________________________

                             October 14, 1997
                         ________________________


                             GSBCA 13861-RATE


               In the Matter of TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO.


     John R. Bagileo of Bagileo, Silverberg & Goldman,
Washington, DC, 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.

HYATT, Board Judge.

     Between April 19 and June 4, 1991, Tri-State Motor Transit
Company transported certain shipments for the Department of
Defense (DOD) and was paid the line-haul charges for these
shipments.  Shortly thereafter, Tri-State submitted supplemental
bills for detention charges to the responsible transportation
officer who certified them as "proper and payable from public
funds."  Tri-State was paid accordingly.  In August 1994, in
response to an inquiry from the General Services Administration's
(GSA's) Office of Transportation Audits (OTA), the DOD
transportation officer recertified the detention charges as
proper.  Nonetheless, GSA deducted the detention charges from
freight charges otherwise due to Tri-State based upon its
independent determination that Tri-State was not entitled to
those supplemental payments.  

     Tri-State requested that the General Accounting Office (GAO)
review GSA's deductions.  GAO assigned the claim number B-265601.
In the proceeding at GAO, the Military Traffic Management Command
(MTMC) filed a report supporting Tri-State's position and
confirming its view that the supplemental charges were proper. 
GAO issued a letter decision holding that "Tri-State's claim for
the recovery of $74,464.81 in overcharges offset by GSA should be
paid if otherwise proper."  Tri-State Motor Transit Co., B-265601
(June 10, 1996).  OTA has not accepted GAO's determination,
however, and has not paid the amounts claimed by Tri-State. 

     Subsequent to the issuance of this decision by GAO, the
Comptroller General's responsibility for review of OTA decisions
was transferred by statute to the Administrator of General
Services.  Pub. L. No. 104-316,  202(o)(2), 110 Stat. 3826, 3844
(1996).  By delegation, the Board now exercises this review
function on behalf of the Administrator in transportation rate
cases.  

     On September 19, 1996, the Board received Tri-State's claim 
with regard to these transactions.  Notably, this was not one of
the open matters transferred to the Board by GAO in July 1996. 
In its response to the claim as filed at the Board, GSA asserts
that the claim was never properly presented to OTA for resolution
prior to submission to GAO.  Tri-State argues that the Board
should issue a decision requiring GSA to comply with its
statutory obligation to pay the amounts in issue to Tri-State. 
None of the parties to this proceeding maintains that the matter
was not fully resolved by GAO.  Likewise, none of the parties
sought reconsideration of GAO's ruling at the time it was issued.

     Arguing that the Board has the power to enforce its orders,
claimant now maintains that the Board should issue a decision
adopting GAO's determination and requiring OTA to repay these
amounts to Tri-State.  The cases and rules relied upon in support
of the proposition that the Board could require OTA to pay Tri-
State, however, derive from grants of jurisdictional authority
entirely distinct from the delegated authority to review OTA's
decisions.  As such, these cases are inapposite here.  The
authority delegated to the Board is limited to the issuance of
decisions reviewing OTA's actions.  The Board has no authority to
issue orders enforcing decisions issued by GAO, or even directing
OTA to comply with decisions issued by the Board.  Nor is the
Board authorized to reopen matters that were fully resolved by
GAO prior to July of 1996.   Under these circumstances, there is
no action that the Board may take with respect to this matter. 
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.




                                   _____________________________
                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                   Board Judge