October 21, 1997
                                                  


                             GSBCA 14241-RATE


               In the Matter of TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO.


     John D. Bagileo and Claire Shapiro of Bagileo, Silverberg
and Goldman, L.L.P., Washington, DC; and 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).

     Section 3726(g)(1) of title 31, United States Code, permits
a carrier or freight forwarder to request a review of actions
taken by the Administrator of General Services concerning a bill
for transporting an individual or property for the United States
Government.  Until mid-1996, these requests were made to the
General Accounting Office (GAO), which conducted the reviews;
since then, as a result of changes in the governing statute, the
appellate authority has been vested in this Board.  C. I. Whitten
Transfer Co., GSBCA 13911-RATE, 97-1 BCA  28,860, at 143,986.

      In 1993, while the authority was still held by the GAO,
Tri-State Motor Transit Co. asked that agency to review the
Administrator's denial of claims it had submitted relating to the 
shipment of vehicles under Government bills of lading (GBLs)
numbered C-7,653,957, C-7,653,959, and C-9,846,494.  Tri-State
contended that because the Government declared, on each GBL, that
the vehicle being shipped had a greater value than the standard
"released value," the carrier was entitled to additional payment
for transporting the vehicle.  GAO assigned these claims
numbers B-254378, B-254820, and B-255820.

     The Administrator acts, in ruling on carrier claims, through
the General Services Administration's (GSA's) Office of
Transportation Audits (OTA).  See 41 CFR subpt. 101-41.6 (1996). 
After docketing these cases, GAO asked OTA for its views on the
claims.  OTA did not respond.  GAO issued a decision on the first
two claims, upholding the carrier's position.  Tri-State Motor
Transit Co., B-254378, et al. (Feb. 16, 1994).  It withheld final
action on the third claim, pending receipt of OTA's comments on a
minor issue.  By June 20, 1994, however, since OTA had not
responded, GAO told OTA that it "assume[d] that you agree with us
on the released valuation" and the other issue, and closed its
file in the case involving that claim as well.

     Nearly a year later, on May 9, 1995, OTA asked GAO to
"revisit" the "released valuation issue" in these three claims. 
GAO complied with this request, affirming its previous decision. 
Tri-State Motor Transit Co.--Reconsideration, B-254378.2, et al.
(July 5, 1995).

     Ten more months passed.  On March 27, 1996, a senior
assistant general counsel of GSA told Tri-State, "A Settlement
Certificate . . . will be issued for those GBL's that you
protested to the Comptroller General under the captioned file
numbers . . . .  This determination is based upon the singular
reconsideration decision[] . . . of July 5, 1995."
 
     On July 9, 1997, Tri-State wrote to the Board concerning its
claim on the GBLs addressed in the GAO decisions cited.  Tri-
State alleged that it had no record of receiving any certificates
of settlement from OTA regarding these claims.  The carrier asked
us to issue an order directing OTA to issue such certificates,
consistent with GAO's decisions.  As Tri-State now acknowledges,
"only enforcement issues were presented to the Board."

     In response, OTA maintained that GAO's decisions regarding
these GBLs "are restricted by the limited presentation of facts
relative to each case, and consequently, have limited
application."  OTA deferred to the Military Traffic Management
Command (MTMC), the Defense Department agency which sets rules
governing the movement of that department's freight traffic by
motor carrier, as to a "presentation of a diversity of facts that
more adequately address the issue."  MTMC reargued the merits of
GAO's position generally, but provided no facts specific to the
GBLs at issue.

     Both OTA and MTMC, on the one hand, and Tri-State, on the
other, misunderstand the role of the Board in resolving carrier
requests for review of OTA decisions.  The requests exclusively
involve decisions on individual claims regarding individual
shipments.  In response to each request, we make a determination
on the claim and try to enunciate our reasons in a way that
provides useful guidance for paying carriers in similar
circumstances in the future.  We do not consider issues
independent of pending claims.  We issue our decisions under a
delegation of authority from the Administrator, who has directed
that the decisions "constitute final administrative action on
these claims, not subject to review within the agency."  The
Administrator has not delegated to us, however, the authority to
enforce our decisions or GAO's decisions.  Nor has the
Administrator delegated to us the authority to discipline
entities within the General Services Administration for failing
to comply with our directives; he has retained that power.  Tri-
State Motor Transit Co., GSBCA 13861-RATE (Oct. 14, 1997).

     The claims made by Tri-State on the three GBLs at issue here
were resolved by GAO long before this Board received
authorization to decide carriers' claims.  We will consider a
request for reconsideration of one of our own decisions if such a
request is filed within thirty calendar days after the date the
decision was issued.  Rule 307 (62 Fed. Reg. 25,865, 25,868
(1997) (to be codified at 48 CFR 6103.7)).  We apply this rule to
requests for reconsideration of GAO decisions, as well.  Under
it, Tri-State's filing is much too late to be considered as a
request for reconsideration, and OTA and MTMC erred in treating
it as one.  Tri-State has actually asked us only to direct OTA to
act in accordance with GAO's decision.  We do not have the
authority to make such a direction.

     We sympathize with Tri-State's predicament.  The Congress
established a system for administrative resolution of carrier
claims.  Through that system, the claims that are the subject of
this case have been resolved in the carrier's favor.  OTA was
told, more than three years ago, to issue settlement certificates
mandating payment of the claims.  That direction was reiterated
more than two years ago.  GSA made a commitment to issue such
certificates more than one and one-half years ago.  That
commitment has not been honored.  Much as we agree that this sort
of action on OTA's part is improper, however, we have no power to
do anything about it.

     Accordingly, we dismiss this case.





                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge