June 11, 1997
                                                  


                             GSBCA 13743-RATE


               In the Matter of TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO.


     Robert D. Norcom, Auditor, Tri-State Motor Transit Co.,
Joplin, MO, appearing for Claimant.

     Jeffrey J. Thurston, Director, Office of Transportation
Audits, General Services Administration, Washington, DC,
appearing for General Services Administration.

     Colonel David A. Shull, Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters,
Military Traffic Management Command, Department of the Army,
Falls Church, VA, appearing for Department of Defense.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     On December 11, 1991, the Naval Weapons Station in Concord,
California, shipped articles to the Hawthorne Army Ammunition
Plant in Hawthorne, Nevada, under a Government bill of lading
(GBL).  The carrier was Tri-State Motor Transit Co.  The first
page of the GBL describes the articles shipped as "Class C
explosives as per attached."  The second page contains this
further description: "Explosive power device, class C explosive
(radio transmitting and receiving sets) (control section, guided
missile)."

     Tri-State claims that it is entitled to receive, for
transporting this material, $2,661.04 -- $801.04 more than the
Government actually paid.  According to the claimant,

     The question at issue in this case is whether this
     shipment is covered by DOD [Department of Defense]
     Unique Code No. 64300 Sub 3 (Explosives, Class C,
     NOIBN) or DOD Unique Code No. 14255 (". . . missile
     guidance control systems or electronic guidance control
     apparatus . . ." which removes the application of any
     other description).

Tri-State apparently believes that if we determine that the
articles come within DOD Unique Code 14255, a different tender
from the one noted on the GBL, with higher rates, would govern
payment.

     Tri-State maintains that a decision of the General
Accounting Office (GAO), Tri-State Motor Transit Co., B-259756
(Aug. 18, 1995), "is dispositive of this issue."  In that case,
articles described on a GBL as "rocket ammunition with explosive
projectile, class A explosive" were found to be guided missiles. 
GAO explained that the claimant "must furnish evidence to clearly
and satisfactorily establish its claim, and establish the clear
legal liability of the United States and its right to receive
payment."  GAO determined that Tri-State had met its burden by
showing that DOD had elsewhere described the contents of the
shipment as a guided missile and that the agency's Military
Traffic Management Command had confirmed that description.

     We adhere to the principle under which GAO resolved that
case;  our Rule 301(b) provides, "The burden is on the claimant
to establish the timeliness of its claim, the liability of the
agency, and the claimant's right to payment."  48 CFR 6103.1(b)
(1996).  The facts of the case are completely different from this
one, however.  The GBL descriptions are different and here, Tri-
State has offered no evidence as to the true identity of the
goods shipped.  The more detailed description on page two of the
GBL is confusing and does not establish that the articles were
missile guidance control systems, rather than explosives.  Tri-
State  has consequently given us no reason to doubt the
Government's position that the payment made for shipping these
items was correct.

     Because the claimant has failed to meet its burden of proof,
the claim is denied.





                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge