Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ___________________ May 26, 2000 ___________________ GSBCA 15107-RELO In the Matter of FAITHON P. LUCAS Faithon P. Lucas, Bitburg, Germany, Claimant. Charles N. Stockwell, Travel Branch, Directorate of Travel and Vendor Pay, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of Defense. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Faithon P. Lucas, shipped household goods from Texas to Germany under an authorization provided in connection with renewal agreement travel. The agency has denied payment of the expenses of shipping the household goods, relying on a provision of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) that states that the employee is supposed to use a Government-provided carrier in these circumstances. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the expenses actually incurred by claimant may be reimbursed not to exceed the amount that would have been incurred had the shipment been made under a Government bill of lading (GBL). Background Claimant is a civilian employee of the Department of the Air Force stationed overseas in Germany. He became eligible for renewal agreement travel in April 1997. In February 1997, his wife s mother died and thereafter her father moved to assisted living. Mrs. Lucas s parents were located in New Braunfels, Texas, which is near San Antonio. In late April 1997, Mrs. Lucas flew to Texas to help her sister close up their parents' house. At that time, Mrs. Lucas received some furniture and other household items, which she needed either to store or ship to Germany. She placed these articles in temporary storage while waiting for orders, but could not leave the items in storage indefinitely, partly because the storage facility required her presence when the stored articles were picked up. It was not feasible for her to return to Germany and then make another trip to New Braunfels to have the items released from storage. Mrs. Lucas could not extend her trip much longer than a week to await orders. Although a request for orders had been made, orders had not been issued at that time, and a decision as to what to do with these items had to be made. It appears that claimant was told that his wife could make the shipping arrangements herself and claim the expenses after the orders were issued. Mrs. Lucas thus arranged and pre-paid for shipment of the household goods to Dallas, Texas and then on to Germany, expecting that the expense could be claimed when the orders came through. Orders authorizing shipment of the household goods were issued on June 10, 1997. Subsequently, Mr. Lucas filed a claim for payment of the expenses of shipping the household items. He was then told that payment could not be made because, under applicable regulations, he was required to ship items destined for an overseas location through the local traffic management office. The Air Force cites JTR C8002-E as the basis for disallowance of the claim. The Air Force would pay the cost of shipping these items from New Braunfels to Dallas because there is no similar limitation on shipment of goods within the United States. The agency is of the view, however, that under the JTR the failure to use a local traffic management office for the shipment from Dallas to Germany bars payment. Discussion By statute, federal employees who accept a permanent change of station in the interest of the Government are entitled to be paid for the expenses of transporting their household goods, up to a maximum of 18,000 pounds, to the new permanent duty station. 5 U.S.C. 5724(a)(2) (1994).[foot #] 1 The methods of reimbursement are different for employees transferring within the continental United States (CONUS) than for employees who are transferred overseas. Id., 5724(c), (d). Specifically, by ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Authorization for shipment of household goods is generally provided at the time of the initial permanent of change of station (PCS) to an overseas location. As a general rule, agencies may not authorize transportation of household goods on the basis of an employee's eligibility for renewal agreement travel. 5 U.S.C. 5728(a) (Supp. IV 1998); Bohdan P. __________ Gregolynskyi, 60 Comp. Gen. 517 (1981). Employees transferring ____________ overseas are, however, permitted multiple shipments of household goods when the maximum weight allowance has not been shipped overseas during the initial tour of duty. In those cases, an employee executing a renewal agreement for another tour of duty overseas may ship the balance of the household goods, providing that the total weight does not exceed the maximum to which the employee is entitled. JTR C8002-B.3. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- statute, employees who relocate at Government expense within CONUS may be reimbursed by either the actual expense method or the commuted rate method,[foot #] 2 depending on which method is less expensive. Under applicable regulations, agencies are to perform a cost comparison before determining which method will be authorized. See, e.g., Joseph Nguyen, GSBCA 14703-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,289; Robert W. Miller, GSBCA 13919-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,051. In contrast, employees transferring overseas are limited to the actual expense method of reimbursement. The applicable provision of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides that, to the extent possible, the move will be accomplished under a GBL; otherwise, the employee may be reimbursed for the move up to the amount it would have cost under the GBL. 41 CFR 302-8.4 (1997). With respect to shipment of household goods to or from an overseas location, the JTR in effect in April 1997 further provided that: Movement of HHG [household goods] will be accomplished by GBL when Government facilities for such issuance are available irrespective of whether the destination is within or outside CONUS. The activity processing the employee will make the necessary arrangements through the local transportation officer for shipment of HHG. In isolated areas where Government facilities for issuance of a GBL are determined to be unavailable, the employee may be reimbursed for the actual expense incurred in moving HHG from his/her place of actual residence to the port of embarkation . . . . ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 Under the commuted rate method, the employee arranges for shipment, pays the carrier directly, and is reimbursed by the Government in accordance with rate schedules published by the General Services Administration. Under the actual expense method, the Government ordinarily assumes responsibility for making shipping arrangements, ships the goods under a GBL, and pays the carrier directly. 41 CFR 302-8.3 (1997). In the event the employee declines to have goods moved by the Government, he or she may make different arrangements for shipment and be paid the actual costs of the shipment not to exceed what would have been paid had the goods been shipped by the Government under a GBL. 41 CFR 101-40.203-2. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- JTR 8002-E.1.[foot #] 3 The Air Force has a local transportation office in San Antonio that would have been able to make arrangements for shipment of these items to Germany. Since the JTR provides only for transportation of household goods by GBL, the agency questions whether any reimbursement may be made for the international portion of the shipment where the employee has failed to make arrangements through the local travel office. Although JTR C8002-E.1 does not expressly state that the employee may choose his or her own carrier and be reimbursed actual expenses not to exceed the cost the Government would have incurred had it used a GBL, this does not preclude recovery here. In construing the framework established by statute and implementing regulations, neither the Board nor the Comptroller General, the Board's predecessor in deciding relocation claims of federal civilian employees, has held that an employee's decision to arrange his or her own move, rather than proceed under the GBL method prescribed for overseas moves, altogether bars recovery of any moving expenses. See Nguyen; Terry Beck, GSBCA 14590-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,969; Dale Conn, B-229259 (July 25, 1988).[foot #] 4 The regulations' designation of the actual expense or GBL method for overseas moves is not intended to categorically preclude reimbursement when the employee undertakes a self-move, but rather to establish a limit on the Government's financial responsibility for the employee's shipping costs. Under JTR C8002-E.1, that limit is the cost that the Government would have incurred had it arranged the move by GBL. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 3 This provision has subsequently been amended to expressly permit self-moves by employees transferring to or from an overseas location. [foot #] 4 The decision in Conn involves facts similar to ____ this claim. There, the Army mistakenly authorized an employee transferring to Alaska, which is outside CONUS and thus limited to the actual expense method, to use the commuted rate method to ship his household goods. The employee then decided to move the items himself. When Mr. Conn submitted a claim, the Army questioned whether any amount could be paid since there was no authority to use the commuted rate method outside CONUS and Mr. Conn did not ship his goods via the Government carrier. The General Accounting Office held that where movement of goods is to an overseas location, and reimbursement is limited by law and regulation to the GBL method, reimbursement is permitted up to the amount that it would have cost to use the low-cost carrier available at the time the shipment was made. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- In conclusion, claimant may recover the cost of transporting the household goods to Germany, not to exceed the costs that would have been incurred had the local transportation office arranged the shipment. _________________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge