Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ___________________________ February 22, 1999 ___________________________ GSBCA 14641-RELO In the Matter of SUSAN C. HICKAM Susan C. Hickam, Harvest, AL, Claimant. Robert H. Garfield, Chief, General Law Division, United States Army Aviation & Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL, appearing for Department of the Army. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Susan C. Hickam, a civilian employee of the Department of the Army, seeks review of the agency's denial of her request for an extension of temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) in connection with her transfer from St. Louis, Missouri to Huntsville, Alabama. Because we find that the Army's determination accords with applicable regulation and did not constitute an abuse of its discretion, we deny the claim. Background Ms. Hickam is a former employee of the Army Aviation and Troop Command (ATCOM) in St. Louis, Missouri. Under the Department of Defense's (DoD's) base realignment and closure activities, ATCOM was closed and its functions distributed to other DoD activities. The largest portion of the ATCOM workforce was relocated to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama as part of the newly constituted Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM). Ms. Hickam was notified of her impending transfer to Huntsville in February 1997. Her initial reporting date of June 12, 1997 was amended to July 8 because of a delay in the scheduled move of her office. Although she did not request expedited orders, Ms. Hickam was one of the first employees at ATCOM to receive relocation orders because her husband, Russell Hickam, also an ATCOM employee transferring to Redstone Arsenal, was a member of an advance team with a report date of April 21. Mr. Hickam reported to his new duty station in Huntsville and commenced his TQSE period on April 19, 1997. His TQSE period was interrupted shortly thereafter by a death in his immediate family; he returned to Huntsville on April 28. In late April, Ms. Hickam took her authorized house-hunting trip.[foot #] 1 The Hickams made an offer on a house on May 3, but the seller rejected the offer and the parties were unable to negotiate a satisfactory agreement. Mr. Hickam continued to search for a house during his TQSE period in Huntsville. Meanwhile, Ms. Hickam returned to St. Louis, but visited Huntsville several times, on which occasions she continued with the search as well. Mr. Hickam had a brief temporary duty assignment in St. Louis in May. Because his sixty-day initial TQSE authorization was to expire on June 18, and the Hickams had not located a satisfactory house, Mr. Hickam, citing the difficulties in finding a permanent residence, the death in his immediate family, and his temporary duty assignment, requested an extension. ATCOM granted an additional forty-five days of TQSE, through August 2, 1997. Ms. Hickam's TQSE period commenced on August 1. Taking into account her six-day house- hunting trip, her TQSE period was to expire on September 23. On August 22, 1997, Ms. Hickam requested an extension of TQSE and temporary storage of household goods. She stated in her request that despite diligent efforts, including two unsuccessful attempts to purchase a home in August, the Hickams had been unable to locate and purchase a suitable permanent residence. She added that her workload in September would be heavier than usual because of her responsibilities in closing the old fiscal year and opening the new fiscal year for the new organization. The ATCOM Civilian Personnel Office denied the request, pointing out that, in combination, the Hickams had already been authorized nearly 160 days of TQSE and stating that it was not clear why the Hickams could not locate permanent housing. ATCOM did add that if additional pertinent information was forthcoming, it would reconsider the request. Ms. Hickam responded with the explanation that she and her husband had looked at more than seventy-five homes in their search for a permanent residence. They were looking for a house in the over $140,000 price range for tax reasons and saw a void in available housing priced from $140,000 to $200,000. The ATCOM Chief of Staff, after considering this additional information, again denied the request to extend TQSE, based on the fact that the Hickams had already received upwards of 160 days of TQSE, which should have afforded ample time to relocate to a permanent residence. Ms. Hickam then requested this decision be reviewed by the Chief of Staff at AMCOM in Huntsville. The AMCOM Chief of Staff also rejected claimant's request, offering the explanation that in anticipation of the large-scale relocation of ATCOM employees to Huntsville, a ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The Army also authorized a house-hunting trip for Mr. Hickam, but he did not take one. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- survey of local housing conditions in Huntsville and the surrounding Madison County, Alabama, had been conducted to determine the availability of housing options in various price ranges. This study revealed a shortage of less than five year old housing priced under $120,000. There was no recognized lack of available housing in higher price ranges, however. Accordingly, AMCOM agreed that this request for an extension of TQSE should not be approved. Discussion Employees who are "transferred in the interest of the Government from one official station or agency to another for permanent duty" are to be reimbursed for certain expenses incident to the transfer. These expenses include "[s]ubsistence expenses of the employee and his immediate family for a period of sixty days while occupying temporary quarters when the new official station is located within the United States." Reimbursement of TQSE may be extended for an additional sixty days if the head of the agency concerned or his designee determines that there are compelling reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters. 5 U.S.C.A. 5724a(c)(1), (2) (West Supp. 1997). This statutory provision is implemented by provisions of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), and by the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR), which applies to civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Both the FTR and the JTR explain that a "compelling reason" is an event that is beyond the relocating employee's control and is acceptable to the agency. Examples include, but are not limited to, situations in which the employee cannot occupy the new permanent residence because of unanticipated problems such as a delay in settlement on the new residence or a short-term delay in construction of the residence, or the employee is unable to locate a permanent residence which is adequate for the family's needs because of housing conditions at the new official station. 41 CFR 302-5.105 (1997); JTR 13004- A-2 Under the statute, as implemented by regulation, the decision to grant an extension of TQSE is committed to the discretion of the agency within specified limitations. Here, claimant's principal reason for seeking an extension of TQSE is the inability to locate suitable housing during the period initially authorized. She argues that the JTR exception pertaining to the inability "to locate a permanent residence adequate to the family's needs because of housing conditions at the new official station" should be applicable to her circumstances. Claimant contends that the housing market in Huntsville and Madison County, which is considerably smaller than the housing market in St. Louis and its environs, was clearly impacted by the large influx of approximately 1500 new employees all arriving over a three to five month period in the summer and autumn of 1997, and was a distinctly difficult market in which to purchase a home. The initial service she received from real estate agents was poor. Additionally, it appeared to claimant that many sellers were taking advantage of the "golden" sellers market -- frequently seeking inflated prices for houses that were dirty and in poor condition. Finally, claimant questions whether her request for an extension of her TQSE period was carefully considered and decided on its own merits because of her perception that the denials of her request for additional TQSE simply stated the same rationale that was provided to individuals who built new homes. The relocation of AMCOM's employees to Huntsville has generated a considerable number of claims seeking our review of denials of requests for extensions of TQSE. E.g., Michael D. Haragan, GSBCA 14663-RELO (Oct. 1, 1998); Audrey J. Shegog, GSBCA 14621-RELO, 98-2 BCA 30,049; Bruce Park, GSBCA 14529-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,932; Kenneth W. Muzzo, GSBCA 14439-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,814; Michael T. Horan, GSBCA 14522-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,806. The Army suggests that Ms. Hickam's claim is somewhat comparable to the claim of another AMCOM employee addressed in Rifat A. Ajjuri, GSBCA 14506-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,788. Mr. Ajjuri was similarly unable to find a satisfactory house in Huntsville after looking at existing housing for several weeks. He elected to enter into a contract to construct a new house for $160,000. The house was not scheduled to be completed until after the expiration of the approved TQSE period. Like Ms. Hickam, Mr. Ajjuri requested an extension of TQSE, arguing that the unavailability of adequate housing constituted the compelling circumstances that would justify such an extension. The Board, in upholding AMCOM's denial of the requested extension, recognized that the Army had developed a thoughtful and consistent rationale for reviewing the numerous requests it anticipated as a result of the heavy volume of relocations caused by the consolidation of ATCOM into AMCOM. In particular, the Board noted that the survey commissioned by the Army corroborated the agency's position that there was no shortage of adequate existing housing in the relevant price range so as to give rise to the requisite compelling reason for an extension contemplated by the JTR. The Ajjuri decision also points out that the tight housing situation was intended to be offset by the opportunity for early house hunting trips. Although the Hickams took advantage of this opportunity once, they did not take the additional trip that was authorized for Mr. Hickam. Ajjuri recognizes that various steps were taken by the Army to facilitate the relocation process for the large number of employees moving to Huntsville and to minimize the need for extensions of TQSE. These steps included early notification of reassignments and the opportunity to take house hunting trips well in advance of planned moves. These steps were followed in the case of Ms. Hickam. Moreover, in combination the Hickams received considerably more TQSE than did other transferring employees whose requests for extensions of TQSE were similarly refused. The Hickams in fact looked at numerous houses in their price range, although many of these houses did not suit their preferences.[foot #] 2 The decisions cited above show that the Army has exercised exceptional consistency in its treatment of requests for extensions of TQSE in connection with the consolidation of ATCOM into AMCOM. Under the circumstances here, the Army had a reasoned basis upon which to deny claimant's request for an extension. The claim is denied. _________________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 The Hickams purchased a house in October 1997.