__________________

                            September 30, 1997
                            __________________


                             GSBCA 13971-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, Headquarters,
Military Traffic Management Command, Department of the Army, Falls
Church, VA, appearing for Department of Defense. 

NEILL, Board Judge.

     On September 13, 1993, Tri-State Motor Transit Co. (Tri-State)
requested the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the denial
of a transportation rate claim which had been submitted to the
Office of Transportation Audits (OTA) at the General Services
Administration (GSA).  The claim related to a cargo movement under
Government Bill of Lading (GBL) C-7,750,903.  Tri-State's appeal of
the OTA ruling was consolidated with several other requests for
review and was processed by GAO under a file heading of "B-254372
et al."

     On July 15, 1994, GAO issued a decision for "B-254372 et al." 
Tri-State Motor Transit Co., B-254372, et al. (July 15, 1994).  In
reviewing the decision, Tri-State noted that the particular issue
raised by its claim regarding GBL C-7,750,903 was not addressed. 
By letter dated August 3, 1994, Tri-State called this to the
attention of GAO and suggested that the decision be amended to
correct the oversight.  

     GAO promptly replied to Tri-State's suggestion.  In a letter
dated August 15, 1994, GAO acknowledged that the decision of July
15 did not address the issue raised in Tri-State's  claim involving
GBL C-7,705,903 but explained that the issue would be addressed  in
a subsequent decision dealing with case number B-256081.  The
letter concludes: "That decision will be dispositive for
C-7,750,903."  Three days later, on August 18, 1994, GAO did, in
fact, issue a decision covering case number B-256081.  Tri-State
Motor Transit Co., B-255630, et al. (Aug. 18, 1994).    

     Since the issuance of these decisions by GAO, the Comptroller
General's responsibility for review of OTA decisions has been
transferred by statute to the Administrator of General Services. 
Pub. L. No. 104-316,  202(o)(2), 110 Stat. 3826, 3844 (1996).  By
delegation, this Board now exercises this review function on behalf
of the Administrator in transportation rate cases.  On October 22,
1996, Tri-State filed with this Board a request that we decide its
request for review of the denial of its claim concerning GBL
C-7,750,903.  Tri-State contended that the Comptroller General had
never addressed this claim in a specific decision and that,
therefore, the claim should be transferred to this Board for
resolution.

     We docketed Tri-State's request as GSBCA 13971-RATE and
requested the GAO file on this claim.  In reviewing the
documentation provided by the GAO, we find particularly significant
the letter sent to Tri-State by GAO on August 15, 1994.  As already
noted, it advised Tri-State that the decision on case file B-256081
would be "dispositive for C-7,750,903."  Since that decision has,
in fact, been issued, we conclude, based upon this letter, that the
matter of GSA's denial of Tri-State's claim on GBL C-7,750,903 has
been resolved as well.  There is nothing for us to decide.  On the
other hand, if Tri-State's request to us for review was in the
nature of a request for reconsideration, it clearly has come too 
late.       

     It is true, of course, that in a recent decision issued by
this Board we have chosen not to follow the precedent established
with the GAO decision which was dispositive of the claim involving
GBL C-7,750,903.  Tri-State Motor Transit Co., GSBCA 13763-RATE
(June 27, 1997).  This decision on our part, however, has no effect
on the finality of decisions previously rendered by GAO while it
exercised the review authority which has subsequently been
transferred to us.  

     For the reasons set out above, therefore, this case is
dismissed.  


                                   _____________________
                                   EDWIN B. NEILL
                                   Board Judge