Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ___________________ November 16, 1998 ___________________ GSBCA 14499-RELO In the Matter of JAMES P. TUCKER James P. Tucker, Burns, OR, Claimant. Darwin D. Priebe, Chief, Management and Budget, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR, appearing for Department of the Interior. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. In this case claimant seeks relocation services benefits or reimbursement for real estate expenses incurred in connection with the sale of his home in Cascade, Idaho, due to his transfer to Hines, Oregon. The agency denied reimbursement because claimant's official duty station was not located in Cascade, Idaho, but rather was in Fairbanks, Alaska, and claimant did not regularly commute between Cascade and Fairbanks. Because claimant's official duty station may be in a remote area where adequate family housing is not available, his residence in Idaho may be deemed an eligible residence for purposes of real estate sales expenses. We therefore remand this matter to the agency to make that determination in the first instance. Background On November 1, 1997, claimant, James P. Tucker, accepted a supervisory range technician position with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Hines, Oregon. His previous duty station was Fort Wainwright, Alaska, with the BLM's Alaska Fire Service. Because claimant's position in Alaska was a short-term appointment, guaranteeing him employment for not more than six and not less than three months during the year, claimant never purchased a home in Fairbanks. Instead, he kept his home in Cascade, Idaho, and resided there during the winter months when there was no work in Alaska. In connection with his permanent change of station from Fort Wainwright, Alaska, to Hines, Oregon, claimant requested that the 2 Government purchase his home through the Government relocation program. The agency denied this request, reasoning that residence sale expenses may only be reimbursed if the transferring employee's residence is the one from which the employee regularly commuted at the old official duty station. Since claimant's residence in Cascade, Idaho, was not located at his old official duty station at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, the agency concluded that it lacked the authority to pay real estate expenses or arrange for a relocation service contractor to sell or purchase claimant's residence. Discussion Under the applicable statute, 5 U.S.C.A. 5724(d) (West Supp. 1997), and its implementing regulations, the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), an employee transferred in the interest of the Government is entitled to reimbursement of allowable expenses for the sale of a residence at the employee's old duty station. 41 CFR 302-6.1 (1997). For purposes of this entitlement, an employee's "residence" is defined as "the residence or other quarters from which the employee regularly commutes to and from work." 41 CFR 302- 1.4(k). However, this regulation contains an exception to the "regular commute" requirement which may apply here. The regulation states: However, where the official station or post of duty is in a remote area where adequate family housing is not available within reasonable daily commuting distance, residence includes the dwelling where the family of the employee resides . . . , but only if such residence reasonably relates to the official station as determined by an appropriate administrative official. Id. The Comptroller General applied this "remote official station" exception to permit an employee to be reimbursed for residential purchase expenses where the new residence was in Longwood, Florida, and the employee's duty station was on board a mobile hopper dredge which moved "along the vast ranges of coastline where regularly scheduled dredging [was] performed." Joseph F. Maraia, B-183588 (Aug. 20, 1975); accord, Roger W. Montague, B-251211 (Feb. 4, 1993) ("The only two reasons that we have recognized as being sufficient to overcome the requirement of regularly commuting between the residence and worksite are (1) when the worksite is located in a remote area and adequate family housing is not available within daily commuting distance, and (2) when medical necessity dictates that a family member 3 reside outside daily commuting distance."); Mark S. Alcorn, B- 239108, (Mar. 15, 1991);[foot #] 1 Jacques P. Evans, B- 196471 (Jan. 16, 1980). Here, the agency did not consider whether the claimant as a wilderness firefighter in Alaska was stationed at a remote official duty station where no adequate family housing was available. We therefore remand this matter to the agency to make that determination. If the agency concludes that claimant meets this exception, it should reimburse his reasonable and otherwise allowable real estate sales expenses, but "only if such residence reasonably relates to the official station as determined by an appropriate administrative official." 41 CFR 302-1.4(k). We further note that an agency's decision to provide relocation services by a contractor is completely entrusted to the agency's discretion by statute and regulation. 5 U.S.C.A. 5724(c) (West Supp. 1997); 41 CFR 302-12.101; accord, Rhonda L. Dox, GSBCA 14040-RELO, et al., 97-2 BCA 29,216. Thus, BLM is not required to provide relocation services, but may do so if it determines claimant is eligible. Decision Claimant may recover reasonable, allowable residential sales real estate expenses if he can establish to the agency that his official duty station in Alaska was in a remote area where adequate family housing was not available, and his residence in Idaho reasonably related to his official duty station as determined by an appropriate administrative official. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 In David M. Whetsell, GSBCA 14089-RELO (Feb. 26, ____________________ 1998), the Board distinguished Alcorn but did not address whether ______ it would apply a "medical necessity" exception to the requirement that an employee must regularly commute from the new residence to the new duty station in order to be reimbursed for residence purchase expenses. Here, the Board consistent with Whetsell and ________ Alcorn, permits the agency to consider the applicability of the ______ exception which is expressly stated in the regulation -- i.e., the remote official duty station where adequate family housing is not available. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- 4 The claim is remanded to the agency for determinations consistent with this decision. ___________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge