B-196774, MAR 25, 1981

B-196774, MAR 25, 1981

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

JOSEPH B. MARCOTTE, JR.:

WE REFER AGAIN TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 21, 1980, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF THAT PART OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S DECISION B-196774, AUGUST 19, 1980, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR THE VALUE OF PACKING SERVICES YOU PROVIDED INCIDENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS TO BILLINGS, MONTANA. YOU ASK THAT THE VALUE OF SUCH SERVICES BE CREDITED AGAINST YOUR LIABILITY FOR THE COST OF SHIPPING HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT LIMITATION.

AS STATED IN THE DECISION OF AUGUST 19, 1980, YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE SHIPPED UNDER A GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING (GBL) FROM PUEBLO, COLORADO, TO BILLINGS, MONTANA, AS AUTHORIZED BY TRAVEL ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 7, 1978. THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE SHIPMENT WAS 14,700 POUNDS. SINCE 5 U.S.C. SEC. 5724(A)(2) PROVIDES THAT THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AUTHORIZED TO BE TRANSPORTED INCIDENT TO AN EMPLOYEE'S TRANSFER IS 11,000 POUNDS NET, YOUR AGENCY DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR SHIPPING HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN EXCESS OF 11,000 POUNDS.

YOU SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS ON THE BASIS THAT YOU PACKED YOUR OWN HOUSEHOLD GOODS FOR SHIPMENT AND THEREBY REDUCED THE EXPENSES WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE INCURRED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

UNDER THE "ACTUAL EXPENSE" METHOD USED FOR THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS, THE CONTRACT FOR SHIPMENT IS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND A DESIGNATED CARRIER AND THE GOVERNMENT PAYS THE CARRIER DIRECTLY. SEE PARAGRAPH 2-8.3B OF THE FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS (FTR) (FPMR 101 7)(MAY 1973). THERE IS NO REGULATION UNDER THE "ACTUAL EXPENSE" METHOD WHICH AUTHORIZES AN ALLOWANCE FOR SERVICES VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED BY AN EMPLOYEE, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENSE OF SUCH SERVICE WOULD BE REIMBURSABLE IF PROVIDED BY AN AUTHORIZED CARRIER. B-169407, OCTOBER 19, 1970, AND ALEX KALE, 55 COMP.GEN. 779 (1976). ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXPENSE OF PACKING UP TO 11,000 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS HAD THOSE SERVICES BEEN PROVIDED BY THE CARRIER, AS STATED IN THE DECISION OF AUGUST 19, 1980, THERE IS NO BASIS UNDER THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO REIMBURSE YOU FOR THE PACKING SERVICES YOU PERFORMED. AS YOUR AGENCY HAS REIMBURSED THE CARRIER FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF 11,000 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS FULFILLED ITS RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE "ACTUAL EXPENSE" METHOD FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

YOUR REQUEST DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS UPON WHICH THE DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL MAY BE RECONSIDERED SINCE YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO NEW EVIDENCE OR LEGAL ARGUMENT. FOR THE SAME REASON THERE IS NO BASIS TO EXCUSE ANY PART OF YOUR INDEBTEDNESS TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE COST OF SHIPPING THE EXCESS 3,700 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

IN ADDITION TO YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION OF AUGUST 19, 1980, YOU NOW ASK WHETHER YOU ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR OTHER EXPENSES INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER SUCH AS REAL ESTATE FEES, MILEAGE, PER DIEM, ETC.

THE AUTHORITY FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL AND RELOCATION EXPENSES INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE UPON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION IS PURSUANT TO 5 U.S.C. SECS. 5724 AND 5724A. CHAPTER 2 OF THE FTR GOVERNS THE ENTITLEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RELOCATION EXPENSES. ONCE THE AGENCY DETERMINES THAT A TRANSFER IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT, CERTAIN ALLOWANCES UNDER THE FTR, SUCH AS REAL ESTATE EXPENSES, ARE MANDATORY. SEE 55 COMP.GEN. 613 (1976).

ANY ENTITLEMENT TO REIMBURSEMENT IS FOR DETERMINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE FTR. SEE CHAPTER 2, PARTS 2 AND 6 OF THE FTR WHICH RESPECTIVELY CONCERN REIMBURSEMENT FOR MILEAGE AND PER DIEM AND FOR REAL ESTATE EXPENSES.

IN THE EVENT YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL AND RELOCATION EXPENSES INCURRED INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER, YOUR CLAIM SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO YOUR AGENCY FOR CONSIDERATION.

DIGEST

UPON RECONSIDERATION EMPLOYEE IS ADVISED THAT HE MAY NOT BE ALLOWED MONETARY CREDIT FOR THE VALUE OF PACKING SERVICES HE PROVIDED INCIDENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS. AS STATED IN OUR DECISION B-196774, AUGUST 19, 1980, THERE IS NO REGULATION UNDER THE "ACTUAL EXPENSE" METHOD WHICH AUTHORIZES AN ALLOWANCE FOR SERVICES VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED BY AN EMPLOYEE, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENSE OF SUCH SERVICE WOULD BE REIMBURSABLE IF PROVIDED BY AN AUTHORIZED CARRIER.