Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405





         _______________________________________________

                                 

                        February  6, 2002

         _______________________________________________

                                 



                         GSBCA 15641-RELO

                                 



                 In the Matter of DAVID L. FOSTER           

          



     David L. Foster, Grand Haven, MI, Claimant.



     Brenda H. Mixon, Chief, Travel Division, Finance Center, United States Army Corps

of Engineers, Millington, TN, appearing for Department of the Army.

     

BORWICK, Board Judge.



     In this matter, Mr. David L. Foster seeks reimbursement from the United States Army

Corps of Engineers under the commuted rate system for the shipment of his household goods

(HHG) when he transferred from Fort Wayne, Indiana, to Grand Haven, Michigan.  The

agency reimbursed  claimant using a Government Bill of Lading (GBL) rate for the move and

a General Services Administration (GSA) estimate for storage-in-transit rate.  We conclude

that the agency misapplied the pertinent provisions of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) and

we grant the claim.  Claimant is entitled to be reimbursed for his move based on the

commuted rate schedules for both the move and storage-in-transit costs.    



     The facts shown by the record are as follows.  By orders issued on October 26, 1999,

the agency transferred claimant in the interest of the Government from Fort Wayne, Indiana,

to Grand Haven, Michigan.  Among other entitlements, the agency authorized claimant

shipment of HHG and temporary storage of those goods for a period not to exceed ninety

days.  



     The agency states that, before issuing the authorization, it had conducted a cost

comparison of moving claimant's HHG by commuted rate and by GBL.  The agency says it

determined that moving the HHG by commuted rate would cost the agency $5706 and that

moving the HHG by GBL would cost the agency $4752.  The agency explains that the cost

comparison was made "in the usual manner," i.e., the person who made the cost comparison

"was given the 'To' and 'From' locations for the Shipment of [HHG] for the PCS move.  She

called us back with two figures: Commuted Rate of $5706 and GBL rate of $4752."  



     When issuing the authorization, the agency did not specifically advise claimant that

it had conducted a cost comparison and had found the GBL rate to be the less expensive

method of moving claimant's HHG.  The agency did not authorize a particular method of

shipment (commuted rate or GBL method).  Instead, the agency stated in the authorization: 



     SHIPMENT OF HHG NTE [not to exceed] 18,000 LBS IS AUTHORIZED

     VIA GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING (GBL) OR COMMUTED RATE

     SYSTEM.  HOWEVER, REIMBURSEMENT WILL BE MADE ONLY FOR

     THE LESSER AMOUNT OF THE TWO.



     Claimant states that, beginning on October 27 through January 13, 2000, claimant

made arrangements for his move.  During this period (he does not tell us precisely when)

claimant: "called the [agency's] Transportation Office to inquire as to a GBL and was told

that an individual GBL move is more expensive than the commuted rate.  Based on this

conversation I chose to accomplish the move myself."



     Claimant states that, in moving himself, he moved 15,300 pounds by commercial

carrier and personally moved 7970 pounds.  Claimant maintains he is entitled to be

reimbursed per the commuted rate schedule as follows: $8097 for the commuted line haul

rate of 18,000 pounds, $6597 for normal accessorial services, $504 for insurance for the

shipment of HHG, $91.50 for the shipment of a piano "at origin and destination," $776.72

for an "auxiliary van" at the origin, and $2905.95 for storage-in-transit (SIT) of the HHG. 

The total is $18,194.50.  [Foot # 1 ]  



     

****************** Footnote Begin **********

[Foot # 1 ]        Claimant had earlier claimed $21,054.27, later amended his claim to

$21,053.55, and still later admitted that he had double-counted elements of SIT costs.  

****************** Footnote End ************



Claimant states that for normal accessorial services, "I performed all the services except

putting mattresses in boxes for SIT."  Clamant derives the $2905.95 SIT portion of his claim

by including $1906.20 for pickup and delivery, $57.19 for fuel surcharge by carrier, $626.54

for the first day of storage, and $316.02 as storage charge for seventeen days  pro-rated from

the eighty-nine day charge of $1654.47.  He used SIT rates charged by his commercial

carrier.  



     The agency paid claimant $8350.87.  That figure was composed of $7097.89 for what

the agency stated was the "lowest GBL estimate from the GSA Interagency Traffic

Management System (GSA-ITMS) Household Goods Shipment Estimate" and $1252.98 for

SIT.  The agency took the GSA-ITMS estimate for ninety days of SIT ($6265.32), divided

by ninety to obtain a daily rate ($69.61), and multiplied by eighteen days to obtain the total

due for SIT.  Claimant reported for duty at his new station on January 18, 2000.  



     The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which applies to all federal civilian employees, 

provides for two methods of shipping and subsequent reimbursement of a transferred

employee's HHG, the commuted rate method and the actual expense method.  41 CFR 302-

8.3 (2000).  Under the commuted rate method, the employee makes the arrangements for

transporting the HHG and the Government reimburses him in accordance with published rate

schedules.  Under the actual expense method, the Government assumes the responsibility for

making the shipping arrangements, ships the HHG under a GBL, and pays the carrier

directly.  See Steven C. Mantooth, GSBCA 14824-RELO, 99-2 BCA   30,424.  



     The FTR provides that, for individual moves, the commuted rate method is preferred

because that method relieves the Government of the administrative expenses of selecting the

carrier, arranging for services, preparing the GBL, paying the charges incurred, and

processing loss and damage claims.  Mantooth; Jeffrey P. Herman, GSBCA 13832-RELO,

97-1 BCA   28,704 (1996).  The FTR permits an agency to use the GBL method for an

individual move if the agency determines, under an appropriate cost comparison, that such

a move would be more economical.  41 CFR 302-8.3(c)(4)(i).  



     Under the JTR, which supplements the FTR with applicability to civilian employees

of the Department of Defense, the authorizing official must authorize or approve the HHG

shipment method, using a cost comparison completed prior to determining the method to be

authorized.  JTR C8200-1,-2.  The cost comparison must be made between the actual expense

and commuted rate methods of HHG, and if the estimated cost under one method exceeds

the estimated cost under the other method by more than $100, the more economical method

must be authorized.  JTR C8220-1, -2.  A proper cost comparison must consider line haul

transportation charges, administrative costs of making all arrangements and payments, and

paying any loss and damage claims.  JTR C8220-4; see Steven J. Coker, GSBCA 15489-

RELO (Dec. 20, 2001).  



     When an agency leads an employee to believe that he will be reimbursed under the

commuted rate method, or gives the employee the choice of being paid under that method,

the agency may not, after the move has occurred, limit reimbursement to GBL costs.  Under

that circumstance, the employee is entitled to reimbursement at the commuted rate.  David

L. Dillingham, GSBCA 15340-RELO, 00-2 BCA   31,061; Mantooth; Herman.  In those

cases, the agency did not perform a cost comparison before it issued the travel orders and the

agency attempted to limit the employee's reimbursement to the GBL rate.  Here, the agency

says it did perform a cost comparison that showed the GBL cost to be cheaper, but the agency

does not explain why, in its travel orders, it then authorized claimant to use the commuted

rate method, or why it gave claimant oral encouragement to use the commuted rate method

after he had received the travel authorization which authorized either the commuted rate

method or the GBL method.  



     Furthermore, the agency's original cost comparison estimate of $4752 for the GBL is

only about sixty-seven percent of what the agency now says is the supposed lowest GBL cost

of $7097.89; this disparity calls into question the validity of the original cost comparison. 

In addition, the caveat in the travel order that "reimbursement will be made only for the lesser

amount of the two" fails to put claimant on notice which method the agency had determined

was less costly and which method of shipping the HHG the agency intended to authorize.

Advising the employee in advance of the move which of the two methods the agency has

chosen based on a reasonably accurate cost comparison is the whole purpose of the

regulatory scheme, a purpose that regretfully was not fulfilled in this instance.  Since here

the agency authorized claimant to use either the commuted rate method or the GBL method,

in the face of what seems to be an inaccurate and unstated cost comparison, and then later

told the employee that the GBL method was more expensive than the commuted rate method,

we conclude that claimant is entitled to be paid for shipment and SIT of 18,000 pounds of

his HHG based on the commuted rate schedule.  



     This case is unlike Paul F. Hoffman, GSBCA 14348-RELO, 98-1 BCA   29,520

(1997), because in Hoffman, while the agency did not perform a cost comparision before

issuing the travel authorization, the agency only authorized use of the GBL method and

claimant chose to move himself.  We found Mr. Hoffman could not obtain the benefit of the

commuted rate because we concluded that if the agency had performed a proper cost

comparison, it would have issued the same travel authorization requiring use of the GBL

method.  Here, the agency expressly authorized use of the commuted rate method and,

consistent with that travel authorization, encouraged him to use the commuted rate method. 



     Claimant is entitled to reimbursement for shipment and SIT of 18,000 pounds of HHG

based on commuted rate schedules issued by the General Services Administration (GSA). 

GSA explains that in addition to the transportation allowances, the commuted rate schedule

includes allowances for various accessorial services expenses, including packing and crating,

storage-in-transit, carrier labor charges, appliance servicing, and piano/organ handling.  PFM

P  4290.1 change 2.3 (Apr. 29, 1999).  Claimant is not entitled to SIT expenses based on rates

charged by his commercial carrier.  If reimbursement on the commuted rate basis entitles

claimant to more than the $8350.87 the agency has paid claimant, the agency must pay

claimant the difference.  If reimbursement on that basis is less than the $8350.87 the agency

has paid claimant, then claimant shall refund the difference to the agency.

 [Foot # 2 ]   





                              

****************** Footnote Begin **********

[Foot # 2 ]        When an agency authorizes shipment of HHG by GBL and the employee

chooses to move himself or herself, the employee is limited to reimbursement of actual costs

not to exceed the cost of a Government arranged move.  JTR C8210-B.  That limitation does

not apply here because the agency authorized claimant to move under either the commuted

rate method or the GBL method.  

****************** Footnote End ************



___________________________________

                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK

                              Board Judge