Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 July 9, 2003 GSBCA 16120-TRAV In the Matter of RONALD MAJTYKA Ronald Majtyka, Mineral, VA, Claimant. Deborah Osipchak, Manager, Travel and Payroll Services Branch, AFM-330, Office of the Assistant Administrator for Financial Services and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Transportation. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) management directed certain employees of the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center, including Ronald Majtyka, to stay overnight at a private establishment near their workplace during a major snowstorm in February 2003. The agency's accounting division has determined that reimbursing the employees for the cost of the lodging would be improper. The agency asks whether it may make payment. The Board's authority to settle claims of or against the Government is limited to "claims involving expenses incurred by Federal civilian employees for official travel and transportation, and for relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty station." 31 U.S.C. 3702(a)(3) (2000); GSA Order ADMP5450.39C CHGE 78, ch. 12(a)(2) (Mar. 21, 2002). We therefore answer the FAA's question only insofar as it seeks authority to make payment for the lodging costs as travel expenses. The FAA notes, in seeking authorization to pay for the lodging, that if the employees had not lodged near their workplace, the ability of the Washington Center to perform its important mission could have been badly impaired. The Center's air traffic services are essential to ensuring the continued safe operation of the portions of the National Airspace System feeding the Washington, D.C., and New York City metropolitan areas. The Center's services also support combat air patrols in the airspace over Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia. The Center could not have been closed during the snowstorm, as non-critical federal offices were. Having the employees close by, at a time when travel from home to work was extremely difficult, made possible continued operation. The agency notes that it conceivably could have achieved such operation by having other employees work double- shifts. This alternative would have been considerably more expensive than paying for the lodging, however. Although the decision to require the employees to spend nights near their workplace may have been good management, it does not justify paying for the costs of the lodging as travel expenses. The Administrator of the FAA is authorized by Congress to "develop and implement . . . a personnel management system for the [FAA] that addresses the unique demands on the agency's workforce." Pub. L. No. 104-50, 347, 109 Stat. 436, 460 (1995). The Administrator has implemented this requirement, as to employee travel, by issuing the Federal Aviation Administration Travel Policy (FAATP). James W. Respess, GSBCA 15532-RELO, 01-2 BCA 31,450. The FAATP allows reimbursement for subsistence expenses, including lodging, only to employees who perform official travel away from their official stations. FAATP 301-11.1. An "official station" is "[t]he corporate limits of the city or town where the employee is stationed" or, if the employee is not stationed in an incorporated city or town, "[t]he reservation, station, or other established area . . . having definite boundaries within which the employee is stationed." FAATP 301-1.4. An employee who spends the night at a private, commercial establishment near his duty station is clearly not away from that station, so the costs of his lodging may not be reimbursed as travel expenses. We note that the same result obtains for federal employees who are subject to the regulation on which the FAATP appears to be modeled, the Federal Travel Regulation: costs of an employee's lodging at his official station may not be reimbursed as travel expenses, no matter how sensible the decision to have the employees stay the night at private, commercial establishments. Jerry B. Dulworth, GSBCA 16035-TRAV, et al. (Apr. 22, 2003) (spending night in hotel allowed employees to perform five days' work in two); Leo McManus, GSBCA 15549-TRAV, 01-2 BCA 31,507 (staying overnight in hotel enabled employees to save cost of separate trips by meeting with contractors both late at night and early the next morning); Murray Lumpkin, GSBCA 14513-TRAV, 98-2 BCA 30,042 (staying near office during snowstorm ensured the employee could be at next day's training session for which he was responsible); Herman T. Whitworth, GSBCA 14401-TRAV, 98-2 BCA 29,804 (after employee traveled or worked for eighteen consecutive hours, he finished a working dinner after 10 p.m. and, by avoiding long trip home, was able to participate in 7 a.m. meeting next day). By deciding that, pursuant to the FAATP, the FAA may not pay as travel expenses the lodging costs incurred by Mr. Majtyka and similarly-situated employees, we are not precluding the agency from reimbursing these costs. Whether the FAA has other authority to pay for the costs, which the employees clearly incurred at the direction of their managers and for the purpose of furthering their Center's mission, is beyond the scope we are permitted to examine. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge