Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _____________________ June 7, 1999 _____________________ GSBCA 15010-RELO In the Matter of CHARLES E. STEVENS Charles E. Stevens, Las Vegas, NV, Claimant. Brenda Barker, Manager, Accounts Receivable and Travel Team, Finance and Accounting Services, Reclamation Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of the Interior. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. In August 1998, the Department of Interior (DoI), authorized Charles E. Stevens to transfer from Colorado to Nevada. Mr. Stevens told DoI that he wanted to move his household goods himself. Mr. Stevens s travel authorization listed three methods for moving household goods: commuted rate, actual expense (only), and actual expense via [Government Bill of Lading (GBL)]. The box next to actual expense (only) is marked on Mr. Stevens s travel authorization. DoI says that it has determined that the commuted rate method is not a cost effective way of moving household goods, and so DoI has not used this method for many years. Mr. Stevens moved his household goods to Nevada, and DoI reimbursed him for his actual expenses. Mr. Stevens claims that DoI should have reimbursed him according to the commuted rate method. The Federal Travel Regulation explains that when household goods are moved using the GBL method, the Government arranges with a carrier to move the goods and then pays for the move according to a contract between the carrier and the Government. When household goods are moved using the commuted rate method, the employee is responsible for making arrangements for the move. The employee pays for the move and the Government reimburses the employee according to a schedule of established rates. 41 CFR 302-8.3 (1998). Agencies are required to use the commuted rate method when individual (as opposed to multiple or mass) transfers are involved, unless the cost of using the GBL method is predetermined and will result in savings to the Government of $100 or more. 41 CFR 302-8.3(c)(4)(i). If an agency decides that the GBL method will be used and the employee chooses to move himself, the agency will reimburse the employee for his actual expenses, not to exceed the amount that it would have paid if the employee s household goods had been moved in one lot and on one GBL by the lowest cost carrier providing the level of service required. 41 CFR 101-40.203-2. Mr. Stevens should be reimbursed at the commuted rate. The regulations required DoI to authorize Mr. Stevens to move using the commuted rate method unless it determined that moving his household goods using the GBL method would result in savings to the Government of $100 or more. Interior has not established either that it made or could have made this determination in Mr. Stevens s case, or that there is any basis for its blanket determination that, in all cases, using the commuted rate method is not cost effective. If the use of the GBL method would have resulted in a cost savings to the Government and if DoI had authorized Mr. Stevens to move using a GBL, then he could have chosen to move his household goods himself, and only then could DoI have limited reimbursement to his actual costs. Because DoI did not authorize reimbursement according to the GBL method, the only method that the regulations permit DoI to use to reimburse Mr. Stevens is the commuted rate method. Lawrence M. Ribakoff, GSBCA 13892-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,018. The claim is granted. __________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge