__________________

                             February 28, 1997
                            __________________


                             GSBCA 13896-RATE


               In the Matter of TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO.

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

NEILL, Board Judge.

     The General Services Administration (GSA), through its Office
of Transportation Audits (OTA), requests that we dismiss this case
as prematurely filed.  OTA points out that, although the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) has rejected the claim of
Tri-State Motor Transit Co. (Tri-State) which is the subject of
this case, the claim itself has not been presented to GSA for final
settlement action.  

     Upon receiving OTA's request to dismiss this case, we
requested Tri-State to justify our retention of this case. 
Tri-State argues that DFAS' rejection of the claim constitutes  an
acceptable basis for appeal of that action to this Board.  Tri-
State does not believe that under applicable regulation a formal
ruling by OTA on the claim is a necessary prerequisite to the
Board's hearing this case.  Furthermore, Tri-State points out that,
given OTA's position on similar claims now before this Board,
referral of the claim to OTA at this point in time would be a
useless act.    

     For the reasons set out below, we grant the request to
dismiss.  


                                Discussion

     In briefing their respective positions on the proposed
dismissal of this case, the parties address subparts of the Federal
Property Management Regulations concerning: (i) Claims Against The
United States Relating To Transportation Services, 41 CFR 101-41.6
(1966), and (ii) Reconsideration And Review Of GSA Transportation
Claim Settlements, 41 CFR 101-41.7.

     The claim which is the subject of this case is a request for
payment of amounts not included in Tri-State's original billing for
movement of an Army shipment.  As such, it clearly qualifies as a
claim within the scope of 41 CFR 101-41.6.  Since the shipment was
made by a component of the Department of Defense, presentation of
the claim to DFAS, a paying office of the agency out of whose
activities the claim arose, was likewise in keeping with the same
regulation. 

     DFAS eventually rejected Tri-State's supplemental billing as
a "doubtful claim."  Tri-State thereupon appealed the ruling to
this Board.  In bringing this appeal, Tri-State relies on a
straightforward provision in 41 CFR 101-41.6 which states: 

     A claimant who disagrees with the action taken on his
     claim by the agency's payment office may request
     reconsideration or review of that action, provided he
     meets applicable time limitations.  (See  101-41.602 of
     this subpart and subpart 101-41.7 of this part.)

41 CFR 101-41.603-4(b).  The principal issue presented here for our
consideration, therefore, is whether the rejection of Tri-State's
supplemental billing by DFAS is sufficient, in and of itself, to
permit Tri-State to request this Board to review the action without
any further intervention on the part of GSA.  

     There is a certain appeal to Tri-State's argument and to its
reliance on this single provision in the regulation.  However, the
interpretation which Tri-State would have us give this particular
provision renders other provisions within the same regulation
almost meaningless.  In addition, Tri-State's interpretation poses
a significant problem with regard to the statutory authority we
exercise, by delegation, on behalf of the Administrator of General
Services, in cases of this type.  

     The various provisions found in 41 CFR 101-41.6 describe a
regulatory scheme for the presentation, settlement, reconsideration
and review of transportation claims against the United States. 
Claims are normally to be submitted to GSA's "designee," which, in
this case, is defined as: "the agency out of whose activities the
claim arose."  The regulation authorizes the designee agencies to
pay properly documented claims without any prepayment audit. 
Certain claims, however, are singled out under the regulation as
"not payable" by the agencies.  Among these are those which are
designated by the agency's paying office as "doubtful claims." 
These and other non-payable claims are to be referred to GSA for
prepayment audit and settlement.  

The provision of 41 CFR 101-41.6 on which Tri-State relies does, in
fact, state that the action subject to reconsideration or review is
that of the agency's paying office.  Strictly speaking, however,
what would be reconsidered by GSA or reviewed by this Board,
pursuant to 41 CFR 101-41.7 (Reconsideration and Review of General
Services Administration Transportation Claim Settlements) is
considerably more than this.  It would be a determination made on
behalf of the Administrator of General Services, upon audit, that
the paying office's rejection of the claim was correct.  The
appellate function of reviewing such audit determinations has
recently been transferred by statute from the Comptroller General
to the Administrator.  Pub. L. No. 104-316,  202(o)(2), 110 Stat.
3826, 3844 (1996).  It is this review function which we, by
delegation, now exercise on the Administrator's behalf in
transportation rate cases.

     The language in 41 CFR 101-41.7 which describes the
Comptroller General's review responsibility, now transferred to
this Board, supports this analysis.  It provides for review of
settlement action and defines "settlement" as "any final
administrative action taken by GSA or by a designee agency in
connection with the audit of payments for transportation . . . ." 
Id.,  101-41.701(a)(emphasis added).  DFAS' denial of Tri-State's
claim as "doubtful" was far from final administrative action and it
involved no prepayment audit of the claim.  

     Under the immediately preceding subpart, 41 CFR 101-41.6, a
claim, once designated as "doubtful," must be referred to GSA for
audit and final administrative action.  Only then, after GSA has
audited the claim and made its final determination, are we in a
position to review that audit determination on behalf of the
Administrator.   Accordingly, we conclude that any right of a
carrier to reconsideration or review of a payment office's action
must be exercised in the context of GSA's audit and settlement of
the claim in question.  In the absence of this determination, the 
action of the agency paying office is not yet ripe for review by
this Board. 

     DFAS, although concluding that Tri-State's supplemental
billing was a doubtful claim, never sent the claim on to GSA for
further action.  Neither has Tri-State sought to correct this
deficiency by referring the rejected claim to GSA.  Processing of
this claim, consequently, remains essentially incomplete.    

     We, therefore, grant the request of OTA that we dismiss this
case as prematurely filed.  This case is dismissed without
prejudice. 
                                                                 
                              ____________________
                                   EDWIN B. NEILL
                                   Board Judge