Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                                                              
 
                             March 4, 1999
                                                              
 
 
 
                            GSBCA 14742-RELO
 
 
                    In the Matter of RICHARD P. FYNE
 
 
        Richard P. Fyne, Brooke, VA, Claimant.
 
        Bonnie  Britten,  Chief, Travel  Policy Division,  Office of
   Administration, Department  of Veterans Affairs,  Washington, DC,
   appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant, Richard  P. Fyne, is an employee of the Department
   of Veterans  Affairs.   In  1992  he moved  as  the result  of  a
   permanent  change  of  station.     He  submitted  a   claim  for
   reimbursement for  the movement  and storage  of household  goods
   (HHG)  pursuant to  the commuted  rate.   The  agency denied  his
   claim, and claimant has requested review by this Board.
 
        Claimant's move from  Portland, Oregon, to  Washington, D.C.
   required that his HHG be  shipped and temporarily stored until he
   moved into his permanent quarters. The agency states as follows:
 
        Mr.  Fyne s Travel  Authority for  Permanent Change  of
        Station  authorized   transportation  and   storage  of
        household goods  and personal  effects at  the commuted
        rate  method.  The Travel Authority also authorized Mr.
        Fyne to take 9.5 days to complete his enroute travel.
 
        . . . . 
 
        The   Department   of    Veterans   Affairs   made   an
        administrative  error  in authorizing  shipment  of Mr.
        Fyne s  household   goods  by   the  commuted   method.
        Unfortunately, VA did not perform its responsibility of
        determining  the method  of shipment  based  on a  cost
        comparison. There is  no record that a  cost comparison
        was made prior to authorization of Mr. Fyne s household
        goods shipment by the commuted rate method. 
 
                                                                   2
 
        This  is evidenced  by  the fact  that VA  obtained the
        required  cost  comparison  from the  General  Services
        Administration   on   January   21,   1993  after   the
        transportation was completed.
 
        From the  agency s statement  above, it  is undisputed  that
   claimant was authorized to transport his HHG by the commuted rate
   method, and that no cost comparison was made by  the agency until
   after   the   transportation   was   completed.      Under   such
   circumstances, claimant is entitled  to reimbursement pursuant to
   the commuted  rate method.   For reasons  explained in  detail in
   numerous  previous decisions  of this  Board,  we have  concluded
   that, under the  Federal Travel Regulation, 41  CFR chs. 301-304,
   and the statute which it implements, this cost comparison must be
   done  before the  method of transporting  the goods  is selected.
   See, e.g., David P. Fulton,  GSBCA 13849-RELO, 97-2 BCA   29,154;
   Gregory  Gabent,  GSBCA  13865-RELO, 97-1  BCA     28,700 (1996);
   Jeffrey P. Herman, GSBCA 13832-RELO, 97-1 BCA   28,704 (1996).  A
   cost comparison performed  after the  transportation is  complete
   cannot serve as  the basis for denying an  employee reimbursement
   under the  commuted rate  method where, as  in the  instant case,
   this  method was originally  authorized in the  employee s travel
   orders.
 
        Claimant  is  entitled  to  reimbursement  pursuant  to  the
   commuted rate.   The agency  is directed to make  the appropriate
   calculation of the commuted rate.
 
                                      ________________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge