Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405


                     _______________________

                          April 30, 2002
                     _______________________


                         GSBCA 15772-RATE


           In the Matter of ACTION CAPITAL CORPORATION


     Becky J. Cronister, President of Action Capital Corporation, Atlanta, GA, appearing
for Claimant.

     James F. Fitzgerald, Director, Audit Division, Office of Transportation and Property
Management, Federal Supply Service, Washington, DC, appearing for General Services
Administration.

     Col. John B. Hoffman, Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters, Military Traffic
Management Command, Department of the Army, Alexandria, VA, appearing for
Department of Defense.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     Action Capital Corporation (Action Capital) asks this Board to direct the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) in Orlando, Florida, to pay $2,468.47 into Action
Capital's account with the Wachovia Bank (Wachovia).  These funds were previously paid
to Action Capital's account by DFAS via electronic transfer.  When DFAS later determined
that the funds were paid in error, it requested Wachovia to return them.  The bank did so. 
Action Capital objects to the repayment and asks that we intervene on its behalf and direct
DFAS to return the funds.  The General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department
of Defense (DoD) contend that this Board lacks the authority to resolve this dispute.  They 
ask, therefore, that the case be dismissed.  For the reasons set out below, we grant their
request.    



                            Background

     In 1998, Action Capital entered into a financing arrangement with Heritage Moving
and Storage, Inc. (Heritage).  Under the arrangement, payments due Heritage for storage
services performed under a contract Heritage had with the United States Government were
assigned to Action Capital.  Heritage, however, subsequently defaulted on its contractual
obligations.  Its contract with the Government was terminated for default.  The contracting
officer subsequently determined that Heritage was in debt to the Government in the amount
of $30,750.90.  DFAS was asked to set off against this debt any monies due and payable to
Heritage.  

     Notwithstanding the request for set-off, the DFAS office in Orlando inadvertently
made payments under the defaulted contract to Action Capital in the amount of $2,468.47. 
The funds were electronically transferred to Action Capital's account with Wachovia.  When
the error was discovered, DFAS requested Wachovia to return the funds.  Wachovia did so
without consulting Action Capital.  When Action Capital discovered the bank's debit action,
it contacted DFAS and requested that the funds be returned.  DFAS has refused to return the
funds.

                            Discussion

     There are, of course, several issues which surface in a case such as this.  One might
question the propriety of Wachovia's returning the payments made by DFAS without first
conferring with Action Capital.  There is likewise a question regarding the propriety of
DFAS's insistence on having the funds returned after what may have been an inadvertent
waiver of the Government's right to set off.  Understandably, GSA has not become involved
in these or similar issues and, given the circumstances here, we see no reason why GSA
should become involved.  In the final analysis, this is not a dispute over transportation
charges or payment. Neither DFAS nor Action Capital nor Heritage questions the
correctness of Heritage's transportation charges or the amount found to be due and actually
paid.  Rather, the dispute concerns what was done with the funds after payment was made
and credited to Action Capital's account.  

     The authority delegated to this Board by the Administrator of General Services with
regard to Government payments for transportation is an authority to decide, when asked to
do so by carriers or freight forwarders, whether determinations made by the GSA on claims
filed by those companies are correct.  Delegation ADM P 5450.39C CHGE 64 (Aug. 16,
1996) (referencing 31 U.S.C.   3726(g)(1)).  GSA and the DoD urge us to dismiss this case
on the ground that it does not involve review of any audit or other determination by GSA. 
They are correct.  The relief which claimant seeks here is not within our jurisdiction to grant. 
If there is no GSA action for us to review, there is simply nothing within our authority to
decide.  Tri-State Motor Transit Co. GSBCA 14873-RATE, 99-1 BCA   30,296; Tri-State
Motor Transit Co., GSBCA 13826-RATE, 97-2 BCA   29,064.  Accordingly, this case is
dismissed.     
  
                                        _____________________
                                        EDWIN B. NEILL
                                        Board Judge