Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________ September 14, 1999 ________________ GSBCA 15042-TRAV In the Matter of GREGORY E. FIFE Gregory E. Fife, Dallas, TX, Claimant. John Eagles, Chief, Accounting Section, Dallas, TX, appearing for Environmental Protection Agency. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant in this case is an employee of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He asks that we review a determination made by his agency that he is not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of renting a car while in San Francisco to attend a national task force meeting. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the agency s determination is correct. Accordingly, we deny the claim. Background On August 21, 1997, Mr. Fife was issued travel orders authorizing him to travel from his duty station at Dallas, Texas, to San Francisco, California, to attend a national task force meeting. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Fife learned from another agency employee during a teleconference call in advance of his trip that employees of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) were planning a strike during the time of the meeting and that taxi fares were expected to be three to four times the normal rate. Claimant explains that he discussed with his supervisor the question of transportation from the San Francisco airport to his hotel. The claimant tells us that there was no bus service from the airport and that his hotel did not offer shuttle service. He also states that he was concerned that taxicabs might not be available or, if available, that the fares charged would be three to four times the normal rate. Mr. Fife s supervisor authorized commercial car rental for Mr. Fife and claimant s travel orders reflected this authorization. On arrival at San Francisco, Mr. Fife rented a car and, together with another EPA employee, drove the vehicle to his hotel. The car remained in the hotel garage for the duration of Mr. Fife s stay. He used it only to return to the airport at the conclusion of the conference and to go out occasionally with other EPA employees to obtain meals. Upon return to Dallas, Mr. Fife submitted a claim for $189.23 for renting and parking a vehicle while on temporary duty in San Francisco. The claim was denied on the ground that the rental car was not justified since commercial transportation would have been more advantageous to the Government. Instead, the agency reimbursed Mr. Fife for the constructive cost of his transportation using a taxi rather than a rented vehicle. The reimbursement amounted to $60 and was based upon the basic milage driven in the rental car (thirty-four miles per the rental car receipt) and the Dallas taxi fare rate of $20 per ten miles. Following the denial of his claim, Mr. Fife resubmitted his request for reimbursement together with an amendment to his travel orders. The amendment provided the following justification for a rental car: Justification for rental car: No routine taxi or limousine available between air terminal, lodging and TDS [temporary duty station]. Necessary to carry over 2 passengers to and from meeting. The amended travel authorization also provided information obtained from the INTERNET indicating that taxi fare from the airport to downtown San Francisco is approximately $30 to $35. The agency rejected Mr. Fife s second request for reimbursement of the cost of renting and parking his vehicle. The agency did, however, conclude, on the basis of this second submission, that he was entitled, on a constructive cost basis, to $140 dollars rather than $60. This was based upon the fact that Mr. Fife had provided transportation to a colleague and that the cost, per person, of a taxi one-way between the airport and downtown San Francisco was approximately $35. Mr. Fife disagrees with the agency that he is precluded by regulation from reimbursement for the cost of renting and parking his vehicle. He states that the agency failed to cite a federal law, regulation or decision in its determination to disallow the cost of the rental car. Rather, he believes the denial is based solely on the personal opinion of the reviewing official. He, therefore, asks that we review this determination. Discussion Under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), including the version in effect at the time Mr. Fife traveled to San Francisco, official business travel is to be by the method of transportation which will result in the greatest advantage to the Government. 41 CFR 301-2.2(b) (1997). The use of a commercially rented vehicle or special conveyance can be authorized only when the use of some other means of transportation, such as a taxi, limousine or bus, would not be more advantageous to the Government. Id. (d)(4). Generally travel orders authorizing a particular allowance are not to be modified after the employee has completed his or her travel. There are exceptions to this rule, however, when the facts clearly demonstrate that the travel orders either contained an error or erroneously or inadvertently omitted a provision that was definitely intended to be included. In the case of travel orders which authorize use of a rental car, these orders are deemed to be in error when and if the facts clearly establish that use of a rental car was not advantageous to the Government or that the car was not used for official business. On the other hand, if the facts fail to establish clearly that the use of the car was not advantageous to the Government or was not for official business, the orders are not deemed to be in error. See Alice P. Pfefferkorn, GSBCA 14124-TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29313. Mr. Fife's agency is of the opinion that the facts in his case indicate that use of a rental car was not advantageous to the Government. The chief of the accounting section for EPA's Region Six notes that the source of claimant's contention that taxi fares were three to four times above normal was nothing more than a remark made by another agency employee during a teleconference in which they both participated prior to Mr. Fife's departure for San Francisco. The information passed on to Mr. Fife at the time was said to have come from a local television news broadcast. On arriving in San Francisco, however, Mr. Fife made no effort to verify personally this report or to determine if taxis were, in fact, available. The agency report also states that the certifying officer called claimant's hotel to determine if hotel staff had heard any guests complain of being charged excessive taxi fares during the transit strike. No complaints were reported. A call to the chief of the accounting section of the agency's office in San Francisco likewise failed to confirm any instances of price gouging by taxi drivers during the transit strike. The agency readily admits that the use of rental cars is permissible when routine taxi or shuttle service is not available between air terminals and hotels where other transportation options are not cost effective. Nevertheless, the agency advises that recent information, including calls to the hotel where the traveler stayed, indicates that commercial bus or shuttle service is available between the airport and the hotel. Claimant has provided comments regarding the agency's report. He is critical of the agency for its after-the-fact second guessing of the determination made prior to his trip that a rental car would be appropriate. He continues to insist that there was no shuttle service available from the airport and that a web page on the INTERNET states that there is no bus service either. He states that the price gouging and unavailability of taxis during the BART strike were well documented in media reports which he provided to the agency. As the claimant knows, however, no such documentation has been provided either by himself or by the agency for inclusion in the record on which we rely in deciding this case. In commenting on the agency report, Mr. Fife also observes that since he was in possession of a properly executed authorization to use a rental car on arrival at San Francisco, he did not expect to be required to defend the authorization at a later date. We find his unconditional reliance on this authorization ill suited to the circumstances of the case. Mr. Fife was well aware of the reasons why his supervisor authorized him to rent a car on arrival. Given the considerations which we presume he shared with his supervisor, the authorization was obviously predicated on the assumptions that a taxi or other acceptable forms of ground transportation might not be available or, if available, might require an expenditure in excess of what would be required to rent a vehicle. Given the inherent uncertainty of all these assumptions, we find it was unreasonable on the part of Mr. Fife to proceed to the car rental counter upon arrival without first attempting to verify for himself that these conditions did in fact exist. In the absence of verification, these mere possibilities in no way constitute adequate support for a conclusion that authorization to rent a car was for the advantage of the Government. We agree with the agency that the justification was, therefore, in error and consequently should not now be honored. In its report the agency asks the Board, as a final matter, if the reconstructed reimbursement ultimately allowed for Mr. Fife was correct. We find the reimbursement for the constructive costs reasonable under the circumstances and in keeping with well established precedent. See Alice P. Pfefferkorn, 97-2 BCA at 145,759. The claim is denied. _______________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge