________________________________________

                              March 10, 1997
                 ________________________________________


                             GSBCA 13926-RATE


               In the Matter of McGILL SPECIALIZED CARRIERS


     Robert D. Norcom, Auditor, McGill Specialized Carriers,
Joplin, MO, 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.

BORWICK, Board Judge.

     By Government Bill of Lading (GBL) G-0479253, the Naval
Weapons Station, Port Hadlock, WA, on September 8, 1993, shipped
16,864 pounds of projectiles to the Naval Weapons Station, Seal
Beach, CA.  On September 21, the carrier billed the Government
$1,566.72 for this shipment.  On October 4, 1993, the carrier
notified the Naval Weapons Station of potential detention charges
of $125 because the shipment was detained until 4:30 p.m., beyond
allowable "free time."  Attached to that notice was a claim for a
balance due the carrier of $1,716.72.  That claim included
detention charges of $150, based on detention of three hours at
$50.00 per hour.  Since the Government had paid $1,691.72, the
carrier claimed the difference--$25.    

     On September 5, 1996, the carrier sent a $25 invoice
representing the detention charges for the freight to the Defense
Accounting Office, Transportation Payment Center, Carrier Bill
Payment Branch.  On October 4, 1996, the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, Norfolk Operating Location, Voucher Examining
Unit, Norfolk, VA, denied the voucher with the hand-written
notation "do not pay detention."  

     On October 25, 1996, the carrier filed at this Board a claim 
which "request[ed] review of the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service's (Norfolk Operating Location) denial and return of the
above referenced claim without payment on the attached transmittal
letter (DFAS-N0 7240/5), October 4, 1996, and not posted until
October 9, 1996."  

     On November 21, 1996, the General Services Administration
(GSA) urged dismissal of the claim as premature because the carrier
had not followed regulatory levels of review mandated by
regulation.  The carrier responded by letter dated December 23,
1996, which generated additional responses by the Military Traffic
Management Command (MTMC) and by GSA on January 24 and January 31,
respectively.  The carrier replied to those communications on
February 18.  As explained below, we agree with GSA that the claim
is premature and must be dismissed.     

     Statute provides that a carrier or freight forwarder
presenting a bill for transporting property of the United States 
Government may be paid before the Administrator of General Services
conducts an audit, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Administrator.  31 U.S.C.A.  3726(a) (West Supp. 1996).  Not later
than three years after the time a transportation bill is paid, the
Government may deduct from an amount subsequently due a carrier an
amount paid on the bill that was greater than the rate allowed
under a lawful tariff on file with specified authority, a lawfully
quoted rate subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface
Transportation Board, or a rate allowed under certain sections of
applicable statutes.  Id.  3726(b).  The Administrator may
delegate any authority conferred by this section to another agency
or agencies if the Administrator determines that the delegation
would be cost-effective and in the public interest.  Id.  3726(c). 
A carrier or freight forwarder may request the Comptroller General
to review the action of the Administrator of General Services if
the request is received not later than 6 months (excluding time of
war) after the Administrator acts or within the time stated in
subsection (a) of section 3726, whichever is later.  Id.
3726(g)(1).  

     The carrier maintains that a claimant who disagrees with an
action taken on a claim by the agency's payment office may, by
regulation--41 CFR 41.604-1(b)--directly appeal to the Comptroller
General (now this Board) rather than seeking reconsideration by the
agency, or by GSA.  In this regard, the claimant argues that it
properly exercised its "option" for review, rather than
reconsideration.

     A later section of the regulation, 41 CFR 101-41.701(a),
provides that a claimant desiring a review of the transportation
settlement action may request review by the Administrator of
General Services.  Settlement means any final administrative action
taken by GSA or by a designee agency in connection with the audit
of payments for transportation and related services furnished for
the account of the United States.  Id.  Recently, we dismissed as
premature a claim seeking review of an agency denial, since the GSA
had not conducted an audit of the claim and made its final
determination.  We held 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."  Tri-State Motor Transit Co., GSBCA 13896-RATE, at 3
(Feb. 28, 1997).  Accordingly, we dismiss this claim without
prejudice as premature.



                              _________________________
                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                              Board Judge