Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                      ___________________________
 
                             March 5, 1998
                      ___________________________
 
                            GSBCA 13750-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.
 
   DeGRAFF, Board Judge.
        In 1992, Tri-State Motor Transit Co. (Tri-State) transported
   a  shipment from  New York  to  Wisconsin for  the Department  of
   Defense  (DoD), and Tri-State  billed for shipping  one dromedary
   container.   DoD  paid Tri-State s  charges.  In  1995, Tri-State
   claimed that DoD owed an additional amount because, according  to
   Tri-State,  it transported not one, but two dromedary containers.
   The  Office of  Transportation  Audits  (OTA)  denied  the  claim
   because  OTA  did   not  believe  that  the   available  evidence
   established that Tri-State  transported two dromedary containers.
   Tri-State has the burden of establishing its right to recover and
   the liability of the agency.  Rule 301(b).  Because Tri-State has
   not carried this burden, we deny the claim.
 
        Both  Tri-State and OTA rely exclusively upon four documents
   in support of  their positions.   The  first document  is a  work
   order  prepared by  Tri-State  when Ireco,  Inc.  (Ireco), a  DoD
   contractor, called Tri-State and asked it to pick up the shipment
   in  New York.  The second document  is a shipping order copy of a
   commercial bill of lading prepared  by Ireco.  The third document
   is  a  signature   and  tally  record  prepared   by  Tri-State s
   employees.  Finally, there is  Government Bill of Lading (GBL) D-
   2,416,980.
 
        Tri-State submitted a copy of  the work order to the General
   Accounting    Office    (GAO)   in    February    1996.[foot #] 1
   The work order,  which is dated June  30, 1992, shows that  Ireco
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1     On July 17, 1996, this matter was transferred
   to us from GAO pursuant to section  211 of the Legislative Branch
   Appropriations  Act, 1996,  Pub.  L. No.  104-53,  109 Stat.  535
   (1995); a determination  by the Acting Director of  the Office of
   Management and  Budget dated June  28, 1996; and a  delegation of
   authority from the Acting GSA Administrator dated July 17, 1996.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   wanted Tri-State to  pick up a shipment  on July 1, 1992,  in New
   York and to deliver it  to the Navy in Maryland on  July 7, 1992.
   The    work     order    says    that     Ireco    requested    a
   DM410.[foot #] 2         Handwritten    directly     under    the
   request  for a  DM410 is  the notation   & reg,   which Tri-State
   reads as a request for a second  dromedary container.  In a space
   for special instructions, the work order states,  GBL will note a
   410 container and a reg drom will  be requested on the GBL.   The
   work order also  says that the shipment weighed  4,601 pounds and
   that Tri-State was supposed to bill Ireco.    
 
 
        Tri-State  submitted a  copy  of  the work  order  to us  in
   September 1996.  Like the  copy of the work order that  Tri-State
   sent to GAO, the copy that  Tri-State sent to us states that  the
   shipment weighed  4,601 pounds,  that Tri-State  was supposed  to
   bill Ireco, that Ireco requested  a DM410, and that Tri-State was
   supposed to pick up the shipment in New York on July 1, 1992, and
   deliver it  on July 7,  1992.  The two  copies of the  work order
   provided by Tri-State are not  identical, however.  The copy that
   Tri-State sent  to us is  dated July 1,  1992, and it  shows that
   Ireco wanted Tri-State to deliver the shipment to Accudyne  Corp.
   (Accudyne) in Wisconsin.  Unlike the copy  of the work order sent
   to GAO, the copy that Tri-State  sent to us does not contain  any
   handwritten  notation suggesting  that  Ireco requested  a second
   dromedary  container.  In the space for special instructions, the
   version of the work order that Tri-State sent to  us states, "GBL
   will note a 410 container and a reg drom will be requested on the
   update consignee//52."
 
        The  shipping order  copy of the  commercial bill  of lading
   prepared by Ireco shows that Tri-State was  supposed to transport
   a 4,601 pound shipment consisting  of five pallets to Accudyne in
   Wisconsin.   The  shipping order  copy shows  a shipping  date of
   June 30, 1992.  The "Routing" block contains this notation:
 
               GBL # D-2,416,980 (410 container and drom)
                                      4 skids       1 skid
        According to  the third  document, the  signature and  tally
   record,  a carrier  named  Boyle  Transportation  picked  up  the
   shipment from Ireco on June 30, 1992.  The shipment consisted  of
   five wood pallets,  weighed 4,601 pounds, and arrived at Accudyne
   on July 8, 1992.  The shipment s size was 173.4 cubic feet. 
 
        The  fourth document, GBL D-2,416,980, was prepared June 15,
   1992.  The GBL says that Tri-State was to pick up a shipment from
   Ireco and  transport it to  Accudyne.  Tri-State was  supposed to
   send its bill to the Army Finance and Accounting Center.  The GBL
   describes  the shipment as  weighing 4,601 pounds,  consisting of
   four full  pallets and one  partially-full pallet.  The  GBL says
   that a 410  dromedary container was ordered and  was furnished on
   July  1,  1992.   The  GBL  shows that  Tri-State  picked  up the
   shipment on July 1, 1992. 
 
        Reading the four  documents together, we see  that on either
   June 30  or July  1, 1992,  Ireco asked  Tri-State to  pick up  a
   shipment  in New York  and to  deliver it  to either  Accudyne in
   Wisconsin or the  Navy in Maryland on  July 7, 1992, and  to bill
   either Ireco  or  the  Army.   We  also  see  that  either  Boyle
   Transportation  or Tri-State picked up the shipment and delivered
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
        [foot #] 2     A 410 dromedary  container is a box  that can
   hold  up to  410 cubic  feet.   Other  dromedary containers  hold
   smaller amounts. Military  Freight Traffic Rules Publication  1A,
   Items 325, 327.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   it to  Wisconsin on  July 8,  1992.  The  shipment weighed  4,601
   pounds  and consisted  of five  pallets.   According to  the work
   orders, Ireco  requested a 410 dromedary container.   The earlier
   version of the work order contained a handwritten note suggesting
   that  Ireco requested  a second  dromedary  container; the  later
   version of the work  order did not contain this note.   No matter
   which of  these facts  are accurate, they  do not  establish that
   Tri-State actually provided two dromedary containers.
 
 
        Looking at other  statements contained in the  documents, we
   see that the  routing block  on the  shipping order  copy of  the
   commercial bill of  lading mentions the GBL and  a "410 container
   and drom."   The earlier version of the  work order said that the
   GBL  would "note  a 410  container" and  would request  a regular
   dromedary container.   The later  version of the work  order said
   that the GBL  would "note  a 410 container"  and that some  other
   document would  request a regular  dromedary container.   Even if
   these statements on the routing  block and the work orders amount
   to predictions  that  the GBL  would  request both  a  410 and  a
   regular  dromedary container,  the  fact  remains  that  the  GBL
   requested only a 410 container.  In addition, the GBL states that
   Tri-State  furnished a 410  container, which was  large enough to
   hold this shipment.  These  facts do not establish that Tri-State
   actually provided two dromedary containers.
 
        Because  the evidence  does  not  establish  that  Tri-State
   transported   two  dromedary   containers,   Tri-State  has   not
   established  its right  to recover  for a  second container.   We
   agree with OTA s decision to deny Tri-State s claim.
 
 
 
                                      ______________________________
                                      MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                      Board Judge