Skip to main content

B-169407, OCT. 19, 1970

B-169407 Oct 19, 1970
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

1970 WAS APPROPRIATE IN THAT THE REGULATIONS DO NOT PERMIT PAYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE COST OF TRANSPORTING GOODS IN EXCESS OF THE STIPULATED 11. WITH RESPECT TO THE "ACTUAL EXPENSE" METHOD THE CONTRACT FOR SHIPMENT IS BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE GOVERNMENT. TRANSPORTATION IS BASED UPON COST INCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF SAVINGS EFFECTED IN THE RELIEF OF A CARRIER OF THE NEED TO PACK GOODS BEING TRANSPORTED. LABRAKE: THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 20. WE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THAT SELECTION OF THE "ACTUAL EXPENSE" METHOD WAS APPROPRIATE IN YOUR CASE AND THAT THE REGULATIONS DO NOT PERMIT PAYMENT FOR THE COST OF TRANSPORTING GOODS IN EXCESS OF THE STIPULATED 11. THAT SUCH INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED UNTIL YOU HAD NEARLY COMPLETED THE NECESSARY PACKING YOURSELF.

View Decision

B-169407, OCT. 19, 1970

TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS - ACTUAL EXPENSES ADVISING FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEE THAT ACTION TAKEN IN DECISION OF SEPT. 15, 1970 WAS APPROPRIATE IN THAT THE REGULATIONS DO NOT PERMIT PAYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE COST OF TRANSPORTING GOODS IN EXCESS OF THE STIPULATED 11,000 POUND LIMIT. FURTHER, WITH RESPECT TO THE "ACTUAL EXPENSE" METHOD THE CONTRACT FOR SHIPMENT IS BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE GOVERNMENT. AUTHORITY EXISTS ONLY FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CARRIER FOR SERVICES PERFORMED BY IT IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER. NO REGULATIONS EXIST AUTHORIZING AN ALLOWANCE UNDER THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY AN EMPLOYEE WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSE EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENSE OF SUCH SERVICES WOULD BE REIMBURSABLE IF PROVIDED BY ANOTHER. TRANSPORTATION IS BASED UPON COST INCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF SAVINGS EFFECTED IN THE RELIEF OF A CARRIER OF THE NEED TO PACK GOODS BEING TRANSPORTED.

TO MR. DONALD J. LABRAKE:

THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1970, MAKING FURTHER INQUIRY CONCERNING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR THE SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER BY THE FOREST SERVICE TO SILVER LAKE, OREGON.

IN OUR DECISION B-169407, SEPTEMBER 15, 1970, WE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THAT SELECTION OF THE "ACTUAL EXPENSE" METHOD WAS APPROPRIATE IN YOUR CASE AND THAT THE REGULATIONS DO NOT PERMIT PAYMENT FOR THE COST OF TRANSPORTING GOODS IN EXCESS OF THE STIPULATED 11,000-POUND LIMIT.

YOU SUGGEST THAT WE OVERLOOKED THE MATTER OF MAKING AN ALLOWANCE FOR PACKING YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS. AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER YOUR SUPERVISOR INFORMED YOU THAT THE MOVING COMPANY WOULD PERFORM THE PACKING AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PAY THE CHARGES INVOLVED. YOU STATE, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED UNTIL YOU HAD NEARLY COMPLETED THE NECESSARY PACKING YOURSELF. HAVING THEREBY SAVED THE GOVERNMENT THE EXPENSE OF THIS WORK, YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO AN EQUIVALENT ALLOWANCE. YOU REQUEST TO BE INFORMED OF THE REGULATION THAT COVERS SUCH AN ALLOWANCE, POINTING OUT THAT THE COMMUTED RATE SCALE MAKES ALLOWANCE FOR PACKING COSTS.

UNDER THE "ACTUAL EXPENSE" METHOD THE CONTRACT FOR SHIPMENT IS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CARRIER. AUTHORITY EXISTS ONLY FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CARRIER FOR SERVICES PERFORMED BY IT IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER. THERE IS NO REGULATION AUTHORIZING AN ALLOWANCE UNDER THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY AN EMPLOYEE WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSE EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENSE OF SUCH SERVICES WOULD BE REIMBURSABLE IF PROVIDED BY ANOTHER. THE PAYMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES IS BASED UPON COSTS INCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO SAVINGS EFFECTED THROUGH SUCH MEANS AS RELIEVING A CARRIER OF THE NEED TO PACK GOODS BEING TRANSPORTED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs