B-156472, JUN. 1, 1965

B-156472, JUN. 1, 1965

TO MR. WILLIAM J. KURTZ:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 17, 1965, REQUESTING FURTHER REVIEW OF OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED MARCH 11, 1965, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM WANAMASSA, NEW JERSEY, TO EDGEWOOD ARSENAL, MARYLAND, INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION AS A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE SETTLEMENT WAS SUSTAINED BY OUR OFFICE DECISION OF APRIL 23, 1965, B 156472, TO YOU.

SECTION 15-205.46 OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS, CITED IN YOUR LETTER, PERTAINS TO THE ALLOWABLE TRAVEL COSTS INCURRED BY CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL IN CONNECTION WITH THE NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. THE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES ALLOWABLE IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ARE GOVERNED BY SECTION 1 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ACT OF 1946, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 73B-1, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, ISSUED PURSUANT TO THAT ACT. SECTION 5 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805 PROVIDES THAT ALL TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION SHALL BEGIN WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TRANSFER. THE MOVEMENT OF ONLY A PORTION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD GOODS OR PERSONAL EFFECTS OR A PART OF HIS FAMILY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITATION PERIOD CLEARLY DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE REGULATION SO FAR AS THAT PART OF THE EFFECTS OR THOSE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY FOR WHICH TRANSPORTATION TO THE NEW STATION DOES NOT BEGIN UNTIL AFTER THE TIME LIMIT HAS EXPIRED. IT IS NOT NECESSARY, HOWEVER, THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S EFFECTS OR HIS FAMILY ACTUALLY ARRIVE AT THEIR DESTINATION WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD BUT ONLY THAT SUCH TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION BEGIN BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH PERIOD. TO GIVE THE REGULATION THE MEANING SOUGHT BY YOU WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE LANGUAGE AND INTENT OF THAT REGULATION. THIS OFFICE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO WAIVE OR DISREGARD THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION.

YOU INDICATE THAT YOU INTERPRET THE PHRASE "PRESUMABLY PERFORMED WITHIN THE 2-YEAR PERIOD" IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 23 AS INFERRING A FALSE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE. THE QUOTED PHRASE WAS INCORPORATED IN THE DECISION SOLELY BECAUSE A BASIC ISSUE IN YOUR CASE IS THE MEANING OF THE TWO-YEAR TIME LIMIT PROVISION OF THE REGULATIONS. IT WAS NOT INTENDED AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUGGESTING A FALSE CLAIM.

UPON REVIEW OF YOUR CASE WE MUST SUSTAIN OUR PRIOR SETTLEMENT AND DECISION.