We have recently been able to invoice a handful of these, and the invoices have paid for the full amount of storage time, regardless of the Julian date reflected in the SIT control number. Therefore, it appears that a SIT control number issued after the fact will not prevent TSPs from collecting the full amount due them for storage.

In the year and a half since we wrote that, our conclusion has proven to be true. We have been able to get SIT paid for the full amount, regardless of the Julian date in the SIT control number. While we had thought this issue was behind us, we have received a lot of questions on this very topic lately.

Apparently, some of the European PPSOs are falling behind on approving SIT requests, and have told the local agents that they will not be catching up anytime soon. Therefore, there are a lot of SIT control numbers being issued after the shipment has been placed into SIT, which is causing concerns on the TSPs about getting paid the full amount for SIT.

Our response has been the same as it was in March 2009. Payment at this time should not be a problem, but we have also reiterated our concerns about defending these shipments in a GSA post audit situation. Despite the fact that we have been told that GSA is aware of this issue, we would not be surprised to see overcharges two years down the road, based on the fact that the date we billed for SIT doesn’t match up with the Julian date in the SIT control number. Our recommendation continues to be that TSP continues to ensure that the shipment’s paper records accurately reflect the date the shipment went into SIT, so that we can use those to defend any future overcharges.

Related Posts

1. SIT Invoicing Issue in DPS - March 17th, 2009
2. Fuel Surcharge Clarification Update - June 13th, 2007
3. DPS SIT Conversion Issue Clarified - April 22nd, 2010

The article offers an look at how technology has been an instrumental part of our company’s success throughout our 31 year history, from our first use of personal computers up to our use of Twitter and Facebook.  Below is the opening of that article:

Three decades ago, in 1980, John Day walked into the offices of one of the largest van lines carrying a “portable” computer to help him perform a post audit review of shipment files. This “portable” computer was an Apple II personal computer in a case the size of a large suitcase.

“After about a day of working there, word got out about my computer. and the file room where I was working became a popular destination for the van lines’ employees,” said John Day, founder of Daycos. ‘They were amazed that I had a computer that small, which could do more than the company’s mainframe computer that took up a whole room.”

You can view the full article on the IAM website (PDF link).

Related Posts

1. Perfect Storm Article Elicits Comments - July 9th, 2010
2. Happy Birthday Daycos! - December 15th, 2008
3. Daycos Staff Tours Andrews Van Lines, Inc. - February 6th, 2009

• Turbulent Peak Season Comes to a Close
• Daycos Family Picnic 2010
• Matson Bunker Charges Clarified
• Daycos Partner Disbursing Service

If you did not receive an email with this month’s newsletter, but would like to receive it directly each month, please feel free to subscribe here: Daycos Newsletter.

Related Posts

1. Daycos August 2009 Newsletter - September 18th, 2009
2. Daycos May 2010 Newsletter - May 25th, 2010
3. Daycos January 2010 Newsletter - January 21st, 2010

Matson has issued a statement clarifying what the labeled ‘Bunker Fuel Surcharge’ and ‘Fuel Related Surcharge’ items listed on their OBL’s issued since June 1, 2010 represent.

In addition, Matson has announced that effective Monday, August 16, 2010 they will be changing the labeling of the inland fuel costs that were mislabeled as ‘Bunker Surcharge’ to ‘Trucker Surcharge’ to more clearly represent those fuel charges when applicable.    The actual ocean (bunker) fuel costs will remain labeled as ‘Fuel Related Surcharge.’  View the full statement that Matson released by clicking here.

We appreciate Matson’s efforts to quickly resolve this issue.  We have begun to review invoices that may have been billed with incorrect amounts due to the mislabeling of charges, and we will be creating corrected invoices at no additional charge for our billing customers.

Related Posts

1. When a Bunker Is Not a Bunker… - August 4th, 2010
2. SDDC Message on Bunker Surcharge, War Risk, and Related Items - February 27th, 2006
3. OTO Fuel Surcharge Billing Clarification - November 7th, 2006

That leaves each TSP responsible for assigning and managing its own payee codes, which is the solution being investigated now. US Bank/Syncada  personnel have reviewed their internal procedures, as well as the requirements of the DPS and CWA systems,  to identify potential issues if the responsibility of assigning payee codes were to be turned over to the TSP community.   So far there have been no major objections or system limitations that would prevent TSPs from submitting their own payee codes during setup with US Bank.

US Bank/Syncada personnel are still ironing out the details and are working with DFAS to provide written clarification or notice on the newly defined requirements to TSPs. In the meantime, TSPs should contact the Syncada Help Desk with any new setups or questions they might have.

Related Posts

1. Are Payee Codes Still Necessary? - July 23rd, 2010
2. What is Syncada, and what happened to PowerTrack? - April 20th, 2010
3. U.S. Bank and Visa Introduce Syncada - July 31st, 2009

Recently Matson has made some changes to their OBLs that have caused a considerable amount of confusion and uncertainty in the billing process. We have been working with Matson on the issue, and hope to have some changes made soon to resolve the confusion, but in the meantime we thought we should give an update on the problem.

Matson’s OBLs have always been a bit different in that that their Bunker Fuel Surcharge has always just been labeled “Fuel Related Surcharge.” Since this has been the only fuel related item on the OBL, it was clear that this was the Bunker charge, and we billed it as such.

Recently, Matson has been offering inland related services on some of their shipments, and this additional service offering caused a change to their OBL. When they bill for these services, they need to add on a fuel surcharge for the inland portion. Unfortunately they accomplished this by adding a “Bunker Fuel Surcharge” line item to the OBLs and including the inland fuel surcharge there.

The result of this is that on Matson OBLs, if there is a “Fuel Related Surcharge” item, it is actually a Bunker fuel surcharge; and if there is a “Bunker Fuel Surcharge”, it is actually the  fuel surcharge for the inland services. In short, they are actually listed exactly opposite of how they should be listed. In the invoice below, the bunker is actually the $81.91 charge, not the $43.67 charge.

As you can imagine, this has caused considerable problem in the billing process. When we first saw these OBLs we assumed that Matson was billing the Bunker under the Bunker Fuel Surcharge line item. After some questions from customers, we contacted Matson and learned that this was not the case, and the items were reversed. We have been working with Matson, and hope they will be able to make a change to their OBLs to correct this situation.

In the meantime, we are in a difficult situation. For now, we are continuing to bill the Bunker in the amount listed on the OBL as Bunker Fuel Surcharge, even though we know this is the incorrect amount. The reason is that we think it would be difficult to explain to the approving PPSOs thatthe bunker is really the fuel surcharge and the fuel surcharge is really the bunker. Basically, we would be asking them to disregard the documentation and “just trust us,” and we don’t believe that would be easy. Also, we have to think about GSA in this situation. If we bill in a way contrary to the documentation, we would be unable to defend these billings against a GSA post-audit Notice of Overcharge.

We have asked Matson to issue a statement (in addition to fixing the OBL), explaining that on their current OBLs, the bunker is not really the bunker, it is the fuel surcharge, and vice versa.  Once they do this, we can then go back and correct all the invoices we have billed previously, and make sure our customers get all the money due to them. Our hope is that a statement from Matson will help us explain to the PPSOs why we are billing the way we are, and also give us some protection against GSA in the future, although I am still very nervous about the possibility of overcharges on these items.

As we stated at the beginning, we have had numerous conversations with Matson about this situation, and we hope that we will soon see a change to their OBLs and a statement to help us clean up the previous invoices. Obviously the sooner we have these items, the less invoices we will have to clean up, which is better for all parties. We will keep you posted about our progress on this issue.

Related Posts

1. Matson Bunker Confusion Clarified - August 16th, 2010
2. Billing Surcharges on Codes 5,J, & T - March 9th, 2006
3. Rebilling Bunker/Security/War Surcharges - March 8th, 2006

GBL Domestic HHG / International HHG & UB – 5%

GSA Domestic HHG – $0.42

GSA International HHG and BAG – $0.42

Related Posts

1. Fuel Surcharge for Period 7/15/09 to 8/14/09 - July 10th, 2009
2. Fuel Surcharge for Period 8/15/09 to 9/14/09 - August 6th, 2009
3. Fuel Surcharge for Period 8/15/08 to 9/14/08 - August 11th, 2008

• Are Payee Codes Still Necessary?
• Meet the Daycos Staff
• DPS Payment Times Before the Billing Peak Season
• Registration Open for Personal Property Forum (PPF) Winter 2010

If you did not receive an email with this month’s newsletter, but would like to receive it directly each month, please feel free to subscribe here: Daycos Newsletter.

Related Posts

1. Daycos March 2010 Newsletter - March 18th, 2010
2. Daycos May 2010 Newsletter - May 25th, 2010
3. Daycos August 2010 Newsletter - August 24th, 2010

Shortly after DTRS was shut down, we contacted DFAS personnel regarding a carrier setup that required a new payee code.   Payee codes are the unique 4-digit numeric identifier that DFAS issued a carrier to determine the carriers payee account information during electronic invoice processing.  The DFAS representative informed our staff that they could no longer issue payee codes, since that process was performed in DTRS.  Now comes the question, if DFAS no longer needs a payee code to process electronic payments, do we still need to get a payee code?

We were under the impression that like DFAS, US Bank Freight Payment Systems (Syncada) also required a payee code for HHG carriers.   The payee codes we had always provided during setup were those issued to the carrier by DFAS.  Since DFAS does not need them, does US Bank?    We have learned that Syncada does require a payee code, but not necessarily for the same reason that DFAS required them.  DFAS used the payee code to determine what account would receive funds for the electronic invoice.  Syncada uses the payee code to fulfill a system requirement that was adopted as a common practice from DFAS when the original PowerTrack program was being built for processing DOD HHG invoices.

How we move forward to satisfy a system requirement that has some links missing in the chain is now the topic of discussion.  We understand that DFAS and US Bank Freight Payment Systems personnel are actively working on a solution or new process to address the requirement.  Until then, completing setups that require a new payee code may be temporarily delayed.  We are strongly encouraging DFAS and US Bank to come to a quick resolution, since TSPs have invoices that are unable to be billed until this problem is resolved. We will keep everyone abreast of any new details as we receive them.

Related Posts

1. Payee Code Process Changes Moving Forward - August 9th, 2010
2. Taxpayer ID Notice - April 8th, 2005
3. Updated Item Codes Spreadsheet - September 7th, 2006

This small TSP had gone all year without a single DPS shipment. This was not much of a surprise to them, as they had not been expecting to get many DPS shipments. Recently this changed in a hurry, probably due to the large number of TSPs that have used the blackout function in DPS to remove themselves from eligibility. This TSP was suddenly overwhelmed with DPS shipment offers. Before they could use the blackout capability to stop the flow of shipments, they had received 300 DPS shipments, all of which would need to be serviced within roughly the same time frame. Basically, they went from 0 to 300 before they could slam on the brakes.

It is clear that this TSP is going to do everything they can to get these shipments picked up on time, and serviced to the best of their ability. However, there is no doubt that this will be a substantial challenge, given the TSP’s size and DPS experience. There is a good chance that some of those 300 service members will not be getting that TSP’s best quality service, in part because the TSP was overloaded by the DPS distribution model. If those 300 moves had been distributed more evenly, or if the TSP had some visibility or expectation that they were coming, the TSP could have handled them much more easily and effectively for the service member.

There has been a lot of talk about making necessary changes to prevent a repeat of this year’s peak season problem next summer. Based on this TSP’s story, a change to the DPS distribution model should be one of the changes that needs to be strongly considered.

Related Posts

1. Info-Gram #11: Shipment Planning, Management, and Distribution - January 26th, 2007
2. Perfect Storm Article Elicits Comments - July 9th, 2010
3. “Perfect Storm” of Peak Season Problems Draws Responses - July 1st, 2010