____________________ November 26, 1997 ____________________ GSBCA 14228-RELO In the Matter of T. SCOTT FRICK T. Scott Frick, State College, PA, Claimant. William J. Nicholson, Finance and Accounting Officer, Baltimore District, U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, MD, appearing for Department of the Army. NEILL, Board Judge. The finance and accounting officer for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), Baltimore District, has asked our opinion pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3529 (1994) concerning the propriety of paying a claim submitted by Mr. T. Scott Frick. Mr. Frick, a civil engineer employed by the Corps, seeks to be compensated at the commuted rate for a relocation he recently undertook in conjunction with a permanent change of station. Given the record before us, we conclude that Mr. Frick s claim should be paid. Background On November 8, 1995, Mr. Frick was issued travel orders for the purpose of permanent change of station (PCS). The orders authorized Mr. Frick to move his family and household goods from his then current residence in Bellafonte, Pennsylvania to Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. These orders were later amended to authorize a move to Altoona, Pennsylvania, rather than Lock Haven. Mr. Frick s travel orders expressly provided: "Shipment of Household goods authorized via GBL or Commuted Rate." Mr.Frick explains that he made his own arrangements for transporting his family s household goods. He states that he retained a commercial van and that he and his family undertook all packing and unpacking in conjunction with his PCS move. The Frick family s move was not a long one. They moved from Bellafonte to State College, Pennsylvania. State College, although closer to Altoona, is not more than fifteen miles from Bellafonte. To assist him in his move, Mr. Frick contracted with a commercial carrier for the services of four men and the use of one van at an hourly rate of $107. The total charges for their services, including a separate charge for actual travel time, amounted to $814.50. The Corps finance and accounting officer to whom Mr. Frick submitted his voucher has agreed to pay this amount but no more. Mr. Frick objects and contends that he is entitled to payment of considerably more based on the commuted rate schedule. At his request, the finance and accounting officer has referred this matter to us for an opinion on whether Mr. Frick is entitled to a payment of more than the $814.50 actually paid to the commercial carrier. Discussion Under the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which apply to Mr. Frick as a civilian employee of the Department of Defense, there are two methods of shipping household goods (HHG). The first is referred to as the "commuted rate system." The JTR describes this method of shipment as follows: Under the commuted rate system, an employee makes his/her own arrangements for transporting HHG between points within CONUS [the continental United States]. An employee may make arrangements for shipment of goods by commercial van, common carrier, hired truck, personally owned automobile, truck, or trailer (other than mobile homes), or rented trailer. The employee is reimbursed by the Government in accordance with schedules of commuted rates which are compiled and distributed by the General Services Administration, together with instructions concerning their use. JTR C8001-D.2.a. The second method of shipment is referred to as the "actual expense method." It is described in the JTR as follows: Under the actual expense method, the Government assumes responsibility for awarding contracts and for other negotiations with carriers as the property is shipped on a Government Bill of Lading, (GBL) the Government audits and pays transportation vouchers directly to carriers. JTR C8001-D.2.b. As they read, Mr. Frick's orders authorize either method of shipment. He obviously elected to use the commuted rate method. Logically, therefore, he should be paid in accordance with the commuted rate schedule. The agency does not state why it will not pay Mr. Frick the commuted rate. Possibly the reason rests in the fact that the original authorization is in conflict with JTR provisions relating to the method for shipping HHG. Under the JTR, the method of shipping is not optional. Rather, a cost comparison between the two methods is to be made before the agency authorizes a method of shipment. In the event the estimated cost under one method exceeds the estimated cost under the other method by more than $100, the more economical method is used. JTR C8001-D.3.c. In the past, we have had occasion to comment on this provision and its effect when, as in the present case, the cost comparison has not been made. In such cases, we have held that if the agency fails to undertake the required cost comparison prior to authorizing the method of shipment, then that provision of the JTR regarding the method of shipping HHG is rendered inoperative and unenforceable and the guidance of the Government's basic travel regulation, the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), must be followed. E.g., Jeffrey P. Herman, GSBCA 13832-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,704 (1996); Russell E. Padgett, GSBCA 13821-RELO, 97-1 BCA 29,705 (1996). The FTR, like the JTR, provides for the same two methods of shipping HHG. Unlike the JTR, however, the FTR expresses a preference for use of the commuted rate system for individual moves (as opposed to "multiple" or "mass" moves where groups of employees are moved from one station to another at approximately the same time). For individual moves, the FTR calls for the use of commuted rates absent an authorization of the "actual expense" method based upon a cost comparison. 41 CFR 302-8.3(c)(3) (1995). Consequently, in the absence of the requisite cost comparison called for in the JTR, the applicable provision of the FTR controls. Mr. Frick, therefore, can and should be paid the commuted rate. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge