Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________ August 10, 1998 ____________ GSBCA 14600-RELO In the Matter of JOHN WESLEY SUMMERS John Wesley Summers, Fayetteville, NC, Claimant. Almetta W. Moore, Chief, Financial Operations Service, Financial Services Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, Austin, TX, appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs. VERGILIO, Board Judge. A relocated employee occupied temporary quarters at the home of an acquaintance. The acquaintance was not in the business of renting to travelers, and was not a commercial renter. The claimant paid the acquaintance $1150 for each of two thirty-day periods. The rate sought is said to reflect costs the host incurred for increased utilities, reproducing keys, invasion of privacy, and loss of square footage due to luggage boxes, et cetera. The record contains no support for the derivation of these costs. Even if a claimant incurs a cost, the cost must be reasonable in order to be reimbursed. A reasonable cost when staying with such a host is the demonstrated, increased cost the host incurred because of the guests. The claimant has not demonstrated any impropriety in the agency's conclusion that the lodging costs were not reasonable. The agency appropriately disallowed reimbursement. The claimant, John Wesley Summers, as an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs, changed permanent duty stations with a reporting date of November 9, 1997. For the relocation, the agency authorized reimbursement for up to sixty days of temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE). The claimant and his wife occupied temporary quarters at the new duty station. During the initial thirty-day period, five nights were spent at a hotel and the remainder at the home of an acquaintance (here referred to as Mr. W-). During the second thirty-day period, all nights were spent at the home of Mr. W-. Mr. W- was not in the business of renting to travelers and was not a commercial renter. For each thirty-day period, the record contains a statement, bearing signatures of the claimant and Mr. W-, certifying that $1500 was paid for the temporary quarters during the period in question. Moreover, the signed submissions state: Said cost reflects the actual additional cost incurred by Mr. W- for housing the family of [the claimant] in his residence. During the stay, I understand that Mr. W- incurred costs for increased utilities, reproducing keys, invasion of privacy, and loss of square footage due to luggage boxes, and etc. No meals were provided[.] For each thirty-day period, the record also contains a receipt and letter, bearing a signature of Mr. W-, stating that $1150 was received from the claimant. The letters specify that $1150 reflects the actual additional cost incurred by Mr. W- in housing the claimant. The record contains no other documentation in support of the alleged actual additional costs, be they $1500 or $1150 per thirty-day period. In submitting claims for each period, the claimant contends that he incurred $1150 in costs for temporary quarters at the home of Mr. W-. For the initial thirty-day period, the agency determined that the claimant incurred reimbursable costs of $3290.18 for hotel lodging, meals and tips, and laundry.[foot #] 1 The agency disallowed the remainder requested, all for lodging at the home of Mr. W-. Of the $1150 the claimant says he incurred, $909.82 is what could be reimbursed, given that the maximum reimbursement allowable was $4200. For the second thirty-day period, the agency determined that the claimant incurred reimbursable costs of $2953.80 for meals and tips.[foot #] 2 It disallowed the remainder requested. The maximum reimbursement allowable was $3000, such that $46.20 remained unreimbursed. The agency concluded that the claimant had not demonstrated that his host had incurred the additional costs requested. Further, in denying the reclaim request, the agency expressly alerted the claimant that, should he pursue his case at this Board, he should "include any written documentation or receipts that may exist that indicate that Mr. W-'s expenses were over and beyond what he would have normally incurred had you not been lodging with him." Under the applicable provision of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), an agency is to pay "the actual TQSE incurred, provided the expenses are reasonable and do not exceed the maximum allowable amount." 41 CFR 302-5.100 (1997) (FTR 302- 5.100). To assess if the expenses are reasonable, the agency has looked to a provision in the FTR, which addresses allowable lodging expenses when lodging with "friends or relatives": When the employee obtains lodging from friends or relatives . . . with or without charge, no part of the per diem allowance will be allowed for lodging unless the host actually incurs additional costs in accommodating the traveler. In such instances, the additional costs substantiated by the employee and determined to be reasonable by the agency may be allowed as a lodging expense. Neither costs based on room rates for comparable conventional lodging in the ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Although not directly at issue in this matter, the $3290.18 figure reflects an overpayment of $30.10 which the auditor double-counted as reimbursable laundry costs. [foot #] 2 The agency's conclusion regarding reimbursable costs is based upon errors by the auditor, who (1) utilized costs for meals and tips for the initial thirty-day period, not those costs for the period in question, $2326.05, and (2) did not consider laundry costs said to have been incurred, $65.12. The sum of these meal and laundry costs is $2391.17, which reflects the total reimbursement the claimant should have received (outside of the issues in this matter), if each of the costs was reasonable and properly supported. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- area nor flat "token" amounts will be considered as reasonable. FTR 301-7.9(c)(3).[foot #] 3 As the agency recognized, the Comptroller General, who decided relocation matters prior to this Board, has utilized a similar standard of reasonableness based upon actual increased costs the host incurred, with the burden on the claimant to demonstrate entitlement. Jerome R. Serie, 65 Comp. Gen. 287 (1986); Russell A. Devers, B-218692 (Dec. 17, 1985). The agency has used an appropriate standard to determine if the costs incurred when staying at the home of an acquaintance were reasonable--look to the costs of the host which are demonstrated to have been incurred and increased because of the guests. The claimant failed to persuade the agency that the claimed costs are reasonable. The claimant has not demonstrated any impropriety in that determination. Accordingly, the claimant is not entitled to the reimbursement he seeks. ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 3 The agency has a parallel provision in its implementing travel regulations. In the FTR, the provision is directly applicable to an employee on a temporary duty (TDY) assignment, FTR 301-7.9(c) (referencing 301-7.6), and to lodging relating to travel incident to a change of official station, FTR 302-2.1(c).