Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 __________________ January 7, 2000 __________________ GSBCA 15091-RELO In the Matter of DAVID H. MOORE David H. Moore, Loganville, GA, Claimant. Cynthia S. Whitt, Financial Management Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, appearing for Department of Health and Human Services. NEILL, Board Judge. On behalf of Mr. David H. Moore, an employee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has forwarded a claim from its decision denying this employee's request for reimbursement of a loan origination fee. Mr. Moore paid the fee as part of the settlement costs on the sale of the residence he owned at his old duty station in Augusta, Georgia. Given the information provided by HHS and the claimant, we conclude that the employee should be reimbursed for payment of this cost. Background In August 1998, Mr. Moore was transferred from Aiken, South Carolina to Atlanta, Georgia. His travel orders authorized reimbursement for residence transactions. In June of 1999, Mr. Moore sold his residence in Augusta, Georgia, which had served as his residence while he was assigned to his old duty station in Aiken. Included in the settlement costs to be paid by him, as the seller, was a loan origination fee in the amount of $1018.50. Mr. Moore s request to be reimbursed for the loan origination fee was denied by his agency on the ground that, under Section 302-6.2(d)(1)(ii) of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), this fee is to be paid by the borrower. This regulation does, in fact, state that the loan origination fee is a fee paid by the borrower to compensate the lender for administrative type expenses incurred in originating and processing a loan. 41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(1)(ii) (1998). Nevertheless, as we have previously observed, this same regulation expressly lists this fee and similar charges as ones which are reimbursable to a federal employee selling or buying a residence if they are customarily paid by the seller of a residence in the locality of the old official station or by the purchaser of a residence at the new official station. Patricia S. Snyder, GSBCA 13797-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,709 (1996). Upon submitting his voucher for payment, Mr. Moore provided a letter from the Augusta mortgage company to a realty company which had assisted Mr. Moore in the sale of his residence. The letter states: Please be informed that on sales transactions involving single family residential properties of $150,000 or less in the Augusta, Georgia Market, it is customary for sellers to pay all closing costs. Typically, this price range appeals to first time home buyers who are limited in their resources to pay closing costs in addition to the required down payment. Mr. Moore s residence sold for considerably less than $150,000 and the mortgage company providing this letter was not the lender for this transaction. Discussion Mr. Moore s agency is reluctant to accept the representation provided in the letter the claimant has provided from a local mortgage company because it is in possession of seemingly conflicting information. This information was obtained by an agency representative from an official of the area office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This official advised the agency representative that the loan origination fee is customarily paid by the buyer in Georgia. In support of this contention, the official provided an excerpt from a HUD mortgage handbook which states that the mortgagee can collect an origination fee from the borrower. In addition, the HUD official also provided a list of possible closing costs issued by a home ownership center in Atlanta, Georgia. The list includes a loan origination fee as one which may be charged to borrower. We have previously stated that when questions of local custom arise, as in other matters, the burden is on the claimant to show why he or she should prevail. Rule 404(c) (48 CFR 6104.4(c) (1997)); Robert Messie, GSBCA 13807-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,924; Christopher L. Cretien, GSBCA 13704-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,701 (1996); Paul B. Garvey, GSBCA 13658-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,690 (1996). Mr. Moore has met this burden. The information provided by the HUD official is of a general nature and, as the agency itself readily admits to us in its report regarding this claim, did not provide specific information concerning the Augusta, Georgia area." The documentation provided by the HUD official stands for the unremarkable proposition that a borrower may be charged the loan origination fee. We do not find any conflict between this fact and the information provided by the local mortgage company. The FTR itself recognizes that a loan origination fee is a settlement cost which may or may not be charged to the buyer. The deciding factor is whether it is customary in the area for the buyer or the seller to pay it. The HUD material stops short of that issue. The letter provided by the claimant, however, addresses it in an unmistakably clear and persuasive fashion. The agency explains that not only the information provided by the HUD official but also a decision of the Comptroller General concerning payment of a loan origination fee have prompted it to question the adequacy of the letter provided by Mr. Moore. In the decision cited to us, Nicholas Berg, B-229026 (Aug. 8, 1988), the Comptroller General upheld an agency s denial of a seller s claim for reimbursement of a loan origination fee. The claim was denied based on representations made by a local HUD official and unrebutted by the claimant, that the local custom in the area of the claimant s old residence was for the borrower to pay this cost. That decision is readily distinguished from the present case. In the instant case, HUD has provided no information regarding local custom. Furthermore, to the extent that the information provided by HUD might be viewed as being in conflict with Mr. Moore s claim, the letter he has provided effectively rebuts it. In short, we find the agency unduly concerned over the adequacy of the documentation provided by Mr. Moore in support of his claim. For the reasons stated above, we find it sufficient. The claim should, therefore, be paid without further delay. _______________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge