Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 April 21, 1999 GSBCA 14921-RELO In the Matter of Carol A. Tyson Carol A. Tyson, Ojai, CA, Claimant. Diane K. Noda, Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, CA, appearing for Department of the Interior. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant, Ms. Carol A. Tyson, is an employee of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the United States Department of Interior. She seeks reimbursement for the cost of what she contends was a househunting trip to the locality of her new duty station. The FWS certifying officer has refused to approve the claim for payment on the ground that the trip taken by Ms. Tyson was not to find permanent living quarters to rent or purchase. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the agency may pay the claim. Background On learning of her change in permanent duty station from Klamath Falls, Oregon, to the FWS office in Ventura County, California, claimant began to explore the prospects for housing there even without first making a househunting trip to the area. In early October 1998, she made an offer on a home, site unseen. After some negotiation with the owner, she reached an agreement for purchase of the residence. Settlement was scheduled for December 4. Her actual presence at settlement was not required. It was understood that matters could be settled by mail. Shortly before going to settlement, Ms. Tyson asked for and received permission to make a househunting trip to the Ventura area. In asking for authorization to make the trip, she made no secret of the fact that she already had a contract on one house in the area. Nevertheless, before going to settlement, she wanted to make a personal visit to the area to be certain that there were no other homes available which might better meet her needs and the needs of her young son. The record does not contain the terms of the contract Ms. Tyson signed in October. Correctly or incorrectly, however, she apparently believed that if, during her househunting trip, she found a residence better suited to her needs, she would not be obliged to go to settlement on the first house. For she writes: "[H]ad a more suitable home been available[,] I would have secured that home instead." On December 2, 1998, Ms. Tyson set out for Ventura County. While there, she met with her real estate agent and inspected six or more different homes recently listed for sale. She ultimately decided to settle on the one she had originally selected. Upon return, she submitted a voucher for the expenses of her trip. The certifying officer concluded that she was not entitled to payment because her trip had not been taken to find permanent living quarters to rent or purchase. Ms. Tyson's agency has forwarded her appeal to this office on her behalf. The agency supports her request for payment. The agency official who approved her original request to make the househunting trip is still of the opinion that the purpose and intent of Ms. Tyson's trip to Ventura County was to continue the search for a permanent residence and that claimant's actual inspection of several other houses before making a final decision to go to settlement confirms this fact. The agency also advises us that it has already obligated $875.38 to cover the cost of Ms. Tyson's trip. Discussion By statute, an employee moving from one duty station within the United States to another likewise located in the United States is entitled to per diem and transportation costs associated with one round trip to seek permanent residence quarters at the new official station. 5 U.S.C. 5724a(a)(2) (Supp. II 1996). The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which implements this statute, provides the following explanation of the nature and purpose of a househunting trip: The term "househunting trip" refers to a trip made by the employee and/or spouse to the new official station locality to find permanent living quarters to rent or purchase. . . . . The allowance for househunting trip expenses is intended to facilitate and expedite the employee's move from the old official station to the new official station and to lower the Government's overall cost for the employee's relocation by reducing the amount of time an employee must occupy temporary quarters. The allowance for househunting trip expenses provides the employee and/or spouse a period of time to concentrate on finding a suitable permanent residence at the new official station and thereby expedites the employee's relocation. 41 CFR 302-4.1 to 4.2 (1998). Given the nature and purpose of a househunting trip as described in the FTR, we agree with Ms. Tyson's agency that her trip to Ventura County on December 2, 1998, did comply with regulation. Before going to settlement on a home in the new duty station locality, the claimant obviously wished to view the home and satisfy herself, by personal inspections, that there were no other residences in the area which might be better suited to her and her son's needs. These were reasonable concerns which could not be met without a personal trip to the site and, therefore, rendered such a trip necessary. Given the actual need for this trip, one could, therefore, reasonably assume, as the agency did, that Ms. Tyson's search for housing was not yet concluded at the time she sought permission to undertake the trip. Furthermore, by starting her housing search as early as she did, Ms. Tyson greatly increased the possibility of concluding her search promptly. Thanks to her early efforts, the househunting trip which she ultimately undertook did, in the final analysis, facilitate and expedite her move to the new official station and lowered the Government's overall cost for her relocation. Once satisfied that the house in question was acceptable and that there were no other more suitable residences available, Ms. Tyson was able to conclude her search promptly and thus avoid the need for any temporary quarters and subsistence allowance. In denying Ms. Tyson's claim for reimbursement, the certifying official has cited two decisions of the Comptroller General. In Robert L. Leith, B-162503 (June 12, 1969), the Comptroller General agreed with the Atomic Energy Commission, that an employee should refund the cost of a househunting trip when, upon closer scrutiny, it was discovered that the trip was not undertaken to search for a residence but to make a final inspection, arrange for financing, and execute settlement documentation on a home on which a sales contract had already been signed. The authorizing official stated that, had he known the real purpose of the trip, he would not have approved it. The decision notes: "Ordinarily, a trip for the purpose of searching for a house would end no later than the date of execution of the sales contract where the purchase of [a] house is involved." We find the Leith decision readily distinguishable from the instant case. The first word of the rule set out in the decision, namely, "ordinarily," recognizes that there may be extenuating circumstances justifying another result. Such circumstances can be found in Ms. Tyson's case. Unlike the employee in the Leith decision, claimant here did not conceal the fact that she already had an agreement on a specific residence. Nevertheless, her agency understood that the purpose of her trip to Ventura County in early December was to continue her search before making a final decision regarding settlement. The agency remains convinced of this, and statements in the record from the claimant and her broker confirm that she did in fact engage in active househunting while visiting the new duty station locality at that time. A second decision of the Comptroller General cited by the certifying official is Philip C. McGuire, B-192531 (Feb. 5, 1979). In that case, an employee was denied the costs of a trip taken by his spouse to assist at final settlement on a residence the employee had found and arranged to purchase while on an earlier househunting trip to the new duty station locality. The case stands for the sound proposition that a trip by a transferred employee to the new duty station locality for the sole purpose of settlement is not a trip to seek permanent residence quarters, as that phrase is used in statute and regulation. The McGuire decision is also distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. Ms. Tyson's agency does not consider that her trip of December 2 to Ventura County was for the sole purpose of settling on a new residence; rather, the trip was preparatory to her making a final decision regarding settlement. Decision Given the circumstances of this case, we find the agency's position that Ms. Tyson's trip was for the purpose of househunting is a reasonable one and thus well within the limits of the authorizing official's discretionary authority to approve such trips. We, therefore, conclude that the costs of this trip may be paid notwithstanding the certifying official's objection. ________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge