Full Volume 19 - Federal Maritime Commission

626 FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
be the fair and even handed treatment of similarly situated shippers and
localities Respondents are furnishing GSA unwarranted advantage in
clear contravention of that policy In this regard the Presiding Officer s
discussion is particularly appropriate and bears repeating
No one would seriously argue against the general proposition that the government
should pay the lowest prices it can But such proposition carries within it the inchoate
covent sic proper and appropriate in the circumstances No one for example would
suggest that the government should buy stolen goods because such goods can be
obtained for less than the usual and legal price Similarly as here the government
should not obtain services at prices which violate public policy and the statutes and
regulations enacted and promulgated in conformity therewith Nothing Congress has
mandated to GSA in its procurement responsibilities contains within it a prescription to
violate other statutes and regulations be a party to such violations or aid and libet such
violations
The public policy to the extent it is expressed in sections 16 and 44 of the Shipping
Act 1916 establishes that no shipper should be given an unreasonable preference or
advantage and forwarder services shall not be rendered at reduced rates in consideration
of receiving brokerage from carriers The prices bid to GSA in many instances reflect a
direct violation of that policy
Moreover we do not necessarily agree with Air Sea that the GSA
bidding practices followed by certain Respondents here have injured no
one In fact our fmdings would indicate otherwise To the extent the low
fees bid GSAfor forwarding fees have not recovered the forwarders costs
for performing such services they have arguably made commercial
customers pay costs attributable to GSA shipments If a commercial
shipper is called upon to subsidize any costs ofprocessing GSA shipments
it follows that such shipper has been fmancially iI iured to some degree
Clearly Air Sea s bid for 5 cents does not cover incremental costs let
alone distributed costs Thus a clear potential for subsidization exists
We cannot therefore accept the conclusionary assurance that simply no
one has been even remotely iI iured by its practices lS
Nor as Air Sea argues will requiring forwarders to establish reasonable
and equitable charges for the handling of GSA shipments run contrary to
the public interest by substantially restrain ing competition within the
entire forwarder industry Our decision here does nothing more than
require Respondents to honor an obligation imposed on them by law i e
that once a particular forwarding fee is established by aforwarder for a
particular service based on the circumstances of his operation this fee be
made available to all shippers equally In any event and as a practical
matter because it is extremely unlikely that all forwarders are so similar
in their operations that they share the same costs and independently
would arrive at same fees and charges we fail to see how all competition
on fees and services will be eliminated by our action here Even if that
were the result of our decision however that decision would be no less
dictated by the requirements of the Shipping Act 1916 Our authority to