_____________________ November 25, 1997 _____________________ GSBCA 14135-RELO, 14187-RELO In the Matter of GARY E. GOVER Gary E. Gover, Fairhope, AL, Claimant. Al LaBombard, Chief, Employee Accounts Division, Department of Veterans Affairs, Austin, TX, appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs. HYATT, Board Judge. Mr. Gary E. Gover, an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), was transferred by the VA from the Washington, DC area to Hines, Illinois in 1996. He has requested the Board's review of two claims for reimbursement of relocation costs which have arisen in connection with this transfer. The Board has consolidated these claims because they arise out of the same permanent change of station (PCS). The first claim, raised in GSBCA 14135-RELO, concerns costs incurred in the sale of claimant's residence in the Washington, DC area. In selling this house claimant was provided the services of the VA's relocation services contractor, PPH Relocation Company. In connection with the sale of this property to the relocation services contractor, Mr. Gover claims that he incurred the following expenses which were not reimbursed by PPH: $ 126 for tests to certify the potable well water supply; $ 300 to certify tightness of the in-ground heating oil tank; $ 12 to ship documents to the relocation services contractor. Mr. Gover maintains that these tests and deliveries were necessary for him to obtain a bona fide contract for the sale of his property to the relocation services company. Initially, the VA denied Mr. Gover's claim for reimbursement of these expenses on the ground that Mr. Gover, having accepted the services of a relocation company, was not entitled to a "dual benefit," i.e., to recover an expense that was already paid for by the relocation contractor in purchasing the house. In response to a request by the Board for further information concerning the nature of these claims and the agency's contractual arrangement with PPH, the VA stated that the relocation contractor has now advised that it will reimburse Mr. Gover for the costs of well water testing ($126) and the oil tank certification ($300). The VA further states that payment will be made upon the presentation of proper receipts. With respect to the $12 postage charge for shipping documents to the relocation contractor, the VA points out that Mr. Gover was paid the standard $700 miscellaneous expense allowance authorized under Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 302-3(a)(2) and did not itemize his expenses. The second issue, raised in GSBCA 14187-RELO, arises from the purchase of a home at claimant's new duty station in Illinois. In purchasing a residence at the new duty station, Mr. Gover incurred certain expenses which initially were determined by the VA to be nonreimbursable. Specifically, the VA denied payment of $90 in EPA and ARML-1 endorsement charges and $50 out of $200 apparently paid for mortgage title insurance. In a letter to the Board responding to the claim, the VA stated that upon further review it had concluded that Mr. Gover was entitled to recoup $90 in endorsement fees and advised that this amount has now been paid to claimant. The $50 in mortgage title insurance has not been reimbursed because the VA deems this amount to be owner's, not lender's, insurance. The discrepancy with this figure arises in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) settlement statement. Line 1108 reflects a payment of $200 for title insurance paid to the title company from the borrower's (claimant's) funds, while line 1109 of this same statement shows that the lender's coverage is $150. Claimant does not explain this discrepancy, but states that he did not obtain owner's coverage and that he paid $200 for the lender's insurance. Discussion Relocation services companies provide assistance to transferred employees in selling a home at the old duty station and in finding a home at the new duty station. Among the services generally offered is the purchase of the home at the old station at a guaranteed price. Rhonda L. Dox, GSBCA 14040-RELO, et al. (Aug. 29, 1997); Chester R. Jourdan, Jr., GSBCA 13868- RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,020. Once a transferred employee is offered and decides to accept the services of a relocation company, he may not be reimbursed personally-incurred real estate expenses that are similar or analogous to expenses the agency is required to pay to the relocation services company. 41 CFR 302-12.5(b) (1996); Harold R. Harrod, B-238121 (Feb. 1, 1990); Louis H. Schwartz, B-231485 (Jan. 19, 1989); James T. Faith, 67 Comp. Gen. 453 (1988). Additionally, even if inspection expenses are not similar or analogous to those already covered, such expenses are not reimbursable when incurred for the personal benefit of the seller rather than to satisfy a requirement to transfer the property. See Harrod; Ronald M. Pearson, B-230402 (Mar. 23, 1988). Given the statements of the VA, it appears that the relocation services company has agreed that these services were required for the transfer of the property and that claimant is entitled to be reimbursed upon presentation of proper receipts. Mr. Gover contends that he has already provided the necessary receipts.[foot #] 1 The record before the Board contains a receipt and copy of a check for $126 for well water testing, which suffices to establish his entitlement to reimbursement of that amount, but does not include sufficient documentation of the cost of the tank certification. Mr. Gover states that the canceled check for the certification of the residential in-ground heating-oil tank is missing but asserts that the fee was $300. He also provides a copy of the certificate, which was issued by Tank Preparation Services, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland. The agency has legitimately requested a receipt that demonstrates the amount claimed for the tank certification was actually paid. Without sufficient documentation before it, the Board cannot require payment of the claim for the cost of the tank certification. A canceled check is not the only satisfactory evidence of the amount of payment, however. A letter or receipt from the company that performed the inspection, confirming that the charge for the certification was $300, would suffice. With respect to Mr. Gover's claim for postage costs incurred in sending documents to PPH, this is an expense that is ordinarily covered by the miscellaneous expenses allowance provided to relocating employees under 41 CFR 302-3. Craig B. Anforth, B-247042 (May 12, 1992); see generally Giuliano D'Andrea, GSBCA 13697-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,933. Under this regulation, an employee with immediate family is either paid a flat $700, without documentation of appropriate individual items of expense, or may itemize expenses, and present receipts, to recover more than the base amount. Since Mr. Gover did not itemize all of the miscellaneous expenses incurred, he cannot recover separately for the postage expense. With respect to Mr. Gover's second claim, lender s mortgage title insurance for the home purchased in Illinois was allowed in the amount of $150 based on line item 1109 in the HUD settlement statement. The additional $50 claimed by Mr. Gover was denied based on the discrepancy in lines 1109 and 1108 of the HUD ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Mr. Gover also has expressed the view that the agency should pay him directly rather than through the relocation services contractor. This is not a matter that is before the Board, however, but rather is controlled by the terms of the contract between PPH and the VA. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- statement. Claimant points to 41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(1)(viii), (ix) to support his claim that he is entitled to reimbursement. However, neither regulation applies here. According to section 302-6.2(d)(1)(viii), claimant may only be reimbursed the mortgage title insurance policy paid on the residence he purchased when payment is required by the lender. The record before us, however, does not reflect the necessary documentation clearly indicating the amount required by the lender. Claimant may not collect under section 302-6.2(d)(1)(ix) because reimbursement of owner s coverage is allowed only if it is a prerequisite to financing the transfer of the property or if the cost of the owner s title insurance policy is inseparable from the cost of other insurance which is a prerequisite to financing the transfer of the property. There is no evidence that this is the case here. The VA, under applicable regulation, cannot reimburse the higher amount without sufficient information to confirm that this amount properly reflects the cost of lender's title insurance. It is incumbent upon claimant to provide satisfactory proof to the VA that the higher amount on the HUD statement is correct and should be reimbursed. If in fact the full amount of lender's mortgage title insurance is $200, it should be possible to obtain a statement from the lender to this effect so as to document this cost adequately for the VA. Again, the Board cannot require payment of this amount absent adequate proof. If claimant can produce the necessary evidence to clarify the ambiguity in the settlement statement and show that he actually paid $200 for lender's mortgage insurance, he may pursue this further with the VA. To summarize, the postage costs claimed by Mr. Gover should not be reimbursed. We agree with the agency's present position that the costs of well water testing and in-ground tank certification are reimbursable items under the PCS provided that proper documentary support for the costs is provided. Claimant has already proven the cost of the well water testing and the VA has agreed to review the claim for the cost of the in-ground tank certification upon receipt of sufficient documentation to show the actual cost of the certification. Similarly, Mr. Gover may recover the additional $50 in title insurance only if he provides the VA with a letter from the mortgage company, or some other suitable proof, demonstrating that the cost of the lender's mortgage insurance was actually $200, and not $150. __________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge