Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ______________________ April 13, 1999 ______________________ GSBCA 14718-RELO In the Matter of JAMES H. SHAW James H. Shaw, Sacramento, CA, Claimant. Betty Pugner, Finance and Accounting Officer, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento, CA, appearing for Department of the Army. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, James H. Shaw, transferred from the Baltimore, Maryland District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers to the Sacramento, California District in June 1998. The travel orders issued in support of this permanent change of station (PCS) authorized claimant to drive his car from Baltimore to Sacramento via the most direct route. Rather than drive cross- country, claimant shipped his car from Baltimore to Sacramento and flew to Oakland. He took a week of leave and then reported to duty in Sacramento. His claim for recovery of the shipping expenses, which amounted to $997, was denied. Mr. Shaw argues that his shipping expenses should be reimbursed because he did not have time nor did he want to sell the car. He also did not want to take the time required to drive across the country and did not want to put the wear and tear on his car. He thus shipped the car, flew to Oakland and, after taking some annual leave, drove a rental car to Sacramento and reported to work. By his calculations, the savings in salary, mileage, and per diem over nine days of travel time to drive the car cross-country are significant.[foot #] 1 He also ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The cost of shipping the POV from Baltimore to Sacramento was $997. Mr. Shaw states that the distance from Baltimore to Sacramento is 3300 miles, for which nine days of travel time and per diem would be allowed. At seventeen cents a mile, he calculates mileage reimbursement to be $561. In (continued...) ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- notes that in September 1996, legislation was enacted authorizing Government agencies to reimburse these costs. The Corps has denied his claim because the amendment to the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), implementing this statutory change, was not effective until August 1998, shortly after claimant completed his PCS move. This, in Mr. Shaw's view, is unfair. Discussion Agencies may reimburse relocation expenses only as authorized by statute. In September 1996, Congress enacted legislation authorizing agencies to reimburse employees for the cost of transporting a privately owned vehicle (POV) to a new official station under certain conditions. 5 U.S.C. 5727(c) (Supp. III 1997); see Gary J. Rossio, GSBCA 14570-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,844. The legislation was to take effect in 180 days, or March 1997. On March 23, 1997, implementing regulations were published in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), part 302-10. In general, the FTR permits agencies to authorize transportation of a POV to the new official station when an agency determines that it is advantageous and cost-effective to the Government. 41 CFR 302-10.4 (1997). The FTR contemplates that each agency will establish policies governing the circumstances under which it will allow or authorize reimbursement of the costs of transporting a POV to the new duty station. 41 CFR 302-10.502. In determining whether transportation of a POV wholly within the continental United States (CONUS) is cost effective, agencies are to consider the following: (a) Cost of travel by POV. (b) Cost of transporting the POV. (c) Cost of travel if the POV is transported. (d) Productivity benefit . . . derive[d] from the employee's accelerated arrival at the new official station. 41 CFR 302-10.504. Effective August 17, 1998, the Defense Department revised chapter 11 of the JTR to establish its policy governing the shipment of POVs in connection with a PCS wholly within CONUS. Such transportation may be authorized when it has been determined ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 (...continued) addition, he computes the per diem for nine travel days to come to $720 (at $80 per day) and the cost of his salary for nine days of travel to come to $1683 ($187 per day). He thus derives a total of $2964 as the cost of driving the car from Baltimore to Sacramento. His airfare to the west coast was $166. Deducting the cost of airfare and shipping the car from the cost of driving the car to Sacramento yields a savings to the Government of about $1800. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- that it is advantageous and economical to the Government. JTR C11000. Under JTR C11009, the agency may authorize payment of transporting one or more POVs when both the old and new permanent duty stations (PDSs) are within CONUS and it has been determined that it is more advantageous and cost effective to transport the POV(s) to the new PDS at Government expense and to pay for transportation of the employee and immediate family by commercial means than to have the employee and family drive one or more POV(s) to the new PDS. The costs to be considered are similar to those enumerated in the FTR: a. cost of POV travel; b. cost of transporting the POV(s); c. cost of travel if the POV(s) is/are transported; and d. productivity benefit derived by the DoD component concerned from the employee's accelerated arrival at the new P.S. JTR C11009. This provision is not applicable when the effective date of transfer is prior to August 17, 1998, as is the case here. Although claimant believes he saved the Corps money by electing to ship his POV and fly to California from Baltimore, this does not automatically entitle him to recoup the cost of transporting the vehicle. The statute and implementing regulations contemplate only that the agency may, if it finds that it would be advantageous, authorize payment of this cost. First, the Corps did not authorize shipment of the vehicle -- the travel orders issued to Mr. Shaw contemplated that he would drive his POV cross-country. The record does not reflect that claimant consulted with the agency to ascertain in advance that he could or would be reimbursed for the incurred cost. The FTR contemplates that each agency will establish its own policies governing the payment of these costs, and the JTR provisions were not in effect at the time Mr. Shaw moved to Sacramento. These provisions, on their face, do not apply retroactively. In the absence of the appropriate policy implementing the FTR, DoD did not have the mechanism in place to offer this benefit to transferring employees. In any event, authorization and payment of the cost of shipping a vehicle is not mandatory and was not authorized here. Accordingly, there is no basis for the Board to find that the Corps was required to reimburse this cost. _________________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge