______________________________

                             November 13, 1997
                      ______________________________


                             GSBCA 14251-RATE


               In the Matter of TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO.


     John R. Bagileo of Bagileo, Silverberg & 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.

     Col. James F. Quinn, Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters,
Military Traffic Management Command, Department of the Army,
Falls Church, VA, appearing for Department of Defense.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     According to Military Freight Traffic Rules Publication 1A
in effect at the time the shipments at issue in this case were
made, the carrier is entitled to collect an excess value charge
because the shipper declared a released value that exceeded the
default released value applicable to the shipments.  

     In May 1992, under Government bills of lading (GBLs)
D-2,467,617, D-1,971,853, and D-1,971,855, Tri-State Motor
Transit Co. transported heavy expanded mobility ammunition
trailers  for the Department of Defense.  The GBLs provided for a
 released value not exceeding $2.50 per pound per article.   Tri-
State claimed that it was due an excess value charge for these
shipments, because the released value stated on the GBLs exceeded
the default released value set out in Military Freight Traffic
Rules Publication 1A of $20,000 per vehicle.  On March 7, 1996,
the Office of Transportation Audits (OTA) denied Tri-State s
claim.

     On March 25, 1996, Tri-State asked the General Accounting
Office (GAO) to review OTA s action concerning the three GBLs. 
Tri-State explained that, in its view, OTA should have followed
GAO s decision in Tri-State Motor Transit Company, B-254378, et
al. (Feb. 16, 1994), aff d on reconsideration, B-254378.2, et al.
(July 5, 1995), and granted Tri-State s claim.  

     On May 14, 1996, GAO sent a letter to Tri-State, with copies
to OTA and to the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC).  In
its letter, GAO stated that Tri-State  may have to pursue other
remedies  if OTA chose not to follow GAO s July 5, 1995 Tri-State
decision.  GAO added,  We have clearly stated our position on
this matter, and we have nothing further to add.   GAO concluded
by saying that it would maintain Tri-State s March 25, 1996
letter  as evidence of [Tri-State s] request for review,  and
would provide a copy of Tri-State s request to OTA and to MTMC. 
So far as we can tell, GAO never asked OTA or MTMC for their
comments concerning Tri-State s claim.  Neither Tri-State, nor
OTA, nor MTMC submitted anything to GAO after GAO sent its May
14, 1996 letter.  An internal GAO disposition sheet shows that
GAO closed its file  without action  on May 7, 1996.

     The authority to review OTA s actions concerning payment for
transportation services was transferred to us from GAO in mid-
1996.  Subsequently, GAO sent us its open claim files, which did
not include the file concerning the three GBLs that were the
subject of Tri-State s March 25, 1996 letter.

     On July 9, 1997, Tri-State asked us to issue a decision
concerning these three GBLs.  We asked GAO for its file and we
invited OTA and MTMC to provide their views concerning Tri-
State s claim.  OTA stated that MTMC would explain how the facts
of this claim differ from the facts presented in GAO s July 5,
1995 Tri-State decision.  MTMC provided us with a brief summary
of some of the facts relevant to Tri-State s claim.  

     If GAO completed its review of OTA s action and granted Tri-
State s claim in its May 14, 1996 letter, then there was nothing
for GAO to transfer to us, and there is nothing for us to do
except dismiss this claim.  Tri-State Motor Transit Co., GSBCA
14250-RATE (Oct. 21, 1997).  We will not treat GAO s May 14, 1996
letter as if it granted Tri-State s claim because OTA and MTMC
never had the opportunity to present their views concerning this
claim.  Neither Tri-State, nor OTA, nor MTMC takes the position
that GAO completed its review and granted Tri-State s claim. 

     MTMC contends that the released value notation on the three
GBLs does not entitle Tri-State to be paid any excess value
charge.  GAO has rejected this contention and so have we.  McGil
Specialized Carriers, GSBCA 14127-RATE (Sept. 30, 1997); Tri-
State Motor Transit Co., GSBCA 13839-RATE, 97-1 BCA  28,953;
Tri-State Motor Transit Company, B-254378, et al. (Feb. 16,
1994),aff d on reconsideration, B-254378.2, et al. (July 5,
1995).  MTMC has not distinguished the present claim from the
claims at issue in the three cited decisions, and so we have no
reason to depart from precedent.  

     Tri-State s claim is granted.




                                   _____________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge