BNUMBER: B-262054
DATE: October 10, 1995
TITLE: Robert W. Holland-Household Goods Moving Expenses
Reimbursement
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Robert W. Holland-Household Goods Moving Expenses
Reimbursement
File: B-262054
Date: October 10, 1995
DIGEST
The denial of a Navy civilian employee's claim for additional
reimbursement for the transportation of his household goods (HHG)
incident to a permanent change-of-station transfer is sustained. The
employee's transfer orders erroneously authorized movement of his HHG
by the commuted rate method, not to exceed the cost by government bill
of lading (GBL). Since a cost comparison had shown the GBL method to
be more economical, movement by the GBL method was required under the
Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). The employee chose to move his HHG
himself using a rental truck and submitted a claim for the amount
computed under the commuted rate schedule. However, the JTR provides
that when the GBL method is determined to be more economical, and an
employee chooses to make his own arrangements for the shipment of his
HHG, the employee's reimbursement is limited to the employee's actual
expenses (e.g., truck rental, fuel, and packing materials expenses,
but not for the employee's labor), not to exceed the amount the
government would have been paid using the GBL method. The erroneous
authorization on the travel order may not serve as the basis for
payment of a claim contrary to regulation.
DECISION
Mr. Robert W. Holland, a civilian employee of the Navy Department,
appeals our Claims Group settlement Z-2869625, April 21, 1995,
limiting the reimbursement for the shipment of Mr. Holland's household
goods (HHG) incident to a permanent change-of-station transfer to Mr.
Holland's out-of-pocket expenses. We affirm the settlement.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Holland transferred from Pensacola, Florida, to Jacksonville,
Florida, in January, 1994. Incident to this transfer, the agency
issued Mr. Holland a travel order authorizing the shipment of his HHG
by the commuted rate method, not to exceed the cost by government bill
of lading (GBL). Under the commuted rate method, the employee assumes
the responsibility for having the HHG moved and is reimbursed
according to a commuted rate schedule published by the General
Services Administration (GSA). See Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 41
C.F.R. 308-8.3(a). Mr. Holland states that he then rented a truck
and moved his HHG himself, and he then filed a claim with the agency
for reimbursement under the commuted rate schedule.
Before the agency issued Mr. Holland's travel order, the agency had
conducted a cost comparison and concluded that it would cost $6,400.00
to ship Mr. Holland's HHG by the commuted rate method and $2,644.20
under the GBL (actual expense) method. Under the GBL method, the
government assumes the responsibility for shipping the employee's HHG
under a GBL using government-contracted carriers. See FTR
302-8.3(b). According to the agency's regulations, when the estimated
cost of one method exceeds the other by more than $100.00, the more
economical method must be used. Vol. II, Joint Travel Regulation
(JTR) Ch. 327, para. C8001-4(c)(3), Jan. 1, 1993. This regulation
also provides that when an employee for whom shipment by the GBL
method has been authorized chooses to make other shipping
arrangements, reimbursement will be limited to the employee's actual
expenses incurred, not to exceed what it would have cost the agency
had the shipment been made by GBL. Id.
Based on this regulation, the agency notified Mr. Holland that he may
be reimbursed only for his actual expenses. Mr. Holland appealed this
determination to our Claims Group, which affirmed the agency's
determination, noting that the administrative error on his travel
order does not provide a basis for approval of Mr. Holland's claim
contrary to the regulations.
Mr. Holland argues that if he may not be reimbursed on the commuted
rate basis, since he incurred the expense of the truck rental and he
and his family did the packing and unpacking and moved the HHG, he
should receive the $2,644.20 estimated cost of what the government
would have paid a contractor under the GBL method to move his HHG. He
states that this amount would be sufficient to reimburse him for the
costs of truck and equipment rental, gas, and a fair and reasonable
rate for his and his family's labor. Further, he argues that it is
unfair now to expect him to submit receipts for his actual expenses
because, under the commuted rate method, he only would have been
required to submit weight certificates from the shipper to document
his claim. Since he did not think he would need itemized receipts for
all his expenses, he states, he only kept the receipt for the truck
rental.
The agency acknowledges that Mr. Holland's travel order stated that
the commuted rate method, not to exceed the cost via GBL, was
authorized. However, the agency also states that the order was
contrary to the JTR provision.
OPINION
The governmentwide FTR, issued by GSA, covering most government
civilian employees (including Navy employees), states a general policy
favoring the commuted rate method when individual transfers are
involved, see 41 C.F.R. 8.3(c)(3) (1994). The FTR also provides,
however, that agencies may use the GBL method in individual transfers
when the expected savings is $100.00 or more. FTR 8.3(4). Thus,
the FTR gives agencies some discretion in the method to be used, based
on a determination of which is more economical to the government.[1]
In 1990, the Department of Defense (DOD), implementing these FTR
provisions for DOD employees, chose to limit the discretion of its
travel personnel by requiring them to perform a cost comparison
between the commuted rate and the GBL methods and mandating use of the
more economical method when the difference between the two exceeds
$100.00, as it does in this case. JTR para. C8001-4(c)(3), supra. As
we noted above, this regulation also provides that, when the GBL
method is determined to be the more cost-effective method and an
employee chooses to make his own shipping arrangements, the employee's
reimbursement is limited to the employee's actual expenses incurred
not to exceed what it would have cost the government had the shipment
been made by GBL. We have specifically upheld this regulation as a
proper exercise of agency discretion. Steven B. Wirth, B-249337, May
6, 1993.
While the erroneous statement on the travel orders is unfortunate, as
both the agency and the Claims Group noted, such an erroneous
authorization entered on the travel orders may not serve as the basis
to allow a claim that is contrary to the specific provision of the
regulation promulgated pursuant to law. Steven B. Wirth, supra.
Therefore, the denial of Mr. Holland's claim for reimbursement on a
commuted rate basis or for the full amount of the estimated cost by
the GBL method is affirmed.
As stated above, Mr. Holland's reimbursement must be based on his
actual expenses incurred for the move, not to exceed what it would
have cost the government under the GBL method. Although Mr. Holland
argues that he should receive compensation for his and his family's
labor in packing and moving the goods, reimbursement for such labor is
not authorized.[2] Computation of his reimbursement may include his
actual expenses incurred for such items as the truck rental, tolls,
fuel, packing materials, and rental of associated equipment such as a
dolly and pads. While Mr. Holland states that he retained only the
receipt for the truck rental, in view of the circumstances of this
case, we would not object if the agency reimbursed him for other
allowable items based on Mr. Holland's best estimate of the expenses
he incurred for those items, if found reasonable by the agency.
/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
1. These provisions are issued pursuant to and are in accordance with
the applicable statutory provision, 5 U.S.C. 5724(c).
2. Charges for the employee's labor are not actual expenses incurred,
and we generally deny claims for labor furnished by the employee's
family, which are in the nature of gratuitous service rather than
pursuant to an arms-length contract. See e.g., Cline and Clark,
B-256126, May 4, 1995; and Jerold Schroeder, B-226868, Nov. 4, 1988.