Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ September 25, 1998 ____________________ GSBCA 14642-RELO In the Matter of H. DALE HALL H. Dale Hall, Atlanta, GA, Claimant. David J. Holland, Acting Deputy Assistant Director - Administration, Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA, appearing for Department of the Interior. NEILL, Board Judge. On behalf of Mr. H. Dale Hall, claimant in this case, the Department of the Interior has forwarded for our review its denial of $1020 sought by Mr. Hall for the second thirty days of authorized temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE). For the reasons set out below, we find the agency's determination to be correct. We, therefore, deny the claim. Background In June 1997, Mr. Hall was transferred from his permanent duty station (PDS) in Portland, Oregon, to a new PDS in Atlanta, Georgia. As a benefit associated with the transfer, the agency authorized TQSE for Mr. Hall and his family. On June 12, 1997, he leased from a coworker and his wife a fully furnished, four- bedroom residence in Atlanta. The lease was for thirty-day segments and was renewable after the expiration of the first term. The rent was $2850 per thirty-day period. For the first thirty-two days, only Mr. Hall occupied the newly leased quarters. Thereafter, he was joined by the other four members of his family. Together with his family, he occupied the quarters for an additional thirty days. Sometime after leasing his temporary quarters, Mr. Hall realized that the daily rate of $95, to which he had already agreed, would be in excess of his maximum lodging entitlement of $50 per day. He discussed this with the colleague from whom he had leased his quarters, and together they agreed to amend the lease. Under their renegotiated agreement, the rent for the first thirty-day period would be $1500 (based on a single occupancy rate of $50 per day); while the rent for the next thirty-day period would be $3960 (based on a multiple occupancy rate of $132 per day). Mr. Hall's subsequent claim for sixty-two days' lodging was based on the renegotiated rental terms. The agency, however, allowed him $1500 for the first thirty days of occupancy. For the remaining thirty-two days, the agency refused to allow an amount at a rate in excess of the thirty-day rate of $2850 to which the parties originally agreed. The disallowance in question amounts to $1020. It is this determination which we have been asked to review. Discussion The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) defines TQSE as "subsistence expenses incurred by an employee and/or his/her immediate family while occupying temporary quarters." 41 CFR 302-5.2 (1997) (FTR 302-5.2). The FTR also provides that under the actual TQSE reimbursement method, an employee's agency will pay the actual TQSE incurred,"provided the expenses are reasonable and do not exceed the maximum allowable amount." FTR 302-5.100. Based upon these provisions, we find the agency's determination reasonable on several counts. First, the original rental rate agreed to by Mr. Hall and his colleague appears to have been a reasonable one for the area. Mr. Hall, himself, in a letter to the agency, points out: "In the Atlanta area where adequate rental housing is scarce, this is a reasonable price." The agency has acknowledged this fact in agreeing to reimburse Mr. Hall at this rate for the period he and his family occupied the leased quarters. Assuming the reasonableness of this rate of $2850 per thirty-day period, reimbursement at a rate in excess of this amount would be reimbursement at more than the reasonable rate and, therefore, would be precluded by regulation. The claimant argues that, in this particular case, there is justification for reimbursing him at a rate above the originally agreed rate of $2850. He explains: "the landlord did incur additional expenses by allowing me to stay there for the first 30 days at substantially ($1350) less than the proper rate." Hence, he believes it only fair that the agency allow the renegotiated rate of $132 per day for the final thirty-two days of occupancy so as to make the lessors more or less whole for the losses sustained in agreeing to the $50 per day rate for the first thirty-day period of the lease. These circumstances do nothing to change the reasonableness of the original price agreed upon by Mr. Hall and his colleague. If the renegotiated rate charged for the first thirty days was below the "proper rate," we can only conclude that the renegotiated rate applicable upon the arrival of Mr. Halls's family was above the "proper rate." Cf. Guy E. Mercier, GSBCA 13795-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,925. As already noted, the agency cannot reimburse the claimant -- even for actual costs -- if they are not reasonable. Furthermore, as noted, the FTR defines TQSE as "expenses incurred by an employee and/or his/her immediate family while occupying temporary quarters." In renegotiating the rental rates, Mr. Hall and his colleague attempted to shift actual expenses directly related to Mr. Hall's single occupancy of the quarters to the later period of multiple occupancy by Mr. Hall and his entire family. An expense is reimbursable if incurred by the employee or his immediate family while occupying temporary quarters. Upon the arrival of his family, Mr. Hall received an increase in his per diem allowance. This increase, however, by definition, is intended to cover expenses incurred by the additional family members "while occupying temporary quarters," not expenses previously incurred by him prior to their arrival. Indeed, given the direct relationship of the additional expenses in question to the initial period of occupancy, payment of them would be tantamount to exceeding the maximum lodging entitlement of $50 applicable to that initial period of occupancy. For the reasons stated, we find the agency's disallowance of $1020 to be in accordance with applicable regulation. Mr. Hall's claim is, therefore, denied. ________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge