_________________________ July 17, 1997 _________________________ GSBCA 13826-RATE In the Matter of TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO. John R. Bagileo of Bagileo, Silverberg & Goldman, L.L.P., Washington, DC; and 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; and Robert T. Hoff, Office of General Counsel, 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. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. On July 11, 1997, the General Services Administration (GSA), through counsel, asked that we reconsider our June 13, 1997 decision in this case. The motion for reconsideration is denied because it was filed out of time. The motion merits a brief comment because it contains two statements that are not correct. First, GSA s counsel says that GSA attempted to file a statement with the Board concerning whether a non-Department of Defense (DoD) agency can use DoD tender rates, and that the statement was not filed because the Board "flatly denied" GSA's request for a one-day enlargement of time to make its filing. Second, GSA s counsel says that the Board "incorrectly concluded" that GSA's Office of Transportation Audits (OTA) agreed with Tri-State Motor Transit Company (Tri-State) concerning whether a non-DoD agency can use DoD tender rates. The facts are these: There were two issues presented by Tri- State's claim. The first was whether a non-DoD agency can use DoD tender rates. The second was whether Tri-State provided exclusive use. On April 24, 1997, OTA submitted its response to the claim. OTA said, "We have reviewed these issues, and concede on number (1) that, in this case, the terms of the DoD tender do not apply for the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is a non-DoD agency." OTA also said that Tri-State had not established that it provided exclusive use. On April 29, Tri-State responded by discussing its evidence of exclusive use. On May 15, the Board asked OTA to tell us by May 29, whether it accepted Tri-State's evidence of exclusive use. On the afternoon of May 29, 1997, OTA called and asked for a two-week enlargement of time to file its response. We explained why a two-week enlargement could not be granted, and OTA responded that it actually needed only a one-week enlargement. We granted OTA an enlargement of eight days, until June 6, with no further enlargements. OTA filed nothing on June 6. On June 9, we called OTA and asked whether it intended to file anything and, if so, whether it could file something that day. OTA did not have anything ready to file and we said that no further filings would be accepted. What OTA was supposed to address in its June 6 filing was exclusive use. OTA never suggested that it intended to supplement or to change its position concerning the use of DoD tenders by non-DoD agencies. In summary, we did not incorrectly conclude that OTA agreed with Tri-State concerning the first issue presented in this claim. Our conclusion was based upon OTA's April 24 letter which could not have been any more clear in stating its agreement with Tri-State. In addition, we did not deny a request for a one-day enlargement of time within which to file a statement concerning either of the issues presented in this claim; no request for enlargement was ever made. _____________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge