Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ April 26, 1999 ____________________ GSBCA 14885-TRAV In the Matter of LEWIS T. MOORE Lewis T. Moore, Alexandria, VA, Claimant. Larry C. LeBaron, Administrative Officer, Support Services Team, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Interior. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. An employee who traveled by an indirect route is responsible for any expenses in addition to those he would have incurred if he had taken a usually traveled route. An employee who interrupted his travel is to be reimbursed for meals and incidental expenses, but reimbursement is limited to the cost of travel on an uninterrupted basis Background Lewis T. Moore is an employee of the Department of the Interior. Mr. Moore lives in Alexandria, Virginia, which is a suburb of Washington, D.C., and works at Interior s main building in downtown Washington. In 1998, Mr. Moore traveled on official business to San Diego, California, and to Salt Lake City, Utah. Mr. Moore claims that Interior has not properly reimbursed him for his travel expenses for these two trips. San Diego Mr. Moore had to be in San Diego for a conference that began shortly after noon on Tuesday, April 27, and ended around noon on Thursday, April 30, 1998. His travel orders stated that his mode of travel was to be common carrier, and that his period of travel would be from on or about April 27 through April 30. The cost of transportation was estimated to be $228, which was the round-trip contract carrier air fare between Washington's Reagan National Airport (National) and San Diego. Mr. Moore began his travel after work on Friday, April 24, when he flew from National to Kansas City, Missouri, using a ticket that he had personally purchased. He rented a car in Kansas City, drove to San Diego, and attended the conference. Mr. Moore left San Diego at noon on Thursday, April 30, used a day of annual leave on Friday, May 1, and drove back to Kansas City. He flew from Kansas City to National on Sunday, May 3, 1998. Mr. Moore determined that his actual travel costs exceeded what his costs would have been if he had flown between Washington and San Diego, and so he asked Interior to reimburse him for the constructive cost of his travel, i.e., what it would have cost had he flown from Washington to San Diego and back. Mr. Moore s constructive travel costs claim included $575 for lodging for three nights, subsistence expenses for 4.5 days, and the cost of the conference. His constructive travel costs claim also included $523 for transportation, which consists of $20 for round trip cab fare between the San Diego airport and Mr. Moore s lodgings in San Diego, $400 for round trip air fare between Washington Dulles Airport (Dulles) and San Diego, and $103 for round trip cab fare between Mr. Moore s home and Dulles. Interior determined that it should reimburse Mr. Moore the $575 he claimed for lodging, subsistence expenses, and the cost of the conference. It also determined that it should reimburse him the $20 he claimed for the round trip cab fare between the airport in San Diego and his lodgings there. Interior and Mr. Moore disagree as to how the remainder of his claim should be computed. Interior contends that Mr. Moore s constructive costs should be computed as if he had flown between National and San Diego, and not between Dulles and San Diego. Interior determined that the constructive costs of flying between San Diego and National are $240 less than the constructive costs of flying between San Diego and Dulles, and so Interior believes that Mr. Moore s claim should be reduced by $240. Interior explained to Mr. Moore that when an employee chooses, as he did, to purchase his own airline ticket and take leave in conjunction with official travel by a circuitous route, Interior will reimburse the employee for the constructive cost of traveling from whichever of Washington s three regional airports will result in the least cost to the Government. In its submission to us, Interior added that constructive air fare costs are limited to the appropriate contract carrier air fare, and the appropriate fare in Mr. Moore s case is the fare from National, which is close to his office and his home, and which is the airport that he actually used when he flew to Kansas City. According to the person who develops Interior s travel policies and manages Interior s travel program, the usually traveled route for employees who work at the main Interior building is from National. Our review of the Official Airline Guide in effect for late April 1998, shows that contract carrier flights between National and San Diego were scheduled with approximately the same frequency and at the same times as were flights between Dulles and San Diego. Mr. Moore contends that Interior should have used Dulles when it calculated the constructive cost of his travel because, in the past, Interior had reimbursed him for constructive travel costs based upon travel between Dulles and destinations other than San Diego. Mr. Moore says that Dulles is the usual and customary routing for employees who travel for his agency. Mr. Moore also says that if his constructive costs are computed as if he had flown from and to National, then he should be reimbursed as if he had flown on April 26, and not April 27. Salt Lake City Mr. Moore had to be in Salt Lake City for a meeting on July 7-9, 1998. His travel orders stated that his mode of travel was to be common carrier, and that his period of travel would be from on or about July 2 through July 10. The orders estimated that Mr. Moore would be reimbursed for nine days of lodging and meals and incidental expenses (M&IE). The cost of transportation was estimated to be $390, which is approximately the cost of a round- trip train ticket and which is significantly different from the cost of traveling by air from either National or Dulles. After work on Thursday, July 2, Mr. Moore boarded a train to Salt Lake City. Mr. Moore stopped along the way for two days, July 4 and 5, and then resumed his trip to Salt Lake City. Mr. Moore attended the meeting on July 7-9, and then returned home by train, arriving on Sunday, July 12. Mr. Moore determined that his actual travel costs were less than his costs would have been if he had flown between Washington and Salt Lake City, and so he asked Interior to reimburse him for the actual cost of his travel. Among the expenses for which Mr. Moore asked to be reimbursed were eight days of M&IE. Mr. Moore's supervisor determined that Mr. Moore should be reimbursed for M&IE as if he had flown between Washington and Salt Lake City, instead of traveling by train. In its submission to us, Interior says that it agrees with Mr. Moore's supervisor concerning the M&IE reimbursement. Interior also says that Mr. Moore should be reimbursed for his travel expenses as if he had flown between National and Salt Lake City. Mr. Moore says that travel regulations authorize train travel and notes that he is asking for M&IE for only the three days of the conference plus the five days of train travel. Mr. Moore says that, in the past, Interior has reimbursed him for similar trips. Discussion Because Mr. Moore traveled by an indirect route to San Diego, he is responsible for any expenses in addition to those he would have incurred if he had flown between National and San Diego, which is a usually traveled route. Interior should reimburse Mr. Moore for traveling by train to and from Salt Lake City, including eight days of M&IE, because Interior authorized him to travel by train and because his trip would have taken eight days if he had not interrupted it. San Diego In order to resolve Mr. Moore s claim for his San Diego trip, we must first determine which regulations apply to the claim. Mr. Moore refers to constructive cost and Interior mentions appropriate common carrier transportation. These terms are used in a travel regulation, 41 CFR 301-4.3 (1997), that does not apply to Mr. Moore s situation. According to that regulation, when an employee uses, as a matter of personal preference, a privately owned vehicle for official purposes instead of a common carrier, the employee s reimbursement is limited to the constructive cost of appropriate common carrier transportation and constructive per diem by that method of transportation. This regulation does not apply to Mr. Moore s claim because he traveled by common air carrier between Washington and Kansas City, and by rental car, which is a special conveyance and not a privately owned vehicle, between Kansas City and San Diego. 41 CFR 301-2.2(d)(4). Another inapplicable regulation, referred to by Mr. Moore, is 41 CFR 301-15.24(g). This regulation provides that when different contract carrier fares apply to different airports in cities served by more than one airport, travelers may use the airport that best suits their needs. This regulation applies to employees who make use of contract carrier fares when they travel, and does not say what to do when a traveler purchases his own ticket, as Mr. Moore did. The applicable regulations provide that Mr. Moore is responsible for any additional expenses that he incurred either for his personal preference or convenience, or as a result of his decision to utilize a method of transportation other than that authorized by Interior. 41 CFR 301-1.3(a), 301-2.2(c), 301- 7.2(a). More specifically, because Mr. Moore traveled by an indirect route, he is responsible for any extra expense, and Interior is obligated to reimburse him based upon the charges that he would have incurred by a usually traveled route. 41 CFR 301-2.5(b). The regulations do not say that for all employees, in all circumstances, a usually traveled route means the route with the cheapest air fare. According to the regulations, if travel between National and San Diego is a usually traveled route, then Mr. Moore is responsible for whatever extra expenses he incurred as a result of his decision to fly to Kansas City and then drive to San Diego, instead of flying between National and San Diego. The General Accounting Office (GAO), which resolved travel claims until 1996, read a usually traveled route in other travel regulations to say that there could be more than one usually traveled route between two points and that the usually traveled route could be different for different employees. If an agency s decision as to what was a usually traveled route was reasonable, GAO would not set aside that decision. Barbara Green, B-257355 (Nov. 14, 1994); Secretary of State, B-152381 (Oct. 7, 1963); 32 Comp. Gen. 438 (1953). We agree with GAO s reading of these words. By referring to a usually traveled route instead of the usually traveled route, the regulation suggests that there can be more than one such route. Mr. Moore has not established that Interior s decision to reimburse him based upon the charges that he would have incurred had he used National Airport was unreasonable. Although Interior has sometimes considered Dulles to be the departure and arrival point for a usually traveled route to some cities, this does not establish that Dulles is the exclusive departure and arrival point for routes between Washington and all cities. We do not doubt that, as Mr. Moore and Interior say, Interior employees use both Dulles and National Airports when they travel. Mr. Moore does not contend that there were no flights between National and San Diego, or that flying between National and San Diego would be an unusual route because, for example, the flights to and from National would have resulted in significantly longer travel time or were available only during unreasonable hours, compared to flights to and from Dulles. According to the contract carrier flight schedules, travel between National and San Diego was just as "usual" as was travel between Dulles and San Diego. Interior's decision to reimburse Mr. Moore as if he had flown between National and San Diego appears to be reasonable, so we will not disturb it. Interior should reimburse Mr. Moore for his expenses of traveling between Washington and San Diego. Because he traveled by an indirect route, he is responsible for any expenses in addition to those he would have incurred if he had flown between National and San Diego, a usually traveled route. If Interior agrees with Mr. Moore that he would have been required to depart from National on April 26, in order to arrive in San Diego for a meeting that began shortly after noon on April 27, then Interior should take that into account when it determines the additional expenses he incurred. Salt Lake City In order to resolve Mr. Moore s claim for his Salt Lake City trip, we must first determine whether Interior authorized Mr. Moore to travel by train. Interior was required by statute and regulation to ensure that Mr. Moore traveled by the most expeditious means practicable. 5 U.S.C. 5733 (1994); 41 CFR 301-10.4, -70.100 (1998). In Mr. Moore s travel orders, Interior authorized the use of common carrier transportation, which includes transportation by train, but did not state whether transportation was to be by aircraft or train. 41 CFR 301-10.3, -10.100 (1998). We conclude that Interior authorized Mr. Moore to travel to Salt Lake City by train. Although air travel is ordinarily a more expeditious means of traveling from Washington to Salt Lake City than is train travel, Interior could have decided to permit Mr. Moore to travel by train for this particular trip. By traveling on weekends and a holiday, Mr. Moore was not out of his office any longer than he would have been had he flown, and so he arrived in Salt Lake City in a timely manner and was back in his Washington office as promptly as if he had traveled by air. In addition, Mr. Moore s travel orders contain a transportation costs estimate that was approximately the same as the cost of a train ticket, and not an airplane ticket. The orders also stated that Mr. Moore s period of travel would be approximately ten days and that he would be reimbursed for approximately nine days of lodging and M&IE costs. A nine or ten day travel period is consistent with travel by train and twice the time that would be needed to travel by air. If Interior meant to authorize Mr. Moore to travel by air, we would expect his travel orders to contain estimated transportation costs and travel days consistent with air travel. Because Interior authorized Mr. Moore to travel by train, he should be reimbursed accordingly, and not as if he had flown between Washington and Salt Lake City. Mr. Moore interrupted his travel for two days on July 4 and 5, 1998, and so his reimbursement for his trip is limited to the cost of travel on an uninterrupted basis. 41 CFR 301-10.8. If Mr. Moore had not interrupted his travel for two days, he would have made his trip in eight days and been reimbursed for eight days of M&IE. 41 CFR 301-11.1, -11.9. Conclusion Mr. Moore s claim for his San Diego travel is denied. Mr. Moore s claim for his Salt Lake City travel is granted. ______________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge