Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405



                 ________________________________

                         December 4, 2006
                 ________________________________


                         GSBCA 16972-RELO


                In the Matter of EDWARD B. GIAGNI


     Edward B. Giagni, Evergreen, CO, Claimant.

     Shirley L. Autry, Deputy Director, Finance, United States Army Corps of Engineers
Finance Center, Millington, TN, appearing for Department of the Army.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     Edward B. Giagni was authorized to transfer in June 2004 from a United States Army
Corps of Engineers facility in Germany to a Department of the Interior office in Colorado. 
Mr. Giagni's travel orders permitted the shipment of his household goods in two separate lots
-- a small lot of unaccompanied baggage and a much larger lot of other belongings.  The
goods were moved as permitted.  Both lots were placed in storage once they arrived in
Colorado -- the unaccompanied baggage for forty-four days and the other belongings for
seventy-one days.

     Under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), the Government has considerable, but
limited responsibility for the costs of shipping and storing a transferred employee's
household goods.  Of pivotal importance to this case, "The initial period of temporary storage
at Government expense shall not exceed 90 days in connection with any authorized
[household goods] shipment."  41 CFR 302-7.8 (2003).  The import of this provision is that
if goods continued to be stored after the expiration of the ninety-day period, the expense of
the additional storage will be borne by the employee.

     The Corps of Engineers, which was responsible under Mr. Giagni's travel orders for 
the costs of shipping and storing his goods, determined that the goods were in temporary
storage for 105 days -- evidently a miscalculation of the total of forty-four plus seventy-one
days.  It claimed that Mr. Giagni was required to pay for the share of the cost of storage
which was attributable to the goods remaining in storage for more than ninety days.  Mr.
Giagni objects that because each of the lots was stored for less than ninety days, the Corps
is responsible for all storage costs and he owes nothing.

     Mr. Giagni is correct.  The FTR says that the Government is responsible for the costs
of the first ninety days of storing "any authorized [household goods] shipment."  Use of the
term "any," combined with the use of the singular "shipment," indicates that the regulation
should be interpreted to say that the Government's ninety-day liability extends to each and
every authorized shipment of a transferred employee's household goods.  Because the
shipment of each of the two lots of Mr. Giagni's belongings was expressly authorized in his
travel orders, and each of those lots was in storage for less than ninety days, the Corps must
bear the full cost of the storage.  The Corps has already taken $727.81 from Mr. Giagni to
cover what it considers his share of the cost.  It must return that money to him.

     As Mr. Giagni has observed, the Corps employees who handled this matter did not do
their agency proud.  They made a formal demand for payment from Mr. Giagni without
informing him of the reason for the demand; failed, notwithstanding numerous requests by
the employee, to provide documents relevant to the matter until he brought the case to the
Board; confusingly introduced into the matter the distinction between temporary and non-
temporary storage of household goods, which is irrelevant to this situation; calculated the
amount he allegedly owed in differing ways (the last of which, as noted, is based on an
incorrect summation of numbers of days of storage); and had the audacity (perhaps in
violation of 5 U.S.C.  5514(a)(2)(D) (2000)) to collect the alleged debt while this case was
pending here.  Mr. Giagni asks that we require the Corps not only to reimburse him in the
amount improperly taken from him, but also to pay him an additional amount to compensate
him for the time he spent and the expense he incurred in defending his position.

     While we sympathize with Mr. Giagni's plight, we cannot award him any more money
than the Corps has improperly taken.  Our authority in deciding cases like this one is to settle
claims involving relocation expenses incident to an employee's transfer of official duty
station.  31 U.S.C.  3702(a)(3); GSA Order ADM P 5450.39C CHGE 78 (Mar. 21, 2002),
ch. 12(a)(2).  It extends no further.





                                   ____________________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge