Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405







                                             



                         ________________



                           May 16, 2006

                         ________________





                         GSBCA 16780-RELO





                 In the Matter of FRANK H. BAGLEY





     Frank H. Bagley, Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, Claimant.



     Shirley L. Autry, Deputy Director, Finance, United States Army Corps of Engineers

Finance Center, Millington, TN, appearing for Department of the Army.



HYATT, Board Judge.



     Claimant, Frank H. Bagley, was transferred by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

under orders issued in May 2005.  His household goods were shipped via Government bill

of lading (GBL) from Clarkson, Washington, to Altoona, Pennsylvania, where they arrived

on June 30, 2005.  While Mr. Bagley's household goods were in transit,  he accepted another

Government position in California, and he changed the destination of his household goods

shipment from Altoona, Pennsylvania to Bradford, New Hampshire.



     Mr. Bagley states that he negotiated with the carrier and the carrier agreed to ship his

household goods from Altoona to Bradford for the amount of $273.26, which is what he

agreed to pay.  The carrier shipped the goods to Exeter, New Hampshire and billed the Corps

of Engineers the amount of $281.12. The carrier then subcontracted with a local carrier to

transport claimant's household goods the rest of the way to Bradford for the amount of

$511.55, which was also invoiced to and paid by the Corps of Engineers.  The Corps has

required Mr. Bagley to reimburse it for the extra expenses associated with transporting his

household goods from Altoona, Pennsylvania to Bradford, New Hampshire via GBL.   



                            Discussion



     Mr. Bagley challenges the additional charge for the local carrier to move his

household goods from Exeter to Bradford, stating that this was not the deal he arranged with 

the carrier and asserting that he should not be required to pay this additional amount.  He

believes that the carrier, by charging more than the $273.26 he agreed to with it has

defrauded the Government and, in turn, himself.  He further points out that he was never

consulted about the carrier's decision to contract with another vendor to move his goods

from Exeter to Bradford, and if he had been, he would have arranged to transport the goods

the final seventy miles himself to save the expense.



     The Corps' response is simply that under the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), the

Corps was responsible for paying for the leg from Washington to Altoona, Pennsylvania. 

The additional expenses incurred to transport Mr. Bagley's household goods to New

Hampshire are his financial responsibility.  JTR C5154-F.2.



     The Corps is correct.  Although Mr. Bagley may have had an agreement with the

carrier, it is not the Corps' responsibility to enforce that agreement.  An analogous situation

is described in David O. Garner, GSBCA 15631-RELO, 01-2 BCA   31,637.  There, the

employee independently obtained a "guaranteed" price quote for the transportation of his

household goods from the same company that the Government selected to transport the goods

by GBL, although apparently the employee was not aware that the Government had selected

this company to ship his household goods.  The mover transported the household goods via

GBL, at a rate that exceeded the rate quoted to Mr. Garner.  It was determined that the

shipment weighed more than 18,000 pounds, the maximum amount for which the

Government may pay.  The Government then required Mr. Garner to reimburse it for the

proportionate share of the cost attributable to the weight in excess of 18,000 pounds.  Mr.

Garner objected to the amount he was billed, stating that his proportionate share of the cost

of transporting excess weight should be based upon the lower overall rate he had negotiated

with the mover.  The Board held that since the agency had properly reimbursed the mover

under the GBL, it was the employee's responsibility to seek an adjustment from the carrier

to reflect the contractual agreement he had entered into.  Id., accord, Daniel J. Swart,

GSBCA 15664-RELO, 0 1-2 BCA   31,641.



     The rationale of the Garner decision is controlling here.  We have no evidence that

the mover charged rates that were inappropriate under the GBL.  Mr. Bagley's complaint is

that the moving company's charges were inconsistent with the separate arrangement he had

made with that company.  Under these circumstances, the Corps is entitled to collect the

amount it was charged for the distance between Altoona and Bradford, New Hampshire.  Mr.

Bagley must seek redress from the carrier.  As we pointed out in Garner, the Board has no

authority to resolve that dispute.   



                             Decision



     The claim is denied.









                                   _________________________________

                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT

                                   Board Judge