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



                                                 

                         October 19, 2004
                                                 


                         GSBCA 16471-RATE


            In the Matter of ARPIN INTERNATIONAL GROUP


     Mark Greene, GSA and Alaska Division, Arpin International Group, East Greenwich,
RI, 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.

     Christinia K. Sisk, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Acquisition
Management, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, Washington, DC,
appearing for Department of Justice.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     This case is dismissed because the claimant did not pursue its administrative remedies
within the time permitted by law.

                            Background

     Arpin International Group (Arpin) transported household goods for the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) in April 1997.  In January 1999, the General Services
Administration (GSA) audited DEA's payment for this service and determined that DEA had
overpaid Arpin $1587.41.  GSA therefore issued to Arpin a notice of overcharge in that
amount.

     In February 1999, Arpin protested the notice of overcharge.  GSA says that it denied
the protest on August 20, 1999.  Arpin says that it has never received any response to its
protest.  On June 24, 2004, however, Arpin's representative told GSA that Arpin "got a
denial" after "rebutt[ing]" GSA's notice of overcharge.

     GSA asserts that at its direction, on August 27, 1999, the Government's Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) deducted the amount in question from payments
otherwise due Arpin for services performed.  Arpin does not challenge this assertion.

     On July 22, 2004, Arpin asked the Board to review GSA's determination that it had
overcharged the Government for its services on the DEA shipment.

     After reviewing comments by GSA and DEA which urge that the case be dismissed,
Arpin acknowledges, "It appears that everyone agrees that we are outside of a time limit." 
The carrier also states that it "would appreciate an answer" as to the substance of its
disagreement with GSA "so that [we] might learn something from this."

                            Discussion

     By statute, a carrier or freight forwarder which transports an individual or property
for the Government may make a claim to the Administrator of General Services for payment
for its services.  31 U.S.C.   3726(c)(1) (2000).  The claim may only be made, however    

     if it is received by the Administrator  not later than 3 years (excluding time of
     war) after the late[st] of the following dates:

          (A)  The date of accrual of the claim.

          (B)  The date payment for the transportation is made.

          (C)  The date a refund for an overpayment for the
               transportation is made.

          (D)  The date a deduction [by the Government from an
               amount otherwise due] is made.

Id.   3726(c)(2).  By regulation, if GSA denies a protest and takes some action to collect the
amount it believes is due from a carrier, the carrier may submit a claim to GSA.  41 CFR
102-118.450, -118.645 (2003); DHL Worldwide Express, GSBCA 16308-RATE, 04-1 BCA 
 32,549.

     Once DFAS, at GSA's direction, deducted from amounts otherwise due to Arpin the
amount which became at issue through Arpin's protest, Arpin had three years in which to
make a claim to GSA, seeking return of the money.  The deduction was made in August
1999.  Arpin did not ever make a claim to GSA.  Instead, nearly five years later, it filed a
case with the Board   something  which may be done only after GSA has ruled on a claim. 
31 U.S.C.   3726(i)(1); 48 CFR 6103.2(a)(5); Tri-State Motor Transit Co., GSBCA
14352-RATE, 98-1 BCA   29,521.

     We have no authority to consider matters relating to payment for transportation
services which were not previously presented in a timely fashion to GSA in the form of
claims.  The matter at issue in this case was not presented to GSA as a claim within three
years of the Government's deduction of the amount in question, and therefore may not now
be presented for decision by this Board.

     Nor do we offer thoughts as to matters which are not properly before us.  The Board
is a quasi-judicial tribunal; it decides cases, but does not provide legal advice.  48 CFR
6103.1(b); cf. Pamela R. Harris, GSBCA 15645-RELO, 01-2 BCA   31,640 (as quasi-judicial
body, Board decides cases on basis of information provided by parties; it "does not perform
independent investigations" of matters raised).  Arpin's request for advice is more
appropriately addressed to GSA, not the Board.

                             Decision

     The case is dismissed.





                                   __________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge