Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________ May 24, 1999 ________________________________ GSBCA 14824-RELO In the Matter of STEVEN C. MANTOOTH Steven C. Mantooth, Alexander, AR, Claimant. Ray E. York, Deputy Director, Systems and Procedures, Finance Directorate, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of Defense. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Claimant, Steven C. Mantooth, seeks $2814.57 for moving his household goods (HHG) from Hixson, Tennessee, to Alexander, Arkansas, in conjunction with his permanent change of station. The agency reimbursed him for moving his HHG at the Government bill of lading (GBL) rate, but refused to reimburse him for the excess costs incurred due to his use of a commercial transportation carrier. Claimant incurred a total shipping cost of $6739.45. The use of the commercial carrier was approved by the Government because Mr. Mantooth needed to ship his HHG immediately once he sold his home, and this was reflected in his amended travel orders. For the reasons stated below, we grant the claim. Background On August 4, 1997, claimant, a mechanical engineer with the Department of Defense, was issued a travel order for his permanent change of station from Hixson, Tennessee, to Pine Bluff, Arkansas, authorizing him to ship his HHG under the GBL rate method. In December 1997, Mr. Mantooth called the transportation office and advised the acting transportation officer that he had sold his home in Hixson and needed his HHG moved immediately. The acting transportation officer called the responsible shipping office, Fort MacPherson, Georgia, but that office required at least twelve days to schedule a shipment, and Mr. Mantooth had to be moved out of his home sooner than that. Therefore, the acting transportation officer authorized claimant to arrange for the transportation of his HHG himself and told him he would be reimbursed for his actual costs incurred in transporting his HHG. On January 5, 1998, the agency amended claimant's original travel authorization "to allow reimbursement for actual costs of moving expenses." Mr. Mantooth contracted with a commercial carrier, United Van Lines, and the company packed his shipment on January 9, picked up the HHG on January 10, and delivered the HHG on January 14. The total charge by United Van Lines was $6739.45, and claimant sought reimbursement of this amount. On January 26, 1998, the agency's transportation officer calculated the cost of the GBL rate shipment for moving claimant's HHG. Based upon a weight of 14,200 pounds and 458 miles and including packing charges, the GBL rate was $3924.88. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) in Rock Island, Illinois, denied claimant reimbursement for the full amount of shipping his HHG and limited his reimbursement to the GBL rate. DFAS Rock Island determined that the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) precluded reimbursement of actual expenses because a cost comparison between the GBL rate and the commuted rate had not been performed prior to the move. On November 6, 1998, the transportation officer calculated that the commuted rate for claimant's move would have been $8826.02. DFAS Indianapolis disagreed with DFAS Rock Island. Because of the disagreement, DFAS Indianapolis requested that this Board issue a determination concerning Mr. Mantooth's claim and recommended that he be reimbursed for the total actual cost of $6739.45 because the commuted rate for transporting claimant's goods, $8826.02, exceeds the actual costs being claimed. Discussion The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) and the JTR, which supplement the FTR provisions with respect to civilian employees of the Department of Defense, provide that the cost of shipping household goods may be reimbursed from any origin to any destination so long as the amount paid by the Government does not exceed the cost of transporting the property in one lot by the most economical route from the last official station of the transferring employee to the new official duty station. 41 CFR 302-8.2(e); JTR C8001-C. The FTR further provides for two alternative methods of reimbursement: the commuted rate method and the actual expense method. 41 CFR 302-8.3. Under the commuted rate method, the employee makes the arrangements for transporting household goods and the Government compensates him in accordance with published rate schedules. Under the actual expense method, the Government assumes responsibility for making shipment arrangements, ships the goods under a GBL, and pays the carrier directly. The FTR provides that for individual moves the commuted rate method is preferred principally because the Government is spared the administrative expenses associated with selecting a carrier, arranging for the carrier services and for packing and crating, preparing the GBL, paying charges incurred, and processing loss and damage claims. See Jeffrey P. Herman, GSBCA 13832-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,704. The FTR permits an agency to use the GBL method for an individual move, however, if it determines, under an appropriate cost comparison, that such a move would be more economical. Id. As the Board noted in Herman, the JTR makes the discretionary use of the actual expense method mandatory for individual moves when this method is determined, upon completion of a cost comparison, to be more economical. JTR C8001-D3.[foot #] 1 As we recognized in Samuel L. Marr, GSBCA 14039-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,788, at 115,368, "[t]o the extent that the cost comparison required under the JTR has not been properly performed prior to the move, that provision becomes inapplicable, and entitlement to payment is governed by the FTR." Thus, in Marr, where the agency did not perform a cost comparison prior to the selection of the method for transporting household goods, the employee could be compensated under the commuted rate method, limited to the rate for shipping 18,000 pounds. Here, since no cost comparison was made, claimant does not seek reimbursement under the commuted rate method, and claimant's out-of-pocket expenses did not exceed the commuted rate, claimant may be reimbursed for his otherwise allowable out-of-pocket expenses. DFAS Rock Island denied claimant reimbursement because a cost comparison between the GBL rate and the commuted rate had not been made prior to the move, and it believed that the applicable regulation limited claimant to the amount authorized for a GBL move. That regulation, JTR C8001-D3(c), provides, in pertinent part: A cost comparison will be made between the actual expense (GBL) and commuted rate methods of shipping HHG. In the event the estimated cost under one method exceeds the estimated cost under the other method by more than $100, the more economical method will be used. . . . When it has been determined that shipment by GBL is the most economical and the employee chooses to make the arrangements for shipment, the employee may be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred not to exceed what it would have cost the Government had the shipment been made by GBL. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The above synopsis of the regulatory provisions governing shipment of HHG was set forth in Samuel L. Marr, GSBCA ______________ 14039-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,788. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- JTR C8001-D3(c). We do not view this regulation as applicable here for several reasons. First, claimant is not claiming reimbursement under either the commuted rate or the GBL rate; he is claiming the documented expenses of transporting his HHG via a commercial van service, which the agency authorized him to use, as reflected in his amended travel orders. Second, although circumstances under which claimant transported his HHG were unusual, given the exigency of his move, reimbursement is not prohibited by statute or regulation, and the amended travel authorization was valid. Third, this is not a case in which claimant chose through his own volition not to utilize the originally-authorized GBL rate. Rather, he attempted in good faith to use the GBL rate and requested the transportation officer to arrange for a GBL move, but this was impossible, given the time constraints of claimant's move. Therefore, the transportation officer made what we deem to be a reasonable accommodation in claimant's circumstances and amended his travel orders to enable him to move immediately utilizing a commercial carrier. In sum, because shipping under the GBL rate was not feasible and the commuted rate was not requested, the fact that there was no comparison between the two methods prior to the move in this case is irrelevant. The absence of such cost comparison here does not preclude claimant from recovering his out-of-pocket expenses since the agency has otherwise determined him to be entitled to reimbursement for transporting his HHG. Decision The claim is granted. Claimant may be reimbursed for the amount of his documented allowable actual expenses for transporting his HHG. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge