1
 
                       Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                             _____________
                             March 5, 1998
                             _____________
 
 
                            GSBCA 13755-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.
 
        Col.  James F.  Quinn,  Staff Judge  Advocate, Headquarters,
   Military Traffic  Management  Command, Department  of  the  Army,
   Falls Church, VA, appearing for Department of Defense.
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
             The  claimant  seeks  additional  payment  for   a
        foreign military sale  shipment for allegedly  required
        circuitous  routing  calculated  using  its  Compu  Map
        system.   However,  the shipment  was  controlled by  a
        tariff which  specified that  governing mileage  guides
        would  be utilized  to  calculate applicable  mileages.
        The Compu Map system was not a governing mileage guide.
        The  claimant  has  not   demonstrated  entitlement  to
        additional payment.
 
        The claimant, Tri-State Motor Transit  Co., seeks additional
   payment for  a  foreign military  sales  shipment of  small  arms
   ammunition,  class C explosives  under Government bill  of lading
   (GBL) D-1,025,770.  The  shipment date was  April 30, 1990.   The
   Government did not  specify a particular route for  the shipment.
   Tri-State initially invoiced and was paid $2,525.66.  The initial
   invoice identifies tariff 4006F 18000  and a total miles of 1142.
   The  billing reflects  a flat  charge  of $550  and utilizes  the
   stated  mileage for a  shipment charge of  $1.55 per  mile, and a
   charge for dual driver protective services of $.18 per mile.
 
        Thereafter, Tri-State  submitted a  claim for  a balance  of
   $166.08.    It states  the  basis of  the  claim: "To  charge for
   circuitous  mileage for hazardous  materials."   Its calculations
   utilize 1238  miles  for  the  shipment charge  and  dual  driver
   protective service.  Before this Board, Tri-State has stated that
   the greater mileage is  supported by its Compu Map  system.  Tri-
   State  maintains that  the Compu  Map system provides  a computer
   generated  route which  is the shortest  legal and  available for
   transporting various hazardous or other materials.
 
        Tri-State  cites a  provision of  what it  claims to  be the
   applicable  tariff,   which  specifies  that  mileage   shall  be
   "determined  by  use  of  the  governing  mileage  guide."    The
   governing mileage guide is identified as a guide published by the
   Household  Goods  Carriers  Bureau,  not  Tri-State's  Compu  Map
   system.
 
 
        The  Office of Transportation Audits (OTA) responds that the
   claim  for additional  mileage is  a violation  of the  terms and
   conditions  of the agreed-to contract of carriage.  OTA maintains
   that the shipment was originally billed under the correct mileage
   in accordance with  the relevant  guide.   Further, OTA  contends
   that it  was clearly  understood in  the original  billings which
   mileage  applied,  and  that it  would  be  inappropriate  now to
   deviate from the agreement.
        Tri-State relies upon  its Compu Map system  for determining
   the mileage  of the route  traveled.  However, Tri-State  has not
   demonstrated that  its  system was  a  governing guide  for  use.
   Thus, even if the Compu Map system was reliable and  useful, such
   is not relevant to  the calculation of reimbursement.   Moreover,
   Tri-State  has not  shown that  the mileage  used in  the initial
   invoice deviated from the agreement of the parties.  That is, the
   record  does  not demonstrate  that  the shipment  traveled  by a
   circuitous route,  or that  use of the  Household Goods  guide to
   determine billable  mileage would  result in  a figure  different
   from that actually paid.
 
        Tri-State  has not  demonstrated  entitlement to  additional
   payment.
 
 
                                 ____________________________
                                 JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                 Board Judge