Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405



     

                      _____________________



                         October 9, 2002

                      _____________________





                         GSBCA 15854-TRAV





                 In the Matter of JONATHAN KAPLAN





     Jonathan Kaplan, Darnestown, MD, Claimant.



     Gerald K. Schoenauer, Director, Office of Financial Services, Federal Railroad

Administration, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Transportation.



NEILL, Board Judge.



     Claimant, Mr. Jonathan Kaplan, is an employee of the Federal Railroad

Administration.  He asks that we review a decision by his agency denying him the cost of

travel from the local airport to his home.  For the reasons set out below, we conclude that

he is entitled to the payment.  



                            Background



     On December 20, 2001, Mr. Kaplan traveled from Baltimore-Washington

International Airport to St. Louis, Missouri, on official business.  He chose to use his own

privately-owned vehicle (POV) to travel the distance between his home in Darnestown,

Maryland, and the Baltimore-Washington International Airport.  His vehicle, however, broke

down at the airport garage.  On return from St. Louis, Mr. Kaplan was obliged to have the

vehicle towed to a service station near his residence.  The tow truck then delivered him to

his home.



     Mr. Kaplan did not seek reimbursement for the cost of having his vehicle towed from

the airport but did ask to be paid $34.50 for round-trip mileage between his home and the

airport.  Because Mr. Kaplan did not use his car to return to his home, the agency approved

payment of only half the amount requested.  Claimant argues that, under section 301-10.2

of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), a mileage allowance is an acceptable form of

payment for transportation expenses.  Further, he contends that, under the statute authorizing

reimbursement for mileage, it is clear that the per-mile allowance is not based upon the

actual expense of operation but rather on a rate established by the Administrator of General

Services.  See 5 U.S.C.   5704 (2000).  This rate is said to be based upon estimates of both

operational and incidental costs.  See  id.   5707(b)(1)(B).  Mr. Kaplan points out that his

car, in being towed behind the tow truck from the airport, was subject to wear and tear   one

of the component costs considered by the Administrator in determining the mileage rate. 

Accordingly, he believes that he is entitled to reimbursement at the prescribed rate for the

full round-trip mileage between his house and the airport.  



     The agency, in reviewing the statutes and regulations cited by the claimant, insists

that they are all based upon the fundamental assumption that the vehicle in question is being

used by the employee   something which did not occur on the evening Mr. Kaplan returned

home from the airport aboard a tow truck.  



                            Discussion



     Rather than split hairs over the component costs of approved mileage rates for

employees using their own POVs, we consider that the problem raised in this case is better

addressed in terms of the general authorization in the FTR for an employee traveling

between a common carrier or other terminal and his or her home.  Under 41 CFR

301-10.420(b)(1)(i) (2001) (FTR 301-10.420(b)(1)(i)) there is a general authorization of

reimbursement for the cost of a fare plus tip for the use of a taxicab or shuttle service when

an employee is traveling between a common carrier or other terminal and his or her home. 

If the employee elects to use a POV rather than a taxicab or shuttle, then the reimbursement

cannot exceed the constructive cost of the taxicab or shuttle.  Id. 301-10.402. 



     One of the obvious purposes of this general authorization is to ensure that federal

employees engaged in out-of-town temporary duty (TDY) travel will be reimbursed for the

cost of travel between their homes and common carrier terminals from which they depart or

to which they return when on TDY travel.  The typical special conveyance normally used

for this local travel is, of course, a taxicab, shuttle, or one's POV.  When circumstances

dictate the need to the use some other form of special conveyance, however, we hardly deem

it fair, given this general authorization, that an employee should be deemed as no longer

qualifying for coverage under this provision.  



     In this case, although the claimant was entitled under this general authorization to

return home from the airport in a taxicab once it became clear that his POV was no longer

operational, he nevertheless chose instead to accompany his vehicle personally and to return

to his home in the tow truck.  Mr. Kaplan is not seeking here to be paid the total cost of

towing his vehicle or even the constructive cost of returning home from the airport in a taxi. 

Rather, in view of his earlier decision to go to and from the airport in his POV, he is

accepting as the reimbursement cap for his actual costs of returning from the airport the

reimbursement he would otherwise have received had he been able to use his POV for the

return trip   an amount which is considerably less than the constructive cost of a taxi fare

and tip.  He seeks only $17.25 (fifty miles at $0.345 per mile).  Taxi fare and a tip for a trip

of this length would undoubtedly have cost considerably more.  Under the circumstances,

we consider this a reasonable claim and one which the agency should pay given the general

authorization in FTR 301-10.420(b)(1)(i).    



                                        _____________________

                                        EDWIN B. NEILL

                                        Board Judge