Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                                                 
 
                             April 15, 1998
                                                 
 
 
                            GSBCA 14109-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.
 
        Colonel James F. Quinn,  Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters,
   Military  Traffic  Management Command,  Department  of the  Army,
   Falls Church, VA, appearing for Department of Defense.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
        This  claim involves a  shipment carried by  Tri-State Motor
   Transit  Co. for  the Department  of Defense  (DoD) from  Grumman
   Aerospace Corporation in Bethpage, New York to the Canadian Space
   Agency in Napean,  Ontario, Canada in  December 1992.   Tri-State
   maintained  that  it  was  entitled  to  $714.25  more  than  the
   Government  paid  --  $614.25 because  charges  should  have been
   calculated on the basis of the  carrier's relevant tariff, rather
   than  one of  its tenders  to DoD, and  $100 because  a dropframe
   trailer was used in transporting the goods.
 
        In response, the General Services Administration's Office of
   Transportation  Audits (GSA) agreed that charges should have been
   made in accordance with the tariff, not the tender, and that Tri-
   State  should consequently  be paid  an additional $614.25.   GSA
   said,  however, that  it "finds  no documentary  evidence that  a
   dropframe trailer  was requested  or furnished on  the GBL."   It
   consequently opposed payment of the additional $100.
 
        Tri-State then  amended its  claim to  seek $222.40,  rather
   than $100,  in charges for  the trailer.   The new amount  is the
   appropriate charge, under the relevant Tri-State tariff in effect
   at the time of the shipment, for using an "expandable trailer" of
   a certain height  in transporting goods the  distance involved in
   this carriage.  GSA did not respond to the amendment.
 
 
        The  Government bill of lading (GBL) for this shipment lists
   "mode" as "A(AC2)," which is a DoD equipment code for "expandable
   low bed trailer,  2 axles."  The GBL also states, "Use of low-bed
   trailer authorized."   GSA agrees that a low bed trailer was used
   in  transporting  the  shipment  in  question.    Based  on  this
   information,  we conclude that the Government requested, and Tri-
   State furnished, an expandable low bed trailer for this shipment.
   According to documentation provided by Tri-State, the trailer was
   ten feet in height.   According to Tri-State's tariff, the charge
   for  use  of  a  ten-foot-high  trailer is  as  the  carrier  has
   calculated.  We  consequently direct that  Tri-State be paid  the
   amount it now seeks.[foot #] 1
 
                                 _________________________
                                 STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                                 Board Judge
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1 In  response to  Tri-State's  initial claim,  the
   Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), which is representing
   DoD in this  case, urged us to dismiss the case because the claim
   had  been filed  later than  the  time permitted  by statute,  or
   alternatively  through application  of  the  doctrine of  laches.
   GSA,  which  earlier  rejected  the  claim  as  time-barred,  now
   correctly admits that  this action was improper.   Application of
   laches is inappropriate  because MTMC has not shown  both that it
   was prejudiced  by Tri-State's  delay in  bringing the  claim and
   that there exist any special facts which make the delay culpable.
   See  C. I.  Whitten Transfer  Co., GSBCA  13911-RATE, 97-1  BCA  
   ___  ____________________________
   28,860.