Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _____________ May 20, 1998 _____________ GSBCA 14470-RELO In the Matter of LAWRENCE T. KEMPE Lawrence T. Kempe, Salmon, ID, Claimant. Victoria A. Smith, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of the Interior. VERGILIO, Board Judge. A relocated claimant is entitled to recover costs of insurance obtained for a self-move when coverage and costs were not in excess of what the Government would have provided for a move under a Government bill of lading. The claimant, who exceeded the maximum for one day and incurred no lodging expenses for the other two days of en route travel, is not entitled to recover in excess of the maximum daily lodging rate for a given day of en route travel. The agency reasonably disallowed a claim for lease-breaking expenses when the claimant failed to support his assertion that costs were incurred. The claimant, Lawrence T. Kempe, as an employee of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, performed a self-move when changing permanent duty stations with a reporting date of approximately September 29, 1997. In this matter, he seeks to be reimbursed $487.76, the amount disallowed by the agency. This figure is comprised of $191 for insurance coverage on rental vehicles and personal property, $21.76 relating to lodging costs, and $275 sought for terminating a lease without a thirty-day notice. Insurance coverage The agency authorized the claimant to perform the move himself, in lieu of utilizing a Government bill of lading (GBL), under which the Government would have assumed the direct responsibilities for the move. 41 CFR 302-8.3(b) (1997) (Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 302-8.3(b)). The agency also authorized the claimant to travel via his privately owned vehicle. Prior to his departure from the old duty station on September 29, the claimant contacted his insurance company. The company informed him that his renter's insurance policy would be terminated when he departed his current residence and that his automobile insurance would not cover his towing his vehicle. The claimant opted to purchase insurance coverage through the rental company to cover his liability for the rental truck and car carrier, at $100; his goods in the rental truck, at $35; and "towguard protection" for his pickup truck, at $56. These costs totaled $191. The total cost claimed for renting the truck, trailer and insurance was $1397.04. Gas receipts totaling $375.80 and storage costs of $55 added to the $1397.04 in rental/insurance costs totals $1827.84 of relevant costs. The record does not demonstrate that the agency made a determination prior to the move of anticipated costs if a GBL were utilized. However, in December 1997, the agency obtained a price quote utilizing a GBL for the shipment of the 5000 pounds of household goods between the old and new duty stations. The price, $2151.41, includes replacement insurance for the goods. Additional charges were stated as $431.39 for boxes, $588.22 for packing, and $1062.63 for thirty days of storage, handling and delivering out of storage. These charges added to the base cost total $4233.65. Had the claimant utilized a GBL for the transportation of his household goods, he would have driven his vehicle between locations and obtained reimbursement at $.15 per mile. FTR 302-2.3(b). This amounts to approximately $195 for the journey of approximately 1300 miles. The agency explains its disallowance of the charges associated with insurance by reference to FTR 301-3.2(c)(1) and two decisions of the Comptroller General, Frederick L. Proctor, B-17868 (June 11, 1973) and Donald L. Weaver, B-189191 (Apr. 8, 1975). The cited regulation does not apply to this situation, as it applies not to relocation allowances but to travel allowances and the use of commercial transportation. Each of the cited cases involves insurance in excess of the carrier's normal liability or minimum released value. This claimant did not obtain such insurance. This claimant obtained insurance coverage such that he would be shielded from liability in a manner seemingly equivalent to the position he would have been in had shipment occurred under a GBL. FTR 302-8.2(f). The agency authorized reimbursement for the self-move for costs incurred up to the amount of a GBL move. The claimant seeks to recover less than the costs associated with a GBL move. The claimant is entitled to recover the costs disallowed by the agency. 41 CFR 101-40.203-2(d). Lodging costs The agency authorized lodging for the en route travel related to the relocation. The travel authorization specified that the maximum amount reimbursable per day for lodging was $50. The claimant incurred lodging expenses of $71.76 for one night of lodging. Staying with friends for two nights, the claimant incurred no lodging expenses for two nights of his relocating. The agency reimbursed lodging costs of $50. The claimant seeks additional reimbursement of $21.76. He asserts that he stayed at the least expensive motel in the given city that had reasonable security and any kind of highway access with a parking lot large enough to accommodate a fifteen-foot truck pulling a fifteen-foot trailer. Applicable regulation specifies that, for travel en route between old and new duty stations, the maximum per diem rate shall be the standard CONUS rate prescribed. FTR 302-2.1(c)(1). That rate was $50. Unlike provisions for temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE), which permit reimbursement based upon an average for the TQSE period, FTR 302-5.100, the provisions for en route travel make no such allowance for averaging costs. Rather, the regulations reference part 301 of the FTR, which specifies that the per diem allowances for official travel shall be at daily rates not in excess of the established maximum per diem rates. FTR 301-7.3. Thus, the agency reimbursed the claimant in accordance with the regulation, looking at reimbursable lodging costs on a daily basis for en route travel, not over the period of en route travel. Lease termination The claimant asserts that he incurred an expense of $275 for breaking his lease by failing to provide notice of thirty days. The claimant asserts that he paid $275 in cash to his landlord for this expense, but obtained no receipt. He states that the landlord will not provide a statement that the amount was tendered and received. The claimant has not provided a copy of the lease to support his contention that he was obligated to pay the amount. The claimant explains that he discarded his copy of the lease shortly before receipt of the agency's denial of the claim for this alleged expense. The agency has concluded that the claimant failed to adequately support his claim, a prerequisite to reimbursement under applicable regulation. FTR 302-6.2(h) (items to be reimbursed in connection with the settlement of an unexpired lease must be supported by documentation showing that the expense was in fact incurred and paid by the employee). The agency has acted reasonably, not arbitrarily or capriciously, in concluding that the claimant has failed to support the claim for expenses allegedly incurred in lease breaking. Accordingly, the claimant has not demonstrated entitlement to be reimbursed for lease- breaking expenses. ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge