Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ___________________ January 29, 1999 ___________________ GSBCA 14769-RELO In the Matter of MICHAEL T. MATARRESE Michael T. Matarrese, Santa Fe, NM, Claimant. Billy R. Graves, Director, Fiscal and Accounting Services, Forest Service, Albuquerque, NM, appearing for Department of Agriculture. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant in this case, Michael T. Matarrese, is an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture. In 1996, as part of a permanent change of station (PCS) move to Santa Fe, New Mexico, he sold his residence in Vida, Oregon. He seeks to be reimbursed for the entire cost of a survey he had done of his property in Oregon prior to his move. Given the size of the tract involved, Mr. Matarrese's agency reimbursed him for only a pro rata share of the cost of the survey. For its part, the agency's relocation service contractor, which assisted claimant in his move, refuses to pay for any cost of the survey. In the absence of any showing that claimant is entitled to more than a pro rata share of the survey cost, we deny the claim. Background Claimant explains that the property on which he resided in Oregon, prior to his move to Santa Fe, was described by his bank at the time he himself purchased it as "only an approximation - 16.5 acres." After being advised of his transfer to New Mexico but before he was contacted by the agency's relocation service contractor, Mr. Matarrese retained a local realtor to assist him in the sale of his home. In view of the apparent confusion over the original survey, this realtor advised claimant that, to facilitate a sale and any financing which might be required by a new owner, it would be best to have a new survey made to remedy the uncertainty of the original. Acting on this advice, Mr. Matarrese arranged for a survey. The new survey identified the correct boundaries and determined that the claimant's property amounted to 17.02 acres. 2 The cost of the survey came to $4275. This consisted of a charge of $4235 for field work (60.5 hours for a crew of two men at $70 per hour) and a surveyor's office filing fee of $40. In late February 1996, Mr. Matarrese paid the entire cost of the survey. Some time later, he was contacted by a realtor who had been retained by the agency's relocation service contractor. He provided her with the results of the new survey. Claimant contends that the relocation service contractor used the survey when it resold his property. Because Mr. Matarrese owned land deemed to be in excess of what was considered to be reasonably related to the residence site, reimbursement of the allowable costs associated with the sale of his residence and property in Vida was paid on a pro rata basis. It was determined that five acres of the entire parcel could be considered as related to the residence site. Mr. Matarrese was, therefore, awarded 29% (i.e. 5/17.02) of the costs which otherwise would have been reimbursable for the sale of his house and property. In this claim, Mr. Matarrese is not challenging the ratio used for the pro rata reimbursement. Rather he objects to the application of the pro rata formula to the specific cost of the survey. He points out that, without a survey of the entire parcel, it would not have been possible even to determine with precision the boundaries of the five acres deemed to be reasonably related to the residence itself. Furthermore, as noted, the relocation service contractor used the survey when it resold his property. Accordingly, he seeks to be reimbursed for the entire cost of the survey since, in his opinion, he had the whole property surveyed to meet the needs of the relocation service. The agency continues to refuse to pay Mr. Matarrese any more than a pro rata share of the cost of the survey and the relocation service contractor disclaims any liability for the cost. The service explains that its acquisition procedures generally do not require an updated survey but that, in the rare instances where one is required, the service itself would order and pay for it. In this case the decision to order the survey was made by the claimant himself. The agency has forwarded Mr. Matarrese's appeal of its decision and the decision of the relocation service contractor for our consideration. Discussion In providing for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with residence transactions of federal employees, the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides: 3 The employee shall be limited to pro rata reimbursement when he/she sells or purchases land in excess of that which reasonably relates to the residence site. 41 CFR 302-6.1(f)(2)(ii) (1995) (FTR 302-6.1(f)(2)(ii)). One recognized exception to this provision exists where reimbursement is sought for charges which are based on a flat fee regardless of site size. Frank A. Sterbenz, GSBCA 13662- RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,871. In this case, the exception is of no benefit to the claimant. Conceivably, $40 surveyor's office filing fee was such a charge. Perhaps because of its relative insignificance, however, Mr. Matarrese has provided us with no evidence in support of this possibility. As to the $4235, which covers the work of the field crew and clearly constitutes the bulk of the cost of the new survey, this obviously is a charge closely dependent on the size of the site in question. Undoubtedly the results of the new survey were useful to the relocation service contractor and possibly made the property more attractive in that it eliminated some problems for prospective buyers. Nevertheless, the claimant has not demonstrated that the survey was essential to the needs of the relocation service. Nothing in the record suggests that the seller was required to undertake such a survey. Indeed, we know from his own statements that this was not required of the seller when Mr. Matarrese purchased the property in 1986. The relocation service, therefore, understandably refuses to pay for the cost of a survey it never ordered. In short, claimant has failed to convince us that he is entitled under applicable statute or regulation to reimbursement of anything more than the pro rata share of the survey cost from either the agency or the agency's relocation services contractor. Accordingly, the claim is denied. ____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge