Robert W. Holland-Household Goods Moving Expenses

B-262054 Oct 10, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights 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. Movement by the GBL method was required under the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). The JTR provides that when the GBL method is determined to be more economical. The employee's reimbursement is limited to the employee's actual expenses (e.g. Not to exceed the amount the government would have been paid using the GBL 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). Reimbursement will be limited to the employee's actual expenses incurred. View Decision Matter of: Robert W. Holland-Household Goods Moving Expenses Reimbursement File: B-262054 Date: October 10, 1995 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 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. Sec. 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 Sec. 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.