______________________

                              April 17, 1997
                          _______________________



                             GSBCA 13746-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. David A. Shull, Staff Judge Advocate, Headquarters,
Military Traffic Management Command, Department of the Army, Falls
Church, VA, appearing for Department of Defense.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     Government bill of lading (GBL) G-0,394,347, issued on June 4,
1992, tendered a shipment of aircraft engines to Tri-State Motor
Transit Company (Tri-State).  Tri-State was to pick up the shipment
from General Electric Company in Cincinnati, Ohio and deliver it to
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.  The GBL identified the applicable
tender as TSMT 555.  The GBL stated, "Released value not exceeding
$5.00 per pound per article," which was the released value
established in tender TSMT 555.  If a shipment is lost or damaged,
the released value limits a carrier's liability to the lesser of
the released value or the actual loss or damage sustained.

     Tri-State picked up and delivered the shipment and sent a
voucher for $1,713.60 to the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service.  GSA and Tri-State agree that tender TSMT 555 did not
apply to the shipment because the tender did not offer rates
between Cincinnati and Eglin Air Force Base and because the tender
was canceled before the date of the shipment.  Instead, Tri-State
tender 456 applied, and Tri-State billed according to the rate set
out in tender 456.  Later, Tri-State claimed that it was owed an
excess value charge.  According to Tri-State, Military Freight
Traffic Rules Publication No. 1A (MFTRP 1A), Item 190, says that a
carrier is entitled to an excess value charge if the value stated
on the GBL exceeds the released value contained in the applicable
tender.  The released value stated on the GBL was $5.00 per pound,
which exceeded the $2.50 per pound released value contained in
tender 456.  Tri-State calculated the additional amount it believed
it was due in accordance with MFTRP 1A, Item 190. 

     The General Services Administration (GSA) denied Tri-State's
claim because GSA decided that excess released value charges did
not apply to the shipment.  Tri-State asked the General Accounting
Office (GAO) to review GSA's decision.  Congress transferred the
review function formerly performed by GAO to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and authorized him to
delegate it to any other agency or agencies.  Pub. L. No. 104-53,
 211, 109 Stat. 514, 535 (1995).  The Acting Director of OMB
delegated this function to GSA (Delegation, June 28, 1996), and the
Acting GSA Administrator redelegated it to this Board (Delegation,
July 17, 1996).  Later, Congress made permanent the assignment of
this duty to the Administrator.  Pub. L. No. 104-316,  202(o)(2),
110 Stat. 3826, 3844 (1996).

                                Discussion

     MFTRP 1A, Item 130 provides that, except as otherwise provided
in Item 190, a carrier is liable for all loss and damage to
freight.  Item 190 discusses released value and explains how
released value can limit a carrier's liability.  Paragraph 6 of
Item 190 explains that the released value established in a tender
applies "without the necessity of the shipper providing a released
value statement on the bill of lading."  Paragraph 6 states:

     If a value exceeding the released value is stated on the
     bill of lading, such valuation shall control and the
     following excess value charges will apply:

Excess Released Valuation     Excess Valuation Charges

a. Released to a value        Base transportation rate in
exceeding $20,000 per         carrier[']s tender plus an excess
each vehicle in the           value charge of 15 cents for each
shipment.                     $100 or fraction thereof by which
                              the declared value of the shipment
                              exceeds $20,000 per vehicle.

b.  Except as provided in     Base transportation rate in
(a) above, released           carrier[']s tender plus an excess
to a value exceeding          charge of 15 cents for each $100
the value that may be         or fraction thereof by which the
stated in [the tender].       declared value of the shipment
                              exceeds that for which the base
                              transportation rate applies.

     Paragraph 7 of Item 190 says that, if a shipment is lost or
damaged, the carrier's liability is limited to the lesser of the
released value or the actual loss or damage sustained.  Item 190
also says that a carrier's liability is limited to the lesser of
the declared value of the shipment when stated on the bill of
lading or the actual loss or damage sustained.

     The GBL was subject to 41 CFR 101-41.302-3(e) (1991), which
says that a shipment is made at the limited valuation specified in
the tender, "unless otherwise indicated on the face of the GBL." 
Paragraph 6 of Item 190, which says that the released value
contained in the tender applies without the shipper having to
provide a released value statement on the GBL is consistent with
this regulation.

     Tri-State says that the GBL shows on its face that the
released value of the shipment was $5 per pound.  Because this
exceeds the released value contained in the applicable tender, Tri-
State concludes that the $5 per pound valuation controls and that
the terms of Item 190 of MFTRP 1A establish the excess valuation
charge that Tri-State is entitled to recover.  

     GSA makes two arguments concerning why Tri-State is not
entitled to recover its claimed excess value charge, and we reject
both arguments.  First, says GSA, Tri-State was responsible for
ensuring that any errors or ambiguities on the face of the GBL were
corrected before it moved the shipment.  On its face, however, the
GBL did not contain any error or ambiguity because the stated
released value of $5 per pound was consistent with tender TSMT 555. 
Second, GSA says that when Tri-State determined that tender 456
applied to the shipment, it should have also determined that the
corresponding released value of $2.50 per pound applied to the
shipment, and it should have resolved any questions concerning
released value at that time.  This argument seems to presume that
there is something inconsistent between using the rates contained
in tender 456 and stating a released value of $5 per pound.  MFTRP
1A explains, however, that a shipper can state a value on a GBL
that exceeds the applicable tender's released value, and so the
agency was permitted to use tender 456 and to state a released
value of $5 per pound.  When Tri-State realized that the applicable
tender was tender 456, Tri-State was not obligated either to
conclude that a released value of $2.50 per pound applied to the
shipment or to raise a question concerning the proper released
value of the shipment.  

     Although the Military Traffic Management Command's (MTMC's)
initial position was that Tri-State should be paid, MTMC later
agreed with GSA.  In addition to adopting GSA's arguments, MTMC
makes two arguments of its own, which we reject.  First, MTMC says
that if the GBL contained an improper tender number, Tri-State was
responsible for correcting that number before accepting the
shipment, and that the terms of the GBL should not be changed
unless there is proof of mutual mistake.  Although it would have
been preferable if someone had noticed before the shipment moved
that the tender number stated on the GBL was incorrect, there is no
evidence to suggest that anyone was aware of the mistake until
after the shipment moved.  GSA and Tri-State agree that tender TSMT
555 did not apply to the shipment, and so a correction has to be
made to the terms of the GBL in order to pay Tri-State the correct
amount for moving the shipment.  GSA and Tri-State agree that
tender 456 applied to the shipment, and MTMC does not suggest
either that some tender other than tender 456 applied to the
shipment or that Tri-State should not be paid for its services. 
Thus, the contract as evidenced by the GBL should be corrected to
show that tender 456 applied to the shipment.

     MTMC's second argument is that the $5 released value stated on
the GBL simply states the released value contained in tender TSMT
555, and has "no meaning in the absence of a 'declared value' as
required by Item 190" of MFTRP 1A.  According to MTMC, no evidence
suggests that the shipper ever intended to release the shipment at
a value exceeding the released value contained in the applicable
tender.  

     The regulations to which the GBL was subject said that the
shipment was made at the tender's released value "unless otherwise
indicated on the face of the GBL."  Consistent with this, MFTRP 1A,
Item 190, paragraph 6 says that the tender's released value applies
"without the necessity" of providing a released value on the face
of the GBL.  But, paragraph 6 also says that if "a value exceeding
the released value is stated on the bill of lading, such valuation
shall control" and the carrier is entitled to excess value charges. 
It seems clear, given these provisions, that if the released value
stated on a GBL is higher than the released value stated in a
tender, the tender's released value does not apply and the carrier
is entitled to excess value charges.  MTMC says that this is true
only if the GBL contains a "declared value."

     The concept of "declared value" is introduced when paragraph
6 of Item 190 explains how to calculate the excess value charge. 
Paragraph 6 says that the excess value charge is fifteen cents for
each $100 by which the "declared value" of the shipment exceeds the
released value stated in the tender.  Although MTMC says that the
$5 per pound released value stated on the face of our GBL does not
amount to a "declared value," MTMC has not cited us to any
precedent to support its position.  In Tri-State Motor Transit Co.,
B-254378, et al. (Feb. 16, 1994), aff'd on reconsideration (July 5,
1995), GAO concluded that "declared value" meant the released value
stated on the GBL.  This is consistent with earlier precedent that
speaks of the "declared released value" of a shipment.  See
Strickland Transportation Co. v. United States, 334 F.2d 172 (5th
Cir. 1964); American Farm Lines, B-200939 (May 29, 1981); Secretary
of Defense, 38 Comp. Gen. 768 (1959); American Home Foods, Inc. v.
Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co., 303 ICC 655 (1958). 
We agree with GAO's conclusion that "declared value" means the
value declared or stated on the face of the GBL by the shipper.  

     If the shipper wished to use the released value contained in
the applicable tender, it did not have to state any released value
on the face of the GBL.  The shipper, however, declared a released
value of $5 per pound on the face of the GBL.  If the applicable
tender had contained a released value of $5 per pound, Tri-State
would not be entitled to any excess value charge.  MFTRP 1A makes 
clear, however, that a carrier is entitled to collect an excess
value charge if the shipper declares a value that exceeds the
released value contained in the applicable tender.  Tri-State is
entitled to collect an excess value charge, calculated in
accordance with MFTRP 1A.




                                   ______________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge