Board of Contract Appeals
General Services Administration
Washington, D.C. 20405
April 8, 2003
GSBCA 15976-RELO
In the Matter of GEORGE S. DaBAI
George S. DaBai, Springfield, VA, Claimant.
Vickie Smith, Travel Supervisor, National Business Center, Bureau of Land
Management, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of the Interior.
DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
George S. DaBai, an employee of the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), believes that his agency has inadequately reimbursed him for the costs
of transporting his household goods to his new permanent duty station. We agree with Mr.
DaBai that BLM has misconstrued the law regarding this matter. Because the employee has
not provided any documentation of costs he allegedly incurred, however, we cannot direct
the agency to make any additional payments to him. To the contrary, on the basis of the
record presented, we conclude that the agency has made some payments without justification.
Background
In August 1999, BLM transferred Mr. DaBai from California to Washington, D.C.
A year earlier, Mr. DaBai had completed an assignment in Alabama, and he had left
household goods in storage there. His orders provided, "Shipment of household goods and
personal effects shipped via GBL [Government bill of lading]," and specified that the goods
could be moved from Alabama, rather than California, to the Washington area.
At about the time it issued these orders, BLM analyzed the costs of shipment of
10,000 pounds of household goods from Madison, Alabama, to Washington, D.C. It
compared the costs of shipment by the two methods authorized by regulation for transporting
a transferred employee's goods, the commuted rate method and the actual expense method.
[Foot # 1 ] Under the commuted rate method, BLM found, the cost would be $11,808.58.
Under the actual expense method, if the agency were to issue a GBL to a common carrier it
selected, the line-haul charge for the shipment would be $5313.87.
****************** Footnote Begin **********
[Foot # 1 ] Under the actual expense method, the Government assumes responsibility for
awarding contracts and for other negotiations with carriers. It selects the carrier, arranges
for carrier services and for packing and crating, prepares a Government bill of lading, pays
charges incurred, and processes and pays any loss and damage claims. If the actual expense
method is used, the employee may choose his own carrier, or use a rental truck or his own
vehicle to transport his goods, but if he does so, the Government reimburses him only for
expenses he incurs, not to exceed the costs the Government would have incurred if it had
selected the carrier. Under the commuted rate method, the employee is required to make his
own arrangements for the move. He selects and pays a carrier or transports his goods himself
and is responsible for costs resulting from loss or damage in shipment. He is reimbursed by
the Government in accordance with published schedules of commuted rates. 41 CFR
101-40.202-2, -3; 302-8.3(a), (b) (1999) (these provisions, in restated form, now appear at
41 CFR 102-117.240, 302-7.13, -7.15, -7.100, -7.200 (2002)); Steven J. Coker, GSBCA
15489-RELO, 02-1 BCA 31,743 (2001).
****************** Footnote End ************
Nearly two years later, the goods were still in storage in Alabama. Mr. DaBai asked BLM
whether he could have them transported to the Washington area by "student movers." An
agency travel supervisor orally told him that he could do so and asked him to provide "weight
tickets and receipts as part of the voucher documentation." Mr. DaBai says that the goods
arrived in the Washington area in August 2001.
Mr. DaBai submitted a voucher asking BLM to pay him $4460.07 for the transport
of the goods. Later, he submitted another voucher asking the agency to pay him instead
$8268.16, an amount he calculated on a "cents per pound-mile" basis. The only
documentation in our record regarding the shipment shows that the goods weighed 5620
pounds.
Initially, BLM paid Mr. DaBai $900.49, which both parties agree was the cost the
employee incurred in renting a truck and fueling it with gasoline for the trip from Alabama
to the Washington area. After the employee complained that this amount was insufficient,
the agency agreed to pay him an additional $2085.98, for a total of $2986.47. The agency
calculated this total amount in the following manner: The line-haul charge for moving
10,000 pounds of household goods from Alabama to Washington under a GBL in August
1999 would have been $5313.87. Mr. DaBai's goods weighed 5620 pounds, or 56.2 percent
of 10,000 pounds. Therefore, he should be paid 56.2 percent of $5313.87.
[Foot # 2 ]
****************** Footnote Begin **********
[Foot # 2 ] The amount paid is actually eight cents more than 56.2 percent of $5313.87.
****************** Footnote End ************
Discussion
Mr. DaBai makes three arguments in the alternative to justify his claim for additional
funds. First, BLM's oral authorization of the use of student movers constituted an
authorization to be reimbursed under the commuted rate method, rather than the actual
expense method, for moving his household goods. Second, the agency did not perform a
proper cost comparison between the two methods before it issued his travel orders, so he
should be paid at the commuted rate. Third, even if payment should be made under the
actual expense method, the limitation on payment should be far higher than the one the
agency set, and he should be paid as much as the higher limitation.
(1) Mr. DaBai's travel orders plainly authorized the movement of his goods by
GBL in other words, under the actual expense method. The agency travel supervisor's oral
statement that Mr. DaBai could use "student movers" to transport the goods did not alter the
written authorization. Nor could it have reasonably have been interpreted to alter that
authorization. An employee may choose his own way of moving household goods under
either the actual expense method or the commuted rate method, so specifically allowing a
particular way of moving does not suggest a conclusion that one or the other method is being
prescribed. Mr. DaBai believes that the travel supervisor's statement that he should provide
"weight tickets and receipts as part of the voucher documentation" supports his inference that
the agency had permitted use of the commuted rate method. The statement does not support
that inference. The weight of the goods is a factor not only in reimbursement under the
commuted rate method, but also in determining the cost of shipment under a GBL, which
limits reimbursement to an employee who moves his own goods under the actual expense
method.
(2) The Federal Travel Regulation expresses a preference for using the commuted
rate method, but it also allows use of the actual expense method when an agency performs
a cost comparison which demonstrates a real savings to the Government of at least $100
through use of this method. The cost comparison must include all anticipated costs line-
haul charges, accessorial and packing charges, administrative expenses of making all
arrangements and payments, and paying any loss and damage claims which might arise. 41
CFR 302-8.3(c) (1999); Coker. BLM did perform a cost comparison when it issued Mr.
DaBai's travel orders, but as the employee observes, that comparison was flawed in that it
related the commuted rate cost to a single component of the actual expense cost (the line-haul
charge).
Nevertheless, the travel orders were clear on their face in authorizing shipment by
GBL, and Mr. DaBai did not question them for more than two years not until after he had
moved his goods. We have often held that when an agency leads an employee to believe that
he will be reimbursed under the commuted rate method, or gives the employee the choice of
being paid under that method, the commuted rate method must be used to calculate the
amount due the employee for the shipment of his goods. Raymond W. Martin, GSBCA
15559-RELO, 01-2 BCA 31,505 (citing cases). But we have never held that when an
employee moves under clear orders mandating shipment under the actual expense method,
he may be paid under the commuted rate method if he later demonstrates error in a
previously-made cost comparison. Just as we have not allowed an agency to mislead an
employee into thinking that he will be paid under one method and then pay him under the
other (see cases cited in Martin), we do not allow an employee to mislead an agency into
thinking that he has accepted being paid under one method and then secure payment under
the other. See Paul F. Hofmann, GSBCA 14348-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,520 (1997). We will
review fully claims based on allegations made before a move that the method of payment for
shipment of household goods was incorrect because it was based on a faulty cost comparison.
Mr. DaBai's challenge to his orders comes much too late to be considered favorably,
however.
(3) The costs that BLM would have incurred if it had had Mr. DaBai's goods
shipped under a GBL in August 2001 are relevant not to a comparison of costs between
commuted rate and actual expense methods, but rather to the establishment of a limitation
on the agency's obligation to reimburse the employee for costs he actually incurred in moving
those goods. There is no basis for concluding, as the agency did, that the limitation is 56.2
percent of the line-haul charges for moving 10,000 pounds of household goods in August
1999. The limitation must be calculated on the basis of real costs, for line-haul, accessorial,
and packing services of a carrier and for administrative costs and loss and damage reserves
of the agency.
We need not know what that limitation may be, though, in order to settle Mr. DaBai's
claim. This is because the only costs which the employee has incurred, for which he has
provided documentation, are the costs of renting and fueling the truck in which the goods
moved from Alabama to the Washington area. Those costs ($900.49) clearly fall below the
appropriate limitation. They have already been paid.
BLM has also paid Mr. DaBai an additional $2085.98, on the theory that he should
receive as much as the limitation based on an assumed amount of line-haul charges alone.
There is no justification for this or any other additional payment, since there is no
documentation in the record of the employee's having actually incurred any additional costs
to move his goods. We do not have, for example, copies of canceled checks showing
payment to any student movers. If the agency has no such documentation, it may recoup the
additional payment from the employee. On the other hand, if the agency has documentation
that the employee incurred additional costs in moving his goods, it may pay them, up to the
amount of a properly calculated limitation. In any event, the costs of packing and storing the
goods in Alabama may not be paid by BLM because they are properly associated with Mr.
DaBai's relocation from Alabama to California, not his relocation from California to
Washington, D.C.
_________________________
STEPHEN M. DANIELS
Board Judge