Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________ August 27, 1999 _______________________ GSBCA 15057-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. On April 26, 1999, we denied a claim submitted by Lewis T. Moore for travel between Washington, D.C. and San Diego, California. Lewis T. Moore, GSBCA 14885-TRAV (Apr. 26, 1999). As explained in our decision, Mr. Moore chose to travel by an indirect route and then asked the Department of the Interior to reimburse him for the constructive cost of his travel, i.e., what it would have cost had he traveled by a direct route. Mr. Moore and Interior disagreed as to whether his constructive cost should be calculated as if he had departed from Washington Dulles Airport, or as if he had departed from Washington s Reagan National Airport. Using Dulles would have resulted in a larger payment to Mr. Moore. We decided that it was permissible for Interior to calculate Mr. Moore s constructive cost as if he had departed from National, and so we denied the claim. During the course of presenting his claim to us in GSBCA 14885-TRAV, Mr. Moore represented that if he had not traveled by an indirect route, he would have either departed Dulles on April 27, 1998, or departed from National one day earlier, on April 26. Interior had not had the opportunity to consider whether Mr. Moore would have needed an additional day to travel if he had departed from National, because Mr. Moore s claim was based upon the constructive cost of travel from Dulles. In our decision, we noted that if Interior agreed that Mr. Moore 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 reimbursed Mr. Moore for his travel. After receiving our decision, Interior determined that Mr. Moore would not have needed to leave National on April 26 in order to attend a meeting that began in San Diego on the afternoon of April 27. Interior then attempted to reimburse Mr. Moore for the constructive cost he claimed, in accordance with our decision. Mr. Moore rejected Interior s reimbursement and submitted to Interior a new claim for his trip to San Diego. He claimed that using National instead of Dulles, he would have been required to depart one day earlier and to return one day later, in order to avoid working unreasonably long days. He also said that because of these added travel days, his constructive cost should include two added nights in a hotel and one added day of meals and incidental expenses. In addition, he said that his constructive cost should include a rental car for five days. Interior decided to deny this new claim, and Mr. Moore asks us to review Interior s decision. Mr. Moore has not established that Interior s decision is erroneous or arbitrary. In our April 26, 1999 decision, we noted that 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 could have left either Dulles or National early in the morning on April 27, and arrived in San Diego in time for his meeting. Mr. Moore represented to us in GSBCA 14885-TRAV that if he had departed from Dulles, he would have done so on April 27. He has not established that he would have needed to depart one day earlier had he departed from National. Also in GSBCA 14885- TRAV, Mr. Moore represented to us that if he had flown into Dulles, he would have returned from San Diego immediately after the meeting on April 30, and arrived home early in the morning on May 1. He has not established that he would have needed to return one day later had he flown into National. Finally, Mr. Moore s earlier claim for the constructive cost of his travel did not include any amount for the cost of a rental car while in San Diego. To the contrary, Mr. Moore included the cost of a rental car as one of his actual costs and claimed the constructive cost of cab fare in San Diego. He has not established that his constructive cost should include a rental car for five days. In summary, when Mr. Moore asked for the constructive cost of flying from Dulles, he represented that he would have traveled to San Diego on April 27, and returned on April 30. He has not shown that Interior is obligated to reimburse him for the cost of two added travel days and a rental car simply because he now asks for the constructive cost of flying from National. Mr. Moore says that he is being treated differently from other employees. Mr. Moore points to the travel of two people who also went to the meeting in San Diego, but they went by a direct route and were required to travel on different days due to job responsibilities that were different from Mr. Moore s duties. He also points to the travel of employees who traveled, apparently directly, to a destination other than San Diego. The facts presented by Mr. Moore do not establish that he is being treated differently from other employees who traveled by an indirect route to and from San Diego. Mr. Moore asks us to reimburse him for $337.50 in legal fees that he incurred in connection with his requests for reimbursement. We deny this request because we know of no statute that waives the sovereign immunity of the United States so as to permit us to reimburse claimants for legal fees. Finally, Interior asks what it should do in light of Mr. Moore s rejection of the payment that Interior attempted to make after it received our April 26, 1999 decision. The only suggestion we have is to offer to pay Mr. Moore again, in light of this decision, and to see if he accepts. We know of no way to force an employee to accept reimbursement for travel costs. We deny the claim. __________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge