December 11, 1997
                                               
 
 
                            GSBCA 14262-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.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
        Pursuant  to Board Rule 307, the Military Traffic Management
   Command  (MTMC) has  requested  reconsideration  of this  Board's
   decision in Tri-State  Motor Transit Co., GSBCA  14262-RATE (Nov.
   14, 1997).   We grant the request for  reconsideration and affirm
   the previous decision.
 
        The request for reconsideration reads, in relevant part:
 
        [T]he Board states:
 
             [MTMC has filed an  extensive reply, in which
             it  relies upon  the assertion that  the GBLs
             [Government   bills  of   lading]  in   issue
             contained   language    which   require    an
             endorsement  on  the  bill   of  lading  when
             "accessorial  or  special services,  such  as
             exclusive use . . . are ordered."  In support
             of this argument, MTMC  has submitted a blank
             c o p y    o f     S t a n d a r d    F o r m
             1103.][[foot #] 1]           The     language
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1   This  language appears in the  Board's decision
   immediately   before  the  language  quoted  in  the  motion  for
   reconsideration.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
             upon which MTMC relies is  found on page 2 of
             Standard Form  1103.   However,  the GBLs  in
             question are  issued on  Standard Forms  1104
             and 1105,  both of which  are one-page  forms
             which do not contain  the language upon which
             MTMC relies.  41 CFR 101-41.4901 (1994).
 
             The  CFR cited by  the Board lists  GBL components
        found in a  complete manifold GBL set.   This same list
        is  provided in  Table  32-1  of  the  Defense  Traffic
        Management Regulation (DTMR), Army  Regulation 55-355 .
        . .  .  This  set of forms  comes together in  a single
        packet and  is  produced at  the  same time  in  carbon
        copies.  As stated in paragraph 32-25a of the DTMR:
 
             When shipments are tendered to a  carrier for
             transportation, the original  shipping order,
             the  two  waybill  copies  and  the  required
             number  of  memorandum   copies  (based  upon
             requirements contained in  this section) will
             be  presented  to  the  carrier  for  receipt
             purposes.
 
             To the  extent that  the Board  is of  the opinion
        that Standard Forms 1104 and 1105 were used in separate
        transactions   under   separate   circumstances,   that
        conclusion is incorrect.   In fact, while  the Standard
        Form 1105 does not have  page 2 printed on the reverse,
        Standard Form 1104 has the same page 2 as Standard Form
        1103.  The  original  GBL,  i.e.,  Standard Form  1103,
        represents  the  contract  instrument and  the  various
        copies  serve  various   functions  within  the   basic
        business  process such  as  receipt, record,  transfer,
        billing,  etc.   Accordingly, we believe  the governing
        GBL  provisions  specifically described  on  page  2 of
        Standard Form 1103 apply and  control in this case.  At
        the  very least, such  provisions raise create  [sic] a
        conflict between the GBL and the carrier's tariff.  The
        carrier  had the  duty  to  address  and  resolve  that
        conflict.  See GSBCA 13893-RATE.
 
        Even  though   the  above-quoted  regulations   require  the
   standard forms  to be issued  as a package, as  asserted by MTMC,
   the  record in  this case  did  not contain,  and still  does not
   contain,  a copy  of Standard  Form 1103  issued to  the carrier.
   Instead, MTMC submitted a  blank form with a GBL number which did
   not match the GBL number at issue in the instant case.  There was
   no indication  in the  record that the  agency had  fulfilled the
   requirement of the regulation as alleged by the agency.  
 
        Even if the  GBL contained the language  referenced by MTMC,
   we do  not see  it in conflict  with the  terms of  the carrier's
   tariff. As we noted in our previous decision:
 
        [T]he  clear  and  unambiguous language  of  the tariff
        states that the application  of the type of  lock which
        was  applied in the instant case "will be considered as
        a request for  exclusive use irregardless [sic]  of any
        notation  on the bill of lading."
 
   Tri-State, slip op. at 4.
 
        Thus, even if the GBL  contained the language relied upon by
   MTMC, the language of the tariff does not conflict  with the GBL,
   as the tariff  makes clear that the  use of the lock  in question
   will be considered a request  for exclusive use regardless of any
   notation on the bill of lading. 
 
        Our  decision in Tri-State  Motor Transit Co.,  GSBCA 14262-
   RATE (Nov. 14, 1997), is affirmed.
 
                                      _______________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge