section IID.1 of the Information and Instructions section, that “pay will neither be increased or decreased if the actual distance is greater or less than advertised, if the points to be supplied are correctly stated.”  (FOF 3).

            Appellant’s claim is further undermined by the fact that her performance of the route was observed by Respondent’s officials on two separate occasions and on each occasion Appellant performed her route in the time specified by the contract while driving in a safe manner and within the speed limits.  (FOF 5, 9).

            Accordingly, this appeal is denied.

William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge
Board Member

I concur:
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman