Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________________________________ March 6, 2000 _____________________________________________ GSBCA 15154-RELO In the Matter of MATTHEW YOUNG Matthew Young, Washington, DC, Claimant. Jeanette Bushner, Chief, Travel Section, Austin Finance Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, Austin, TX, appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs. GOODMAN, Board Judge. This is a claim submitted by the claimant employee s agency, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), on behalf of the employee. Claimant is seeking review of the agency s denial of reimbursement for purchase of a trailer hitch incurred in his relocation. The OFHEO is a small, independent office that has contracted with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Financial Services Center to provide relocation services and support to OFHEO for relocation of employees. The employee, Matthew Young, was hired as a new appointee through the Presidential Management Intern Program. Relocation expenses were authorized by OFHEO through its agent, VA Financial Services Center. An employee of the VA Financial Services Center coordinated with claimant in preparing a travel authorization. Claimant advised that he had very little property to move and could do so by renting a trailer rather than using a moving company at greater cost to the Government. When claimant rented the trailer, he learned that he could not rent a trailer hitch to pull the trailer behind his vehicle. In good faith, he purchased the required trailer hitch for $202.50, believing he was entitled to reimbursement, and completed his move. Claimant then submitted his voucher as follows: Mileage (184 miles @ $.15) $ 27.60 Purchase of U-Haul hitch 202.50 Toll fares 6.75 Bicycle Rack Co (Rental) 146.14 Total $382.54 VA denied reimbursement for the trailer hitch, and paid him $180.49 for the remaining items. OFHEO thereupon verified from the rental company that there was no hitch available for rental. OFHEO requested VA to reconsider the denial due to the circumstances involving the trailer hitch and because the new appointee did not know that such a purchase would not be reimbursed. VA denied the reimbursement. The OFHEO requests that we determine if the cost of the trailer hitch was reimbursable. OFHEO notes that Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), at 41 CFR 302-1.10 (1998), provides that because new appointees usually lack experience in Government procedures, each agency shall adopt special measures to provide full information to new appointees concerning the benefits which may be available to them for travel and transportation involved in reporting to their official stations. Special care shall be taken to inform appointees of the limitation on available benefits. OFHEO further states: The Government did not advise [claimant] that he would not be reimbursed for the purchase of a trailer hitch nor did the Government explain to [claimant] that he would be required to rent a trailer hitch. [Claimant] was authorized to rent a trailer and perform a do it yourself move. It is logical that [claimant], a new appointee, would not understand the nuance regarding rental or purchase of a hitch required to implement a move that had been properly authorized. One of the premises of the Federal Travel Regulations [sic] is to ensure that employees are not disadvantaged by government travel, and that government travel be achieved in the most cost effective manner for necessary expenses. . . . [Claimant] acted in good faith when he purchased the trailer hitch to carry out a move approved by OFHEO. Discussion The FTR, at 41 CFR 302-1.10, governs reimbursement of relocation expenses for new appointees such as claimant. The applicable provisions read as follows: (e) Allowable expenses. Items of expense listed in paragraphs (e) (1) through (6) of this section are payable under the conditions prescribed in this chapter governing the allowance in question. Note particularly that not all of the listed items will be applicable in each situation covered by this part. (1) Travel expenses including per diem for the appointee or student trainee as set forth in 302-2.1; (2) Transportation for immediate family of appointee or student trainee as set forth in 302-2.2(a); (3) Mileage if privately owned vehicle is used in travel as set forth in 302-2.3; (4) Transportation and temporary storage of household goods as set forth in part 302-8; . . . . (f) Expenses not allowable. Items of expense not listed in paragraph (e) this section which are authorized for reimbursement in case of transfers under this chapter (e.g., per diem for family, cost of househunting trip, subsistence while occupying temporary quarters, a miscellaneous expense allowance, residence sale and purchase expenses, lease-breaking expenses, and relocation services) are not allowable to appointees and student trainees eligible under this section. The FTR, at 41 CFR pt. 302-8, which is referenced in the above regulation, authorizes agencies to use one of two methods for transporting an employee's household goods. Under the "commuted rate system," the employee makes his own arrangements for transporting the household goods and is reimbursed by the Government in accordance with schedules of commuted rates set by the General Services Administration. The amount paid to the employee is computed by multiplying the weight of the household goods (up to a maximum) by the applicable rate. 41 CFR 302- 8.3(a). Under the second method, the "actual expense method," the Government normally assumes complete responsibility for shipping the goods and does so under a Government bill of lading. 41 CFR 302-8.3(b). The Government is to use the commuted rate system unless a cost comparison shows that the actual expense method would be cheaper. 41 CFR 302-8.3(c). The VA did not authorize reimbursement under either method allowed by the FTR. The VA states that it authorized claimant to transport his household goods by the "Do it yourself method." Apparently it then reimbursed claimant for the rental charge for the trailer, tolls, and $.15 per mile. There is no provision in the FTR for a "Do it Yourself" move. Under similar circumstances, when the VA attempted to authorize an employee s relocation on this basis, we have held that the employee is entitled to the commuted rate, " . . . as there simply is no provision in the FTR for giving an employee the keys to a U-HAUL and wishing him good luck in his next duty assignment." Lawrence M. Ribakoff, GSBCA 13892-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,018. Claimant is entitled to payment under the commuted rate.[foot #] 1 The agency should compute claimant s entitlement as required by regulation and pay claimant accordingly. Claimant has been paid $180.49. If he is due an additional amount, it should be paid to him. If he has been overpaid, the agency should proceed according to statute and regulation with regard to the overpayment. __________________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Claimant was also not paid a per diem as required by the regulatory provisions quoted above. The agency should determine if claimant is due per diem and pay him accordingly.