_________________________________________

                   ORDER ON PROCEEDINGS: August 28, 1997
                 _________________________________________



                                GSBCA 13533


                           B&S TRANSPORT, INC.,
                                     
                                               Appellant,

                                    v.

                     GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                               Respondent.

     Alexander J. Brittin and Christopher C. Bouquet of McKenna &
Cuneo, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant.

     Michael Tully, Office of General Counsel, General Services
Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.

HYATT, Board Judge.

                                   ORDER

     Appellant, B&S Transport, Inc., and respondent, the General
Services Administration (GSA), have filed, respectively, motions to
compel discovery and to limit discovery in this appeal.  In
accordance with the discussion below, we grant each motion in part. 
 
                                Background

The Contract

     The contract, number GS-30F-1008B, giving rise to this appeal
was entered into on April 1, 1994, between B&S Transport, a small,
disadvantaged business, and GSA.  The contract was a Federal Supply
Schedule (FSS) single award requirements contract, for the purchase
by the Government (all federal agencies) of nineteen different
types of new tires for light trucks and medium truck-bus vehicles. 
GSA, however, was the sole mandatory user.  The contract covered a
base period from April 1, 1994 through December 31, 1994, with an
option to extend for an additional year -- calendar year 1995 --
which was exercised.  Appeal File, Exhibits 7, 10.  The contract's
minimum order quantity was $300.  Appeal File, Exhibits 1-2.  

     The solicitation contained varying estimates of quantities of
purchases expected to be made.  The estimates were based on
purchases made in previous years.  For the items awarded to B&S the
estimates ranged from as few as fifteen of one particular tire to
as many as 253 of another.  The solicitation stated that no
guarantee is given that any quantities would be purchased, however. 
In addition, the solicitation cautioned that this was the first
year in which GSA would be the sole mandatory user and that GSA had
no way to know how this would impact on quantities ordered.  Appeal
File, Exhibit 1.  

     Another factor affecting quantities purchased is that all
Government agencies, including GSA, are required to purchase
retread tires in lieu of new tires for vehicles, unless the
purchase of new tires is specifically justified or a retread tire
is not available or in stock at the time the replacement tire is
ordered.  The schedule states that GSA may purchase new tires only
when there are no retread tires that meet the size and tread
configurations required for a particular vehicle.  According to
appellant, retreads may not be purchased for use as front tires. 
B&S did not receive an award for the supply of any retread tires. 
Of the nineteen different new tire types to be provided by B&S,
fourteen are available as retreads from other suppliers.  Appeal
File, Exhibits 7-8, 12.
 
     The appeal, filed after completion of the contract option
term, alleges that GSA breached its contract by failing to purchase
tires from B&S.  In particular, B&S alleges that after receiving
award of the contract, it did not receive significant orders for
tires.  

The Discovery Requests

     The parties have now exchanged several sets of discovery
requests and objections thereto.  In response to objections raised
with respect to its first set of interrogatories, appellant, 
through correspondence and the conduct of conversations, attempted
to narrow and refine its requests in response to respondent's
objections.  A second set of discovery requests was filed. 
Although respondent continued to raise some objections to these
requests, it did provide some responses as well, which B & S used
to tailor a third set of interrogatories and document production
requests.  GSA has objected to this third set of discovery requests
in its entirety. Despite good faith efforts to resolve the
outstanding objections, the parties find themselves at an impasse. 
Four interrogatories and three requests for the production of
documents are the subject of the pending motions.

     1.  The first interrogatory in appellant's third set of
discovery requests seeks a list of all vehicles that could possibly
use the tire sizes listed in the contract.  The list is expected to
be generated from GSA's computerized Fleet Management System (FMS) 
by vehicle tag number.  GSA has objected to this interrogatory on
the following basis:

       In response to your interrogatory 23, set two, GSA
     stated that it was possible to query the FMS system to
     provide tag numbers of vehicles within the classes "that
     could use" the tire sizes awarded to B&S.  This is, as
     stated in GSA's response to that interrogatory, a very
     rough guess.  Compiling such a list requires GSA
     personnel to make educated guesses about which vehicles
     might use a particular tire size.  In addition to being
     inexact, the list will be overly inclusive.  At this
     time, GSA's best guess is that there are about 35,000
     vehicle tag numbers that will comprise this list. 
     Although GSA has no substantive objection to providing
     this list, retrieval of this much information will
     require a significant number of personnel hours.  Because
     this information is useless unless subsequent steps are
     taken, and Respondent objects to the remainder of
     Appellant's interrogatories, Respondent objects to the
     interrogatory on the basis that retrieval of this
     information would  be unduly burdensome and expensive,
     and is not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant
     evidence.  If at some later date, Respondent is compelled
     or agrees to comply to some extent with the remainder of
     the interrogatories, Respondent will voluntarily waive
     this objection to the extent necessary.

     2.   The second interrogatory seeks repair history query
reports from GSA's Fleet Management System showing, for each
vehicle identified on the vehicle tag number list, the tire size,
the tire vendor number, and the accounting transaction control
number for the tire purchase.  Appellant explains that it needs the
vendor number and the accounting transaction control number to
obtain purchase invoices, which are highly relevant to the case. 
GSA objects that retrieval of the requested information would be
unduly burdensome and expensive because GSA personnel would have to
review on an individual basis the repair history for some 35,000
vehicles to establish if there were tire purchases of a size
relevant to this dispute.  Appellant counters that to comply, no
review must be undertaken; respondent need only print out the
screens and supply them.

     3.   The next interrogatory seeks "payment search results"
from GSA's accounts payable "NEAR System" showing the invoice
numbers for the tires purchased for the vehicles identified on the
vehicle tag number list.  Once again, respondent's objection is
that the retrieval of this information would be time consuming and
expensive  considering the small size of the case and GSA's limited
personnel.  

     4.   The final interrogatory in issue seeks a listing of the
location of boxes in the record center.  Specifically, B&S requests
that, using the invoice numbers obtained for interrogatory number
three, GSA generate, using its PITS system, a listing of boxes
where the corresponding documents are located.  This listing is
intended to assist in the retrieval of specific tire invoices from
GSA's record center.  B&S points out that this interrogatory
narrows the scope of a prior request, which GSA objected to on the
basis that it called for "wholesale retrieval" of boxes without
regard to whether relevant invoices would be found.   GSA objected
to this interrogatory on the basis that retrieval of the
information would be burdensome given its personnel availability,
and unduly expensive given what GSA regards as the relatively small
size of the case.  In addition, GSA objected to the added work
given the cumulative effort required to respond to the prior
interrogatories.

     5.   The first request for production of documents asks that
GSA produce the boxes identified in interrogatory number four
above.  GSA objects on the basis that such effort would be unduly
burdensome and expensive.  

     6.   The second request for production of documents seeks a
copy of each document identified, relied on, generated or
referenced in response to B&S's third set of interrogatories
described above.  GSA did not respond to this request, given its
position with respect to each of the referenced interrogatories.
     
     7.   Finally, B&S has requested copies of certain GSA
contracts with other tire vendors.  GSA has objected to this
request on the ground that the documents are not relevant nor
likely to lead to discovery of relevant evidence.  GSA has also
represented that the request is duplicative in that any information
in these contracts that would be relevant to this dispute is found
in the FSS schedule which is provided in the Rule 4 file for this
case.  Finally, GSA has suggested that those contracts may contain
proprietary information of other contractors.  Appellant responds
that it is interested in the terms and conditions of these
contracts, in order to determine whether GSA inadvertently included
terms that might permit the purchase of tires listed in B&S's
contract.  In addition, appellant doubts that these contracts would
contain proprietary information.

The Motions

     In its motion to compel, appellant contends that GSA's
objections as to burdensomeness and expense are conclusory. 
Additionally, even if GSA will be required to devote considerable
time and effort to respond to appellant's requests, appellant
points out that this is not a justification to deny relevant
discovery.  Appellant adds that it has estimated a loss of some
$30,000 in potential profits, and that the amount it is owed could
be considerably more than this.  Of most significance, the
information needed to establish B&S's case is wholly within GSA's
knowledge and control.  Absent this discovery, appellant cannot
effectively pursue its claim.  Finally, appellant states that it
has diligently worked with GSA to refine its requests to help
minimize the burden of response.  

     GSA's motion to limit discovery elaborates on its responses to 
B&S's third discovery request.  In particular, GSA takes the
position that the requested discovery should not be permitted
because 1) appellant has "wildly" exaggerated the possible amount
in controversy in this case; 2) GSA has made an attempt to
determine the amount of effort and cost associated with providing
responses to the discovery requests and believes that the proposed
discovery is burdensome; 3) GSA does not have the resources to
acquire all the documentation sought; and 4) the discovery is not
necessary to resolve the issue in this claim.

     With respect to B&S's potential recovery, GSA points out that
the estimates in the contract were based on prior years when all
agencies were mandatory users.  In addition, GSA argues that the
$300 minimum order requirement further limits mandatory orders
because only one tire variety exceeds $300 for one tire.  For the
other tire types, at least two tires would be required for a
purchase from B&S to be mandatory.  Because of these circumstances,
GSA contends that the amount in controversy in this matter is
necessarily very small.    

     In addition, GSA urges that the effort to retrieve the
information sought by B&S, even using computerized data bases, will
be cumbersome and expensive because the nationwide FMS data base is
not organized to retrieve readily the type of information sought by
appellant.  To comply with B&S's requests, GSA must use a separate
computer program to access the FMS data base and search that data
base by sixteen different categories and codes.  GSA asserts that
the data runs must be conducted at night because they consume the
system's entire capacity.  Employees must be trained to conduct the
search and then must be asked to stay at night to retrieve the
data.  GSA has now developed the format for querying the data base,
but states that it took several hours at night to retrieve the
information with respect to one of the agency's eleven regions. 
Retrieval of the information from the data base does not end the
matter, according to GSA, because the data does not reveal which
tire design was purchased and whether the tire was new or a
retread.  To derive this information, the invoices, which are in
the records center, must be examined.  In short, GSA believes that
the effort and expense required to comply with appellant's
discovery requests far outweigh what it views to be the de minimis
potential value of the claim.
 
     In keeping with its position, GSA has offered a proposal to
limit discovery.  GSA will produce a random sampling of tire
invoices for three months for three regions (to be selected by B&S)
for the three largest estimated quantity sizes.  Respondent
suggests that the result of this sampling will show what proportion
of the estimated amount GSA actually purchased and if these tires
were purchased from a vendor other than B&S in violation of the
contract terms.

     In response to this proposal, appellant asserts that GSA's
sampling approach is unacceptable.  It is appellant's position that
the computer formats available to GSA enable retrieval of all of
the information required by B&S in a prompt and efficient manner. 
B&S says that it has no informed basis upon which to select sample
regions for this approach and is being asked to engage in a form of
"Russian Roulette."  B&S further maintains that because GSA has now
developed the computer formats to enable it to avoid review of
thousands of boxes of documents, there is no reason to restrict
discovery to a sampling process.

                                Discussion

     Under Rule 115(c)(3) the Board may limit discovery if it makes
a determination that "[the discovery is unduly burdensome and
expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in
controversy, limitations on the parties' resources, and the
importance of the issues at stake."  This determination is arrived
at by weighing the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
against its likely benefit.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii). 
This balancing process requires honing the need for discovery as
narrowly as possible to reduce and prevent undue burden on the
responding party.  See Roseberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 85 F.R.D.
292, 304 (E.D. Pa. 1980).  Conclusory objections as to
burdensomeness are not enough.  The party resisting discovery is
required to show with specificity how each objected to discovery
request either is not relevant or is overly broad, burdensome, or
oppressive.  Id.   

     As B&S points out, the information it needs to prove its case
is wholly within GSA's possession.  B&S is not in a position to 
pursue its claim without access to the information it seeks in
these interrogatories and requests for documents.  B&S now
estimates the possible value of its case to be as much as $600,000. 
GSA believes this estimate of the potential value is excessively
high and asserts that the more likely value, if any, is less than
the $30,000 originally estimated by B&S to represent lost profits. 
The Board is not in a position at this point to determine how much
the case is potentially worth. 

     For the most part, respondent's objections to B&S's discovery
requests focus on its allegation that GSA's employees would be
required to expend significant time and energy to comply.  GSA
further argues that providing full discovery to B&S would,
therefore, represent a personal hardship to these employees.  The
fact that answering discovery requests will require the objecting
party to expend considerable time, effort and expense is not alone
sufficient reason for disallowing the requests.  Fagan v. District
of Columbia, 136 F.R.D. 5, 7 (D.D.C. 1991); Dawco Construction Co.,
VABCA 1967, 85-3 BCA  18,209, at 19,392.  Nor is it enough to
justify circumscribing discovery to the sampling technique proposed
by GSA.  Although GSA may find it somewhat burdensome and expensive
to produce the information needed by B&S, this does not outweigh
appellant's demonstrated need for the documents and information it
seeks.  One particular difficulty with GSA's proffered compromise
is that it has not made a convincing case that production of a
"sampling" of the information sought will suffice to provide B&S
with a fair opportunity to prove its case.  The discovery requests
are clearly designed to produce relevant information needed by B&S
to pursue its claim.  There is no other way for B&S to show whether
respondent has breached its obligation to buy its requirements for
new tires of the pertinent sizes under this contract.  B&S has,
moreover, cooperated in seeking compromise approaches to reduce the
burden of complying with the discovery requests in response to
GSA's initial objections that the requested discovery would require
production of massive boxes of documents.  We thus conclude that
appellant is entitled to production in full in response to most of
its interrogatories and document production requests.

     The one exception is interrogatory number 1.  This discovery
request requires GSA to produce "a listing, by tag number, of all
vehicles that could possibly use the tire sizes listed in the B&S
contract."  As GSA correctly points out, this in fact is overly
broad because it requires respondent to include in the compilation
vehicles which never purchased a tire during the relevant period,
as well as vehicles which purchased retreaded tires exclusively.
This requires the production of more information than B&S needs to
establish its case.  We agree with GSA that the properly honed
question is: "Which vehicles purchased tire types that were offered
for sale by B&S under its contract?"  Discovery request number 1
should, therefore, be limited to the production of a listing, by
tag number, of all vehicles which purchased new tires of the types
that were to be provided by B&S under the contract.  

                                 Decision

     Appellant's motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART.  Respondent
is required to comply in full with the discovery requests numbered
2-7.  Respondent's motion to limit discovery is also GRANTED IN
PART as to discovery request number 1, which is hereby narrowed as
stated above.   





                                   ___________________________
                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                   Board Judge