Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                       _________________________
 
                           November 19, 1999
                       _________________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 15113-RATE
 
 
              In the Matter of TRI-STATE MOTOR TRANSIT CO.
 
 
        Beverly  Redding,  Manager,  Revenue  Accounting,  Tri-State
   Motor Transit Co., Joplin, MO, appearing for Claimant.
 
        James  F.  Fitzgerald, Director,  Audit Division,  Office of
   Transportation and  Property Management, Federal  Supply Service,
   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.
 
        On April 30,  1996, the Department of Defense (DoD) tendered
   a shipment of  goods to Tri-State Motor  Transit Co. (Tri-State).
   The Government bill of lading  (GBL G-6,623,450) that applied  to
   the shipment showed that Tri-State would provide exclusive use of
   a vehicle and that Tri-State tender 1127 applied to the shipment.
   On May 6, 1996, Tri-State  submitted a bill for $1683.50 for  its
   services.  The bill stated  that Tri-State tender 1127 applied to
   the shipment and that there was no charge for providing exclusive
   use of  the vehicle.   On  May 18,  1999,  Tri-State submitted  a
   supplemental  claim for $188.75,  which constituted a  charge for
   exclusive use.  The General Services Administration (GSA) decided
   to  deny  the  claim,  and  Tri-State asks  us  to  review  GSA s
   decision.
 
        According  to  the  Military  Traffic  Management  Command's
   Freight Traffic  Rules Publication  No. 1A,  which governed  Tri-
   State tender 1127, if a carrier wanted to  offer exclusive use of
   a vehicle  as an  optional accessorial service,  the carrier  was
   supposed to  complete section F.2  of the tender by  entering the
   appropriate charge  for exclusive  use.   Carriers whose  tenders
   contained rates subject to rate  qualifier PL were not allowed to
   charge for exclusive use.  If a  carrier that filed a tender with
   the rate qualifier PL wanted to offer exclusive use of a vehicle,
   the carrier was supposed to complete section F.2 of the tender by
   entering XXXs to show that the service was provided, but that the
   carrier  could not  charge for  the  service.   Carriers had  the
   option of furnishing  accessorial services without charge.   If a
   carrier wanted to exercise that  option, it was supposed to enter
   all zeros to show that it would not charge for the service.
 
 
        GSA and  DoD provided  us  with copies  of Tri-State  tender
   1127.    Section D  of the  tender, which  covers point  to point
   rates, contains the rate qualifier PL.  Section E  of the tender,
   which covers the territorial  rates that applied to  the shipment
   at  issue in  this claim,  contains the  rate  qualifier PH.   In
   section F.2, which  covers accessorial charges,  Tri-State states
   that the  charge for exclusive use  is  0.00.   Nowhere  does the
   tender say that Tri-State will charge for the  exclusive use of a
   vehicle.
 
        Tri-State says  that it completed section F.2 of tender 1127
   with XXXs.   Tri-State argues that  this means that it  could not
   charge for exclusive use for the point  to point rates subject to
   the rate  qualifier PL set  out in section  D of its  tender, but
   that this does  not mean that it exercised  its option to furnish
   exclusive use without charge for the territorial rates set out in
   section E of its tender.  
 
        We reject Tri-State s  argument because it  is based upon  a
   mis-statement of the facts.   Tri-State did not complete  section
   F.2 of tender 1127 with  XXXs.  Instead, Tri-State completed that
   section of the tender with zeros.   This clearly shows that  Tri-
   State was  charging nothing for  exclusive use.   Neither section
   F.2 nor  any other  provision of the  tender says  that Tri-State
   would charge for exclusive use of a vehicle.  Tri-State correctly
   billed for its services on May  6, 1996, and its tender does  not
   provide for paying anything additional for the exclusive use of a
   vehicle.
 
        We deny the claim.
 
 
 
   __________________________________
                                      MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                      Board Judge