Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405







               ___________________________________



                         January 31, 2002

               ___________________________________





                         GSBCA 15580-RELO





                 In the Matter of JAMES M. TURNER 





     James M. Turner, Olney, MD, Claimant.



     Helen O. Sherman, Director, Office of Financial Policy, Department of Energy,

Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Energy.



WILLIAMS, Board Judge.



     A relocated employee is not entitled to a home marketing incentive payment when the

buyer whom the employee located does not complete the sale.



                            Background



     Claimant was transferred from Oakland, California, to Washington, D.C., with a

reporting date of May 8, 2000.  On December 21, 2000, the Department of Energy (DOE)

found that claimant was ineligible for a home marketing incentive payment associated with

the sale of his home in California in conjunction with his permanent change of station.  DOE

had in place a home marketing incentive program.  Claimant contracted with Associates

Relocation and actively marketed his home.  In fact he found a qualified buyer to purchase

the home.  The sale was canceled by that person.  



     Nonetheless, the agency paid Mr. Turner a marketing incentive payment of $5809.50

based upon erroneous information received from the relocation contractor.  The relocation

contractor later retracted that information due to the canceled sale.  As a result, DOE has

requested that claimant return the $5809.50, because the sale was not consummated.  The

agency advised claimant that the home marketing incentive program as implemented by DOE

is intended to reduce the agency's relocation costs by paying reduced fees to the relocation

contractor when the employee finds a bona fide buyer and completes the sale.  The agency's

fee to the relocation contractor when the seller fails to produce a bona fide buyer who

completes the sale is 26.45% of the appraised value, but the fee is 10.40% when the

employee finds a bona fide buyer who completes the sale.



                            Discussion



     Under 5 U.S.C.   5724c (Supp. V 1999), federal agencies are permitted to enter into

relocation services contracts with private firms to provide a variety of relocation services to

employees who are transferred.  These services include arranging for the purchase by a

relocation services contractor of a transferred employee's residence at the old duty station

under a home sales program.  Gregory R. Littin, GSBCA 15564-RELO, 01-2 BCA   31,604;

Charles T. Loverdi, GSBCA 14232-RELO, 98-2 BCA   29,795; Dan R. Mayer,

GSBCA 14347-RELO, 98-1 BCA   29,506 (1997); Paul E. Marshall, GSBCA 13811-RELO,

97-2 BCA   29,036.  The relocation services program was modified by the Federal Employee

Travel Reform Act of 1996 to add a home marketing incentive program.  5 U.S.C.   5756. 

Under this program, an agency may pay an employee who is transferred in the interest of the

Government an amount to encourage the employee to aggressively market his or her

residence at the former official station when (1) the residence is entered into a relocation

services program under which the private contractor will purchase the house; (2) the

employee finds a buyer who completes the purchase of the residence through the program;

and (3) the sale of the residence results in a reduced cost to the Government.  Id.; Donald L.

Boyle, GSBCA 15080-RELO, 00-1 BCA   30,653.



     The Federal Travel Regulation delineates the circumstances under which a transferred

employee may qualify for an incentive payment.  The employee may receive a payment when

(a) the residence is entered in the home sale program; (b) the employee has independently

and aggressively marketed the property; (c) the employee has found a bona fide buyer as a

result of independent marketing efforts; (d) the employee has transferred the residence to the

relocation services provider; (e) the agency realizes reduced fee expenses as a result of the

employee's independent marketing efforts; and (f) any other conditions established by the

agency have been met.  41 CFR 302-14.5 (1999).



     Claimant contends that he did all that was required to earn the marketing incentive

even though the sale was not consummated.  Further, after the initial sale fell through,

claimant continued to receive inquiries, had his own agent involved, and experienced

frustration in dealing with the relocation company.  Claimant complained that the relocation

contractor did not act professionally and responsibly and that the ultimate sale was delayed

by several weeks.



     The agency correctly concluded that claimant is not entitled to a marketing incentive

payment because the sale was not consummated and DOE could not avail itself of the

reduced fee which is the objective of the program.  The other matters about which the

employee complains relate to actions of the relocation services contractor, not the agency. 

The employee could have rejected the contractor's officer, 41 CFR 302-12.107, but

apparently did not do so.  Consequently, the complaints have no impact on the financial

relationships resulting from the sale of the house.



                             Decision



     The claim is denied.  Claimant is indebted to DOE in the amount of $5809.50.







                                   ________________________________

                                   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS

                                   Board Judge