Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________________ January 28, 2000 _________________________ GSBCA 15074-RELO In the Matter of LORE ANN CARDENAS Lore Ann Cardenas, Vallejo, CA, Claimant. Sandra S. Williams, Authorized Certifying Officer, National Finance Center, Department of Agriculture, New Orleans, LA, appearing for Department of Agriculture. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. The Department of Agriculture has asked our opinion on whether it may reimburse a transferred employee for two expenses incurred in connection with her relocation: (1) a $100 charge for an additional pickup of a portion of her household goods (HHG) and (2) the cost of a one-way rental car to her new location which was necessitated because she did not own a personal vehicle. Claimant is entitled to reimbursement for the rental vehicle. She may also be reimbursed for the additional pickup so long as the total cost of moving her HHG does not exceed the amount it would have cost to move all claimant's goods, up to 18,000 pounds, in one lot and in one trip by a commercial carrier. Background Claimant, Lore Ann Cardenas, was transferred from San Francisco to Mare Island, California. Her old official residence is 34.1 miles from her new duty station. The agency authorized a rental vehicle for her one-way trip not to exceed $350, as well as ferry expenses of $50, shipment of claimant's household goods (which weighed 4500 pounds) under a Government bill of lading (GBL), and storage of her household goods for ninety days. The agency also approved real estate expenses in the estimated amount of $11,534. Claimant's date of travel was January 28, 1999. Claimant stayed with a friend for approximately two weeks before she found a new residence. She kept some of her luggage, which the moving company would not store at its facility, at a friend's house including her bicycle, plants, and other miscellaneous belongings. She incurred an additional expense of $100 when the moving company made a second stop to pick up these items. In addition, since she did not own a personal vehicle, claimant rented a vehicle to travel to her new duty station and transport some personal belongings. She incurred a cost of $111.74 for this rental. The agency determined there was no public transportation between claimant's old and new duty stations and that the cost for a taxicab would have been $70 one way. The agency recognized that, since the employee was transporting personal effects, a taxi would not have been feasible. Discussion The Rental Car Subsequent to requesting our opinion, the agency determined that it could reimburse the employee for the rental car pursuant to Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 302-2.1(b). The regulation provides in pertinent part: "Payment for employee's travel expenses. Except as specifically provided in this chapter, an agency shall pay per diem, transportation costs, and other travel expenses of the employee in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5701-09 and Chapter 301 of this Title." 41 CFR 302-2.1(b) (1997). Reasoning that the rental car was the means of transportation used by claimant to travel to her new duty station, the agency determined that cost is reimbursable. Given the circumstances of this case, the agency correctly determined that the cost of claimant's rental car is reimbursable as a transportation cost under FTR 302-2.1(b). The agency reasonably determined that a rental car was the only feasible means of transportation, since claimant does not own a personal vehicle, a taxi would not have enabled claimant to take sufficient personal effects with her, the distance was short, and the duration of the rental was only one day. This result is consistent with FTR 301-10.450, which requires that the agency determine that the use of a rental vehicle is advantageous to the Government and specifically authorize such use. Cf. Arthur T. O'Connor, GSBCA 14422-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,598 (rental car disallowed when employee could have driven privately owned vehicle). The Additional Pickup of Household Goods FTR 302-8.2(e) governs reimbursement for the shipment of household goods. That regulation provides, in pertinent part: "The total amount which may be paid or reimbursed by the Government shall not exceed the cost of transporting the property in one lot by the most economical route from the last official station of the transferring employee . . . to the new official station." The Comptroller General construed this regulation to permit reimbursement for an additional trip so long as the total cost does not exceed the cost of moving all of an employee's household goods at a maximum weight of 18,000 pounds in one lot in one trip by commercial carrier. In Eldean K. Minary, 73 Comp. Gen. 141 (1994), the Comptroller General permitted an employee who elected to move a portion of the allowable 18,000 pounds of household goods himself to be reimbursed for the actual expenses he incurred in moving that portion "not to exceed what it would have cost the Government to move that portion as part of the movement of all the goods in one lot from one origin to one destination by commercial carrier." As Minary explained: When the employee elects to move a portion of the 18,000 pounds himself, he may be reimbursed the actual expenses he incurred (e.g., vehicle rental fee, material handling equipment, packaging materials, fuels, toll charges, etc.) in moving that portion . . . not to exceed what it would have cost the Government to move that portion as part of the movement of all the goods in one lot from one origin to one destination by commercial carrier. Accord Dr. William H. Furhman, B-256996 (Nov. 20, 1995) (multiple delivery charges for shipment of two lots of household goods stored in different locations allowable "to the extent that they do not exceed the cost of transporting the property in one lot to the new official station"); see generally David C. McCord, GSBCA 14944-RELO (July 28, 1999) ("[W]hen an employee chooses to make his own arrangements for shipment of HHG in the face of travel orders authorizing the movement of HHG by GBL, the agency's liability is limited to the constructive cost of . . . one shipment in one lot from one origin to one destination by GBL."). Thus, the agency may add the weight of the additional shipment of household goods to the 4500 pounds of goods and determine the constructive cost for transporting the total weight of claimant's goods in one lot,[foot #] 1 in one trip by commercial carrier; claimant may be reimbursed up to that amount. Decision The claim is granted. Claimant may be reimbursed for the rental car and the cost of the additional pickup, so long as the total cost of transporting her HHG does not exceed the ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 In the instant case, the record is devoid of evidence as to the weight of the additional HHG which claimant stored at her friend's house. However, given that the major portion of her goods was only one quarter of the allowable 18,000-pound limit, it is unlikely that the remaining portion combined with the original 4500 pounds would exceed the limitation. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- constructive cost of transporting all her HHG, i.e., 4500 pounds plus the weight of the additional HHG pickup, in one single shipment to her new duty station. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge