Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________ September 2, 1999 _______________________ GSBCA 15046-RELO In the Matter of JOHN P. WALSH John P. Walsh, Boston, MA, Claimant. Lafon Lewis, Chief, Travel Payments Section, Finance Division, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Commerce. DeGRAFF, Board Judge In early 1999, John P. Walsh, an employee of the Department of Commerce, transferred from Washington, D.C. to Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Walsh discovered that it was virtually impossible to find an apartment for rent in Boston without the assistance of a real estate agent. Mr. Walsh paid an agent a fee of $850 to help him find an apartment and asked Commerce to reimburse him for the fee as a relocation expense. Commerce decided to deny Mr. Walsh s claim because it could not find that there was any precedent for paying such a fee in Boston. Mr. Walsh asks us to review the agency s decision. Although there is no authority that would permit Commerce to reimburse Mr. Walsh for the fee as a real estate expense, it might be able to reimburse him for the fee as a miscellaneous expense. An employee who is transferred in the interest of the Government is entitled to be reimbursed for miscellaneous expenses, within certain limits. Reimbursable miscellaneous expenses are those which are common to living quarters and other expenses inherent in relocating a residence. 5 U.S.C. 5724a(f) (Supp. III 1997); 41 CFR pt. 302-3 (1998). The General Accounting Office, which considered relocation claims such as this one until mid-1996, recognized that a payment made to a real estate agent for finding an apartment can be reimbursed as a miscellaneous expense if such payments are an established practice in the area. Junet M. Bledsoe, B-177395 (Mar. 27, 1973). Mr. Walsh provided us with a newspaper article to show that when he transferred to Boston in early 1999, the Boston rental vacancy rate was the third-lowest in the country, surpassed only by New York, New York, and San Francisco, California. According to the article, it was difficult for a tenant to find an apartment without the assistance of a real estate agent, and it was the usual practice for a tenant to pay an agent to find an apartment. The information contained in the article shows that the payment of a fee to a real estate agent by a tenant was common in the Boston area and was inherent in relocating to a rented residence there in early 1999. In other words, payment of such a fee was an established practice. Commerce did not provide any information to contradict the facts set out in the newspaper article. Even though Mr. Walsh has shown that paying a real estate agent a fee to find an apartment was an established practice when he transferred to Boston, we cannot say for certain whether he is entitled to be reimbursed for the fee that he paid, because our file does not show how much Commerce has already reimbursed Mr. Walsh for his miscellaneous expenses. If he has not received the maximum allowable reimbursement for miscellaneous expenses, then Commerce should reimburse him for the fee that he paid to the real estate agent, up to that maximum. If he has already received the maximum allowable reimbursement for miscellaneous expenses, then Commerce cannot reimburse him any additional amount. 41 CFR 302-3.3(a), (b). The claim is granted, provided that Mr. Walsh receives no more than the maximum allowable reimbursement for his miscellaneous expenses. __________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge