Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________________________________ July 28, 1999 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 14944-RELO In the Matter of DAVID C. McCORD David C. McCord, Claimant. Robert J. Liberatore, Comptroller, National Security Agency, Fort George G. Meade, MD, appearing for the National Security Agency. BORWICK, Board Judge. The National Security Agency (agency) transferred claimant, David C. McCord, from Washington, D.C., to an undisclosed location in the United Kingdom. Claimant seeks agency reimbursement of his cost of shipping household goods (HHG) from his residence in Ellicott City, Maryland, to storage pending further shipment of his HHG overseas by government bill of lading (GBL). The agency allowed the lesser constructive cost of shipping his HHG from his residence to the United Kingdom. We sustain the agency decision. We also conclude that the claim is not suitable for referral under the Meritorious Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3702(d). Claimant transferred from Ellicott City, Maryland, to an undisclosed location in the United Kingdom. The agency authorized the shipment of up to 18,000 pounds of claimant's household goods by GBL. Claimant wanted to move by July 1, 1997, but his attempts to arrange a pack and move date for the movers well in advance of July 1 was stymied by a number of miscues. On May 15, claimant arrived at the Fort Meade Transportation Management Office (TMO) to schedule the date, but the TMO advised him he had come on the wrong day. He made another appointment for May 27, but forgot about the appointment because of a crisis in the office. At his next appointment with the Fort Meade TMO on June 20, he made arrangements for the movers to come between June 24 and June 27. On June 23, claimant called the Fort Belvoir TMO (the TMO that actually scheduled the move) to ascertain if the move was in fact scheduled. The Fort Belvoir TMO advised claimant it had no record of a scheduled move during that period. Claimant then contacted the Fort Meade TMO which erroneously assured him that his move had been arranged for June 24. When the movers did not appear on June 24, claimant referred the matter to his personnel office, which confirmed that because of the short time between June 20 and June 24, no arrangements for a Government move had been made. Claimant learned that the earliest possible date for a government move was July 15 through 17. Those dates were not acceptable to claimant, so he requested the agency's permission to make his own arrangements for shipment of his HHG. The agency granted claimant permission to make his own arrangements, but only on a "cost-construct" basis. Claimant did not know the meaning of the term and did not ask for clarification, but nevertheless proceeded to make his own moving arrangements. Claimant hired Prime Movers who moved claimant's HHG from his residence in Ellicott City and provided for combined temporary and non-temporary storage of the HHG in the Washington, D.C. area. Prime Movers charged claimant a total of $8776 for the move and the storage of HHG. On September 5, the government picked up and moved to the undisclosed location in the United Kingdom those HHG in temporary storage, and on October 26 picked up and moved to the same location those HHG in non-temporary storage. The Government's cost of those shipments was $3838.38. On December 22, claimant submitted a travel voucher for reimbursement of the $8776. The agency developed a constructive cost of shipping claimant's HHG from Ellicott City to the undisclosed location in the United Kingdom. That cost, which claimant does not challenge, was $7353.07. The agency deducted from that amount its actual shipping cost--$3838.38--resulting in a net reimbursable amount of $3514.69. Claimant seeks $5261.31, which is the difference between $8776 and $3514.69. Statute provides that under such regulations as the President may prescribe, an agency shall pay from Government funds the expenses of transporting, packing, crating, temporarily storing, draying, and unpacking the HHG of an employee moving to a new permanent duty station. 5 U.S.C. 5724(a)(1996). Under the applicable Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), for movements to or between overseas activities, movement of HHG shall be by GBL, when Government facilities for such issuance are available. JTR C8002-E. Pursuant to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), when shipment is by GBL and an employee chooses to move all or part of his or her HHG by some other means, the employee "will pay the amount, if any, by which the charges for the means of transportation selected by him/her exceed the charges for the means of transportation selected by the Government." 41 CFR 302- 8.4(e)(1). The excess charge is the amount greater than that expense which the Government would have incurred had all the HHG been moved on one GBL, in one lot, from one origin to one destination, by the lowest cost carrier providing the level of service required by the agency at the time the GBL method was authorized. 41 CFR 101-40.203-2(b). Consistent with regulation, this Board has held that when an employee chooses to make his own arrangements for shipment of HHG in the face of travel orders authorizing the movement of HHG by GBL, the agency's liability is limited to the constructive cost of the move by GBL. Brian Cooper, GSBCA 14269-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,427. Here, instead of waiting for a possible pack and move date by agency movers, claimant made his own arrangements for shipment of HHG into storage, which resulted in multiple shipments. The agency's liability, however, is limited to the constructive cost of one shipment in one lot from one origin to one destination by GBL. The agency thus acted correctly in calculating the constructive cost of one shipment by GBL and then subtracting from that constructive cost the agency's actual cost of shipping claimant's goods from storage to the undisclosed location in the United Kingdom. Claimant maintains that he is entitled to relief under the Meritorious Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3702(d). We have referred claims to the Administrator of General Services with a recommendation of further referral to Congress when claimants have demonstrated that they properly relied on agency action and the agency was solely at fault. See Terry M. Neely, GSBCA 14930- RELO (July 1, 1999). Claimant has not made that showing here. The circumstances giving rise to the claim show that claimant was as much at fault as the agency, since claimant forgot to keep one early appointment with the agency TMO to schedule a pack and move date. The record also shows that claimant did not act with alacrity to reschedule dates with the TMO to meet claimant's desired move date of July 1, nor did claimant inquire as to how he should proceed under the constructive cost basis. The agency's action in denying the claim is sustained. __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge