BNUMBER: B-256996
DATE: November 20, 1995
TITLE: Dr. William H. Fuhrman-Relocation Expenses
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Dr. William H. Fuhrman-Relocation Expenses
File: B-256996
Date: November 20, 1995
DIGEST
1. An employee was transferred from Mexico to his new permanent duty
station in St. Paul, Minnesota, and had multiple deliveries of his
household goods from permanent and temporary storage to his temporary
quarters in St. Paul and then to his permanent quarters in Woodbury,
Minnesota. Although the Federal Travel Regulation permits an
employee's household goods to be moved in separate shipments, and the
origins and destinations of the shipments may be at one or more
points, the government's obligation to the employee for the shipments
is limited to "the cost of transporting the property in one lot . . .
to the new official station." 41 C.F.R. 302-8.2(e) (1991). When
temporary storage is authorized, as it was in this case, the
limitation is based on the constructive cost of transporting the
household goods in one lot to temporary storage, storage costs for not
more than 180 days, and then delivery in one lot to the permanent
residence.
2. A claim for temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) is
limited under 5 U.S.C. 5724a(a)(3) to 120 days, so a claim for
lodging expenses incurred after the 120 days of eligibility may not be
paid. Although the employee limited his claim for the additional
period to the difference in monthly rent between a year's lease and a
month-to-month lease, on the basis that he would have leased the
apartment for a year but the agency told him he could be retransferred
shortly, a claim for TQSE in any amount may not be paid for a period
beyond the 120-day maximum prescribed by statute.
3. An employee's household goods were in nontemporary storage, and he
was entitled to have them moved to his new duty station under a
government bill of lading. He chose to move them himself and claimed
reimbursement as the amount of the warehouseman's discount for not
moving the goods. When an employee is authorized to have his
household goods moved by the government bill of lading method, and he
moves his household goods himself, he may be reimbursed his actual
expenses, such as vehicle rental fees, fuel, toll charges, not to
exceed what it would have cost the government to have the goods moved.
The employee is not entitled to be reimbursed based on the amount of
the carrier's discount for not moving the goods under the bill of
lading.
DECISION
This is in response to a request for an advance decision whether Dr.
William H. Fuhrman, an employee of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, may be reimbursed
certain moving and storage charges and lodging expenses that he
incurred during his occupancy of temporary quarters incident to his
relocation from Mexico to St. Paul, Minnesota.[1] We conclude that
his moving and storage expenses may be reimbursed consistent with this
decision but that his claim for additional lodging expenses must be
denied.
BACKGROUND
Dr. Fuhrman reported to his new duty station in St. Paul on May 2,
1991. He and his family initially occupied motel rooms, and then
beginning in June they rented apartments for the purpose of reducing
their lodging costs. He claimed and received reimbursement for his
temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) for the maximum time
period of 120 days allowed under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR)
from May 15 to September 15, 1991. He states that he had still not
moved into permanent quarters at that time because his agency had told
him he would shortly be reassigned, and because of that, his agency
told him that he should not sign a year's lease on an apartment but
should rent month to month. Dr. Fuhrman's claim of $2,889.54 for
additional lodging costs is for the period of time after his
eligibility for TQSE expired, from September 16, 1991, through May
1992 when he moved from his rented apartment into his permanent
quarters. His claim is for the difference in rent of that apartment
for the 8�-month period between the amount he paid under his
month-to-month lease and the amount he would have paid under a year's
lease.
When Dr. Fuhrman moved from Mexico with his family, he placed his
household goods in temporary storage in Mexico and then had them moved
to a warehouse in St. Paul. It appears that from May through August
of 1991, all of his household goods were in temporary storage.
However, by the end of August the temporary storage the agency
originally authorized had expired, so near the end of August, Dr.
Fuhrman had most of his household goods delivered to his rented
apartment, except a 3,000-pound segment which he left in temporary
storage in the warehouse in St. Paul. The agency paid for the
temporary storage charges of May through August, 120 days, and the
charge for delivering the household goods to the apartment in August.
However, Dr. Fuhrman claims the storage charges of $1,103.84 that he
paid for the 3,000 pounds of household goods left in storage from
September 1991 through May 1992, at which time these goods were
delivered out of storage into his permanent quarters. He also claims
the charges of $1,520.42 he paid for delivery of the 3,000 pounds of
goods, as well as packing and delivery charges for the balance of his
goods from his apartment, into his permanent quarters. The agency did
authorize and reimburse an additional 60 days of temporary storage in
1993, which brought the total length of temporary storage authorized
and reimbursed to 180 days, the maximum time period allowed under the
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 302-8.2(d).
Before Dr. Fuhrman was assigned to Mexico, he had left approximately
1,000 pounds of household goods in nontemporary storage in South
Dakota, and the agency paid the storage charges for those household
goods until Dr. Fuhrman was reassigned from Mexico to St. Paul. The
FTR 302-9.2(d), states that at that point the employee is no longer
eligible for the storage charges to be paid but that the agency may
extend the period for payment of storage charges to avoid inequity.
Apparently, the agency extended the period and paid nontemporary
storage charges for those household goods until October 1991, but Dr.
Fuhrman claims the storage charges of $123.30 for these 1,000 pounds
from October through May 1992, when he went to South Dakota, picked up
the goods from the warehouse, and delivered them himself into his
permanent quarters. In addition, he claims $314.14 for delivering
these goods himself.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The agency certifying officer asks whether there is any authority
under the home service transfer allowance (HSTA) for the payment of
Dr. Fuhrman's rental and storage and delivery claims. The agency has
confirmed that Dr. Fuhrman's travel and relocation orders were not
issued under the authority of Foreign Service Act of 1980, but under
title 5 of the United States Code.[2] An employee transferred in May
1991, such as Dr. Fuhrman, was eligible for HSTA only if he was in the
United States between assignments to posts in foreign areas. See 5
U.S.C. 5924(2)(B), and Dennis H. Shimkoski, 68 Comp. Gen. 692
(1989). We understand that this was not the case with Dr. Fuhrman's
assignment in Minnesota in 1991. Therefore, he is not eligible for a
HSTA incident to that assignment. Thus, the agency has correctly
considered Dr. Fuhrman's relocation entitlements under title 5 of the
Code.
Under section 5724a(a)(3) of title 5, an employee may be paid TQSE to
reimburse him for expenses incurred while living in temporary quarters
incident to a transfer. The agency paid Dr. Fuhrman TQSE for the
maximum period of 120 days allowed by section 5724a(a)(3). Although
for the period beyond 120 days he claims only the additional expense
he incurred for rent on a month-to-month basis over what he would have
paid under a yearly lease, there is no authority to reimburse him in
any amount for a period beyond the maximum 120 days prescribed by law.
54 Comp. Gen. 638 (1975).[3]
Dr. Fuhrman claims delivery and storage charges for his household
goods that were in temporary and nontemporary storage. We will treat
the goods that were in nontemporary storage separately from those that
were in temporary storage.
The household goods that were in temporary storage are the goods that
Dr. Fuhrman had with him in Mexico and that were shipped from there
into temporary storage in a warehouse in St. Paul. They were then
split into two lots in which the major portion was delivered into Dr.
Fuhrman's temporary quarters while the other lot (3,000 pounds)
remained in temporary storage. Later, both lots were finally
delivered into his permanent quarters, from the warehouse and from the
temporary quarters. Dr. Fuhrman claims the $1,520.42 charges the
warehouseman in St. Paul charged for delivering into his permanent
quarters the 3,000-pound lot that had been in temporary storage nearly
a year and also for packing the rest of the household goods that were
in Dr. Fuhrman's temporary quarters and delivering them to his
permanent quarters. Since the agency had already paid one charge for
delivery of the larger lot from temporary storage into Dr. Fuhrman's
temporary quarters, it questioned whether it may pay multiple delivery
charges.
These multiple delivery charges may be allowed to the extent that they
do not exceed the cost of transporting the property in one lot to the
new official station. In accordance with this limitation we have held
that where temporary storage is authorized, as it was in this case,
the limitation is based on the constructive cost of transporting the
household goods in one lot to temporary storage, storage costs, and
then delivery in one lot to the permanent residence. Lyndon A.
Werner, B-232375, May 31, 1989.
In this case, the record did not indicate what the constructive cost
of transportation, storage (for 180 days), and delivery to the
residence in Woodbury in one lot would have been. The agency should
determine that amount and compare it with the transportation into
storage, the temporary storage costs of all the household goods for
120 days and 3,000 pounds for 60 days, and the multiple delivery
charges from temporary storage into temporary quarters, from temporary
quarters into permanent quarters, from temporary storage into
permanent quarters, and from temporary quarters into temporary
storage. If the constructive amount is less than the charges actually
incurred, Dr. Fuhrman would be responsible for the additional
amount.[4]
If the comparison described in the preceding paragraph results in an
amount for which Dr. Fuhrman is responsible, he may be able to claim
that amount, not in excess of the $1,520.42 delivery charge (which
should be reduced by the amount included therein for delivery of the
3,000 pounds of household goods in temporary storage to the permanent
quarters), in connection with his separate TQSE because he used the
household goods he had delivered in late August 1991 in his temporary
quarters in lieu of renting furniture. Since furniture rental can be
included in determining the average daily lodging costs for temporary
quarters, we have held that the cost of drayage of the employee's
household goods which reasonably related to the occupancy of temporary
quarters in lieu of furniture rental may be prorated over the period
of temporary quarters subsistence expense entitlement. In this case
the delivery charge should be prorated only for the month of September
since that is the only month that Dr. Fuhrman had the use of his
household goods in his temporary quarters during the time period that
TQSE was reimbursable. Actual reimbursement is, of course, subject to
the maximum allowable for temporary quarters entitlement. Aaron L.
Howe, B-217435, Aug. 29, 1985.
We now turn to the household goods that were in nontemporary storage
in South Dakota while Dr. Fuhrman was stationed in Mexico. Dr.
Fuhrman claims $314.14 as delivery charges for this 1,000 pounds of
household goods into his permanent quarters in Woodbury, Minnesota.
However, these were not actual delivery charges of the warehouseman
(because Dr. Fuhrman delivered them himself) but a discount given on
the warehouseman's total charges, which included preparing the
household goods for delivery and moving them out of the warehouse into
Dr. Fuhrman's possession. When an employee is authorized to have his
household goods moved by the government bill of lading method, as was
Dr. Fuhrman, and he moves his household goods himself, he may be
reimbursed his actual expenses, such as vehicle rental fees, fuel,
toll charges, etc., not to exceed what it would have cost the
government to have the goods moved (in this case apparently $314.14).
See 41 C.F.R. 101-40.203-2(d). Dr. Fuhrman may file a claim for his
actual expenses, with such documentation as required by agency
regulations, but his $314.14 claim for the amount of the South Dakota
warehouseman's discount may not be paid.
Dr. Fuhrman also claims reimbursement for the $123.30 nontemporary
storage charges for this 1,000 pounds of household goods that he paid
for storage from October 1991 through May 1992. Although the agency
in 1993 did authorize and reimburse an extra 60 days of temporary
storage charges (part of the nontemporary charges were added to the
reimbursement of the additional temporary storage charges), since the
provisions in the FTR concerning payment of temporary and nontemporary
storage are different,[5] the agency incorrectly treated them both as
if they could be paid for the same amount of time. The time limit of
180 days for temporary storage does not apply to nontemporary storage
of household goods. As mentioned previously, the point at which
nontemporary storage is to terminate under FTR 302-9.2(d), is 1
month after the employee reports for duty at his new station ". . .
unless to avoid inequity the agency extends the period." The agency
apparently initially extended the period for reimbursement of
nontemporary storage charges through September 1991 and then through
October 1991 when it combined nontemporary storage charges with the
entitlement for temporary storage and extended them both to 180 days
in 1993. We do not question the agency's action in that regard, and
the hybrid payment of approximately $306 in 1993 for both kinds of
storage should be used as a credit for the government after the
comparison process referred to in connection with the multiple
delivery charges is completed. As the matter now stands, that is all
Dr. Fuhrman is due. See Richard A. Falanga, B-201823, Oct. 9, 1981.
However, in view of the uncertainty of where his permanent duty
station would be until he was appointed to the Minnesota
Epidemiologist position in March 1992,[6] we would have no objection
if the agency further approved the period of nontemporary storage
through May 1992, in order to avoid inequity, so that Dr. Fuhrman
could fully recover the nontemporary storage charges of $123.30 he
paid.
Dr. Fuhrman's claim may be settled accordingly.
/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
1. The request for decision was submitted by the Authorized Certifying
Officer, USDA, National Finance Center, New Orleans.
2. Dr. Fuhrman's travel order indicated that per diem was to be paid
according to the FSTR [Foreign Service Travel Regulations]. However,
that is consistent with the Federal Travel Regulation 301-7.3(c),
issued to implement the travel and relocation provisions of title 5 of
the United States Code, which indicates that per diem allowances for
official travel in foreign areas, such as Mexico, are not to exceed
the rates referred to in the FSTR. The FSTR designation on the travel
order does not convert the underlying basis for the transfer, and
incidental travel, from title 5 to title 22, United States Code, which
generally applies to foreign service officers and which contains a
HSTA.
3. While Dr. Fuhrman's claim for rental expenses is only for the
difference between the amount paid and the lower amount that would
have resulted from a year's lease, it is noted that had Dr. Fuhrman
taken a year's lease, the agency may have presumed that the quarters
were not temporary quarters but permanent quarters, thus calling into
question the basis for the agency paying any TQSE expenses after the
signing of the lease. See Johnny M. Jones, 63 Comp. Gen. 531 (1984).
4. Dr. Fuhrman claims temporary storage charges of $1,103.84 for the
months of September 1991 through May 1992, $395.84 of which, although
appearing on a storage bill, was actually a charge for delivery into
the warehouse and handling some of the household goods that Dr.
Fuhrman exchanged after they were delivered into his temporary
quarters. This $395.84 should be separated from the temporary storage
charges and included with the other delivery charges, as explained in
the preceding text. Of the remaining temporary storage charges
claimed, only $144, the charges for September and October 1991, may be
added to the charges for the initial 120 days for comparison purposes
because that 180 days of charges is the maximum length of time for
which reimbursement of temporary storage may be authorized. FTR
302-8.2(d). The temporary storage charges for November 1991 through
May 1992 may not be reimbursed. Richard D. Dougherty, B-242095, Jan.
28, 1991.
5. Based on separate statutory provisions, 5 U.S.C. 5724(a) and
5726, respectively.
6. Dr. Fuhrman was transferred as the Veterinary Medical Officer from
St. Paul to Rochester, Minnesota, in January 1992, but that transfer
was cancelled due to the unsettled nature of the personnel situation
for the agency.