B-118904, JUNE 29, 1954, 33 COMP. GEN. 614

B-118904: Jun 29, 1954

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

MILEAGE - TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE - COMPARATIVE COSTS - AUTHORIZED EXCESS BAGGAGE IN ARRIVING AT A CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF AIR TRAVEL FOR COMPARATIVE COST PURPOSES THERE MAY BE INCLUDED SUCH ITEMS OF EXPENSE AS WOULD BE AUTHORIZED IF THE TRAVEL ACTUALLY WERE PERFORMED BY AIR. PROVIDED THE WEIGHT OF THE BAGGAGE ACTUALLY TRANSPORTED BY PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE EQUALS OR EXCEEDS THE WEIGHT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ON A PLANE TICKET PLUS THE AUTHORIZED WEIGHT OF EXCESS BAGGAGE. SUCH AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED ADMINISTRATIVELY FROM THE TRAVEL VOUCHER ORIGINALLY PRESENTED BY THE CLAIMANT. COVINGTON WAS INSTRUCTED TO PROCEED FROM THE POINT OF HIS ENGAGEMENT IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION.

B-118904, JUNE 29, 1954, 33 COMP. GEN. 614

MILEAGE - TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE - COMPARATIVE COSTS - AUTHORIZED EXCESS BAGGAGE IN ARRIVING AT A CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF AIR TRAVEL FOR COMPARATIVE COST PURPOSES THERE MAY BE INCLUDED SUCH ITEMS OF EXPENSE AS WOULD BE AUTHORIZED IF THE TRAVEL ACTUALLY WERE PERFORMED BY AIR, AND THEREFORE THE COST OF EXCESS BAGGAGE AUTHORIZED IN AN EMPLOYEE'S TRAVEL ORDER TO BE TRANSPORTED BY AIR MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPARATIVE COST STATEMENT INCIDENT TO TRAVEL BY PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE, PROVIDED THE WEIGHT OF THE BAGGAGE ACTUALLY TRANSPORTED BY PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE EQUALS OR EXCEEDS THE WEIGHT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ON A PLANE TICKET PLUS THE AUTHORIZED WEIGHT OF EXCESS BAGGAGE.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL WEITZEL TO W. K. CHAMBARD, CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, JUNE 29, 1954:

BY LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 11, 1954, THE CHIEF, ACCOUNTING DIVISION, CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, TRANSMITTED HERE FOR CONSIDERATION YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 27, 1954, FORWARDING A VOUCHER STATED IN FAVOR OF W. O. COVINGTON, IN THE AMOUNT OF $50.50, REPRESENTING THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION OF 50 POUNDS OF EXCESS BAGGAGE BY AIR. SUCH AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED ADMINISTRATIVELY FROM THE TRAVEL VOUCHER ORIGINALLY PRESENTED BY THE CLAIMANT. YOU REQUEST A DECISION WHETHER SUCH VOUCHER MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT.

BY TRAVEL ORDER NO. 853-435, DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 1952, MR. COVINGTON WAS INSTRUCTED TO PROCEED FROM THE POINT OF HIS ENGAGEMENT IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, SEYMOUR, TEXAS, TO HIS FIRST DUTY STATION AT FAIRBANKS, ALASKA. THE ORDER PROVIDED FOR TRAVEL BY THE EMPLOYEE, TOGETHER WITH HIS FAMILY, VIA EITHER COMMON CARRIER (RAILWAY, PLANE, BUS OR BOAT), OR PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE, ON A MILEAGE BASIS, THE REIMBURSABLE COST NOT TO EXCEED THE COST BY AIR TRAVEL. WITH RESPECT TO EXCESS BAGGAGE IT AUTHORIZED THE TRANSPORTATION BY AIR OR EXPRESS "OF NOT MORE THAN 50 LBS. IN EXCESS OF WEIGHT ALLOWED ON TRANSPORTATION TICKET AT POINT OF DEPARTURE FOR EACH ADULT TRAVELER, WHETHER TRAVELING TOGETHER OR SEPARATELY.'

IT APPEARS THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S WIFE PERFORMED THE TRAVEL INVOLVED BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE. IN ARRIVING AT THE CONSTRUCTIVE COST BY AIR FOR COMPARISON WITH THE MILEAGE CLAIMED, THE EMPLOYEE INCLUDED THE CHARGE FOR EXCESS BAGGAGE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED HAD MRS. COVINGTON TRAVELED BY AIR. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT PERSONAL EFFECTS WITH AN ESTIMATED WEIGHT OF 400 POUNDS ARE STATED BY THE EMPLOYEE TO HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED BY HIS WIFE, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION ($50.50) ADMINISTRATIVELY WAS DISALLOWED.

IT IS STATED IN YOUR LETTER THAT THE DISALLOWANCES OF THE EXCESS BAGGAGE ITEM IN DETERMINING THE COMPARATIVE COST OF AIR TRAVEL WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE POLICY OF YOUR DEPARTMENT GENERALLY TO DISALLOW SUCH TYPE CHARGES, SINCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS INVOLVED DO NOT PROVIDE FOR EXCESS BAGGAGE AS AN ITEM OF COMPARATIVE COST. HOWEVER, IT IS STATED FURTHER THAT DOUBT AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF SUCH ACTION HAS ARISEN SINCE YOUR DEPARTMENT IS AWARE OF NO DECISION UPON WHICH TO BASE THE ACTION TAKEN.

IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS OFFICE HERETOFORE HAS BEEN CALLED UPON TO RENDER A DECISION ON THE MATTER HERE INVOLVED. HOWEVER, IN ARRIVING AT A CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF AIR TRAVEL FOR COMPARATIVE COST PURPOSES, IT REASONABLY APPEARS THAT THERE PROPERLY MAY BE INCLUDED SUCH ITEMS OF EXPENSE AS WOULD BE AUTHORIZED IF THE TRAVEL ACTUALLY WERE PERFORMED BY AIR. CF. 29 COMP. GEN. 193. AN AUTHORIZATION FOR EXCESS BAGGAGE TO BE TRANSPORTED BY AIR PROPERLY IS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AUTHORIZING THE TRAVEL HAVING REGARD FOR THE NEEDS OF THE TRAVELER INCIDENT TO THE PARTICULAR TRAVEL TO BE PERFORMED. OF COURSE, FOR SUCH ITEM TO BE INCLUDED IN A COMPARATIVE COST STATEMENT, IT SHOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THE TRAVELER TO DISCLOSE THE AMOUNT OF BAGGAGE ACTUALLY TRANSPORTED, SINCE IT IS BY REASON THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH THE AUTHORIZATION FOR EXCESS BAGGAGE OF 50 POUNDS FOR EACH DEPENDENT WAS AUTHORIZED IN THE TRAVEL ORDER FOR TRAVEL BY AIR AND THE EMPLOYEE HAS FURNISHED A STATEMENT THAT PERSONAL EFFECTS OF APPROXIMATELY 400 POUNDS WERE TRANSPORTED BY HIS WIFE BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE, INCLUSION IN THE COMPARATIVE COST STATEMENT OF AN AMOUNT REPRESENTING THE COST OF EXCESS BAGGAGE, NOT TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM AS PROVIDED IN THE TRAVEL ORDER, IS PROPER.

ACCORDINGLY, UPON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED, AND SINCE IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTENTION IN ISSUING THE TRAVEL ORDER TO ALLOW MILEAGE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRAVEL BY THE EMPLOYEE'S WIFE BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE EMPLOYEE, THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.

Jan 14, 2021

Jan 13, 2021

Looking for more? Browse all our products here