October 30, 1997
                                                


                             GSBCA 13921-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, Department of the
Army, Headquarters, Military Traffic Management Command, Falls
Church, VA, appearing for Department of Defense.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

     On January 15, 1993, Government bill of lading (GBL)
G-0,908,292 was issued to Tri-State Motor Transit Co.
(Tri-State).  This GBL described the freight being transported as
explosives.  In block 24, under the heading "seal numbers," the
GBL contains the annotation "01004/01005."  The GBL also contains
the following annotation, among others:

     FLAME OR HEAT PRODUCING TOOLS WILL NOT BE USED TO REMOVE
     SECURITY DEVICES.

The GBL also notes that this shipment was a foreign military
sales shipment.

     Tri-State submitted a freight bill to the Department of
Defense (DoD) on February 9, 1993, for transporting this
shipment.  Thereafter, Tri-State claimed that it was owed an
additional amount of $408.50 because DoD requested, and Tri-State
allegedly provided, exclusive use of the container that Tri-State
used to transport the shipment.  On September 26, 1996, the
General Services Administration (GSA) denied Tri-State's claim,
stating:

     No specific request for exclusive use was made by the
     shipper, nor was any annotation to that effect made on
     the Government bill of lading.  Please furnish
     documentation that exclusive use was requested.

     On October 16, 1996, Tri-State requested this Board to
review GSA's denial of its claim.  In its request to the Board,
Tri-State stated:

          GSA alleges that no specific request for exclusive
     use was made by the shipper. . . . Claimant hereby
     adopts the same presentation to counter GSA's statement
     as presented in GSBCA 13747-RATE as regards the
     notation, "Flame or heat producing tools will not be
     used to remove security devices," related to the terms
     of claimant's tariff provisions.

                                Discussion

     The identical issue raised in this case was discussed at
length in this Board's decisions in Tri-State Motor Transit Co.,
GSBCA 13737-RATE, 97-1 BCA  28,945, and Tri-State Motor Transit
Co., GSBCA 13747-RATE (Oct. 30, 1997).  The latter decision is
being issued concurrently with this decision. 

     We will not repeat the discussion contained in those
decisions as to the applicable regulatory provisions and
tariff.  As in those cases, GSA has contended that exclusive
use was not requested, and claimant has provided no evidence that
exclusive use was provided.  Claimant relies upon the notation on
the GBL that "FLAME OR HEAT PRODUCING TOOLS WILL NOT BE USED TO
REMOVE SECURITY DEVICES" as evidence that exclusive use was
provided.

     The Board requested claimant to submit evidence which would
indicate the type of seal the shipper placed on the carrier's
equipment.  Claimant responded that it had:

     no other evidence other than the evidence submitted
     that the equipment was secured with a type of "security
     device" that necessitated the annotation "FLAME OR HEAT
     PRODUCING TOOLS WILL NOT BE USED TO REMOVE SECURITY
     DEVICES."
     Accordingly, based upon the record in this case, we cannot
conclude that DoD requested exclusive use as alleged by claimant.





                                   _____________________
                                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                   Board Judge