_______________________________ October 8, 1997 _______________________________ GSBCA 14124-TRAV In the Matter of ALICE P. PFEFFERKORN Alice P. Pfefferkorn, Buffalo, NY, Claimant. M. Chris Mooney, Chief, Finance and Accounting Office, Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Buffalo, NY, appearing for Department of the Army. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Claimant's travel orders were erroneous. The facts clearly establish that, contrary to the statement contained in those orders, the use of a rental car was not more advantageous to the Government than some other means of transportation, and the regulations required such an advantage in order to authorize the use of a rental car. The agency correctly determined to reimburse claimant for her constructive local transportation costs instead of for the cost of a rental car. Facts Alice P. Pfefferkorn is an employee of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) in Buffalo, New York. On August 19, 1996, Ms. Pfefferkorn requested permission to travel to Dallas, Texas, in order to attend a training course for a week in October 1996. She signed and submitted a travel request form that states, HIRE OF SPECIAL CONVEYANCE IS AUTHORIZED. REASON FOR RENTAL CAR: CHEAPER THAN TAXI. Ms. Pfefferkorn says that she did not have any information concerning the cost of taxis or the distance between the airport and the hotel where she would be staying. The Corps signed Ms. Pfefferkorn s travel request form, which authorized her travel. Ms. Pfefferkorn attended the training course and asked to be reimbursed for her travel expenses, including $174.56 for the use of a rental car and gasoline. Upon review of Ms. Pfefferkorn s request, the Corps learned that the training course was held in the hotel where Ms. Pfefferkorn stayed. This led the Corps to consider whether, as stated on Ms. Pfefferkorn s travel request and authorization, the use of a rental car was less expensive than the use of a taxi. The Corps spoke with the hotel manager who explained that the hotel provided a free shuttle service to any location within three miles of the hotel, and that there were five or six restaurants within that radius. The hotel manager also stated that the cost of a round-trip taxi ride between the hotel and the airport would have been between $60 and $70. The Corps decided not to reimburse Ms. Pfefferkorn $174.56 for her rental car. Instead, the Corps reimbursed Ms. Pfefferkorn $90.50, which includes $70 for the round-trip taxi fare plus a fifteen percent tip ($10.50), which was the constructive cost she would have incurred if she had taken a taxi between the airport and the hotel, and $10 for tips that she would have paid to the hotel s shuttle driver if she had used the shuttle service several times during the week. Ms. Pfefferkorn asks us to review the Corps s decision. She does not dispute that a taxi between the hotel and the airport would have cost between $60 and $70. She asserts, however, that she could not have obtained her meals without using a rental car. Ms. Pfefferkorn says that the hotel restaurant served only breakfast, and that she saw only fast food restaurants within walking distance of the hotel. In a telephone call to the Board, Ms. Pfefferkorn said that she did not want to eat all of her meals at fast food restaurants. After Ms. Pfefferkorn returned from her training course, she learned that the hotel shuttle service was available only as requested and if available and so, Ms. Pfefferkorn says, the shuttle service was not dependable. She does not say that she ever attempted to use the shuttle service. Discussion Applicable regulations provide that official business travel will be by the method of transportation which will result in the greatest advantage to the Government. 41 CFR 301-2.2(b) (1996); JTR C2001 A.3.d (May 1, 1994). The use of a rental car can be authorized only when the use of some other means of transportation, such as a taxi, would not be more advantageous to the Government. 41 CFR 301-2.2(d)(4); JTR C2102.A (Sept. 1, 1996). The use of a rental car is limited to official purposes, which can include transportation between a hotel and "places necessary to obtain suitable meals." JTR C2102.F (Sept. 1, 1996). The General Accounting Office (GAO), which formerly considered travel reimbursement claims of federal government employees, developed a general rule to use when an agency wanted to reimburse an employee upon a basis different from the basis stated in the employee's travel orders. Generally, when an employee received travel orders authorizing a particular allowance, GAO did not permit the agency to modify the travel orders after the employee completed the travel so as to increase or to decrease the allowance. GAO recognized exceptions to the general rule when the facts clearly demonstrated that the travel orders either contained an error, or erroneously or inadvertently omitted a provision that was definitely intended to be included. H.D. Anderson, 57 Comp. Gen. 367 (1978); Dr. Sigmund Fritz, 55 Comp. Gen. 1241 (1976). Travel orders contained an error, GAO decided, when they authorized the use of a rental car even though applicable regulations prohibited the use of a rental car. John G. Shirley, B-234861 (July 11, 1989). Travel orders that authorized the use of rental cars were also in error when the facts clearly established that the use of a rental car was not advantageous to the Government or that the car was not used for official business, because applicable regulations permitted a rental car to be authorized only if advantageous to the Government and if used for official business. Robert P. Trent, B-211688 (Oct. 13, 1983); Seymour A. Kleiman, B-211287 (July 12, 1983). Travel orders that authorized the use of rental cars were not in error when the facts failed to establish clearly that the use of the car was not advantageous to the Government or was not for official business. Gail Braten, B-262009 (Dec. 5, 1995); Peter R. Maloney, B-229466 (Dec. 5, 1988). We have used similar reasoning to resolve similar claims. James R. Reed, GSBCA 14087-TRAV, et al., 97-2 BCA  29,017; Sheri Burdick, GSBCA 14079-TRAV, et al., 97-1 BCA  28,949. Ms. Pfefferkorn's travel orders were erroneous because the facts clearly establish that the use of a rental car was not more advantageous to the Government than the use of some other means of transportation, and the regulations required such an advantage in order to authorize the use of a rental car. Taking a taxi between the hotel and the airport would have been less costly than renting a car. Ms. Pfefferkorn did not need a rental car to travel between her hotel and the training course, because the training course was conducted in her hotel. As for obtaining meals, even though only fast food restaurants were within walking distance of the hotel, Ms. Pfefferkorn did not have to eat all of her meals at those restaurants. Ms. Pfefferkorn could have eaten breakfast at the hotel and eaten other meals at restaurants within the radius of the hotel's free shuttle. Ms. Pfefferkorn does not believe that the hotel shuttle was dependable, but there is no evidence to establish that she ever tried to use the shuttle. The fact that the shuttle was available as requested and if available does not mean that it was not dependable. The Corps authorized Ms. Pfefferkorn to use a rental car based upon her travel request, which inaccurately represented that the cost of a rental car would be less expensive than a taxi. Ms. Pfefferkorn signed and submitted the request even though she had no information about either the cost of taxis or the distance between the airport and the hotel. Because Ms. Pfefferkorn's travel orders erroneously authorized the use of a rental car, the Corps correctly decided to reimburse Ms. Pfefferkorn for the constructive costs she would have incurred if she had taken a taxi between the airport and the hotel and if she had used the hotel shuttle service. Robert P. Trent, B-211688 (Oct. 13, 1983). The claim is denied. _______________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge