Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________ February 12, 1999 ________________________________ GSBCA 14656-TRAV In the Matter of KATHERINE KRUSE Katherine Kruse, Anaheim, CA, Claimant. Randall Christopherson and Mary Sprague, Office of Financial Operations, Small Business Administration, Denver, CO, appearing for Small Business Administration. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. In this case the agency seeks our opinion on whether it may reimburse employees for repairing privately owned vehicles (POV) while on official travel. Because this Board's authority is limited, we only address whether the claims would be reimbursable under statutory and regulatory provisions involving federal civilian employees' official travel and transportation. 31 U.S.C. 3529(b)(2)(B), 3702(a)(3) (Supp. II 1996). In particular, we do not address the potential legal redress these employees might have for personal property damage under any other statutory or regulatory scheme, including the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680, or the Military Personnel and Civilian Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 240-243. In the two situations presented, the statutory and regulatory provisions governing official travel for federal civilian employees do not authorize reimbursement for the repair of a federal employee's POV while used on official duty. Background On March 17, 1998, Ms. Katherine Kruse, a loan specialist with the Small Business Administration (SBA), was authorized to utilize her POV during a site visit. While Ms. Kruse was en route to the site, a vehicle traveling in the left lane on a freeway hit some debris, and an object which appeared to be a piece of metal or pipe hit the driver's side of Ms. Kruse's van. As a result, there was a gash in the bumper and the left-turn signal was scratched and cracked. Repairs are estimated to be $277. In a separate incident, an SBA employee had a flat tire while using a POV to return home from the local airport after a temporary duty assignment. The SBA has asked our opinion on whether repairs to these POVs would be reimbursable. Discussion Although the SBA has asked us for a broad clarification of Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) policy, we respond to questions posed by agencies only if the questions refer to a specific payment or voucher. Rule 502(a)(2) (48 CFR 6105.2(a)(2) (1997)). We, thus, do not in this decision give an all-encompassing answer on whether in every circumstance an employee using a POV for official business may be reimbursed for repairs to that vehicle. Neither the statutory provisions governing federal civilian employees' official travel, 5 U.S.C.A. 5701 et seq. (West Supp. 1998), nor the applicable provisions in the FTR, 41 CFR 301-10.300-310 (1998), authorize reimbursement for the vehicle repairs at issue. Indeed, the FTR expressly provides that repairs to a POV used on official business are not allowable as miscellaneous expenses. It lists "charges for repair, depreciation, replacements, grease, oil, antifreeze, towage and similar speculative expenses" as nonreimbursable expenses. 41 CFR 301-10.304. As this Board recognized in Nancy K. Rodgick, GSBCA 14193-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,302, reimbursement for repairs to an employee's POV is not permissible under the statutory entitlement to federal employees on official travel, because a mileage allowance is paid instead of the actual expenses incurred when an employee uses a POV. See also, Glenn S. Podonsky, GSBCA 14207-TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29,229. Similarly, when it reviewed federal travel and relocation claims, the General Accounting Office (GAO) denied reimbursement of the cost of repairing worn or damaged parts of a POV as a miscellaneous expense under the FTR. E.g., Nick D. Swanstrom, B-227387 (Dec. 11, 1987); Thomas A. Hughes, B-204100 (Aug. 16, 1982) (GAO distinguishes vehicle registration and licensing expenses at new duty station from the cost of maintenance and repair; the latter are not reimbursable); accord 60 Comp. Gen. 633 (1981) (employee authorized to use POV on official business is reimbursed on a mileage basis, and reimbursement for damage to the vehicle under 5 U.S.C. 5704 and 5707 is precluded). While the two SBA employees may be entitled to recover under other statutory schemes, this Board does not have jurisdiction to make such determinations. As the Board recognized in Charles A. Miller, GSBCA 13679-RELO, et al., 97-1 BCA 28,865, which included a claim for damage to property transported by a carrier: [This] claim . . . is not within our delegated authority, which is to settle claims by federal civilian employees for relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty station. . . . Section 3702(a) of Title 31 [of the United States Code] provides . . . the authority to settle claims "except as provided in . . . another law." . . . Claims by employees for loss or damage incident to service are covered by another law -- the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3721 (1994). That Act (1) vests claims settlement authority with agency heads, 31 U.S.C. 3721(b); (2) provides that the settlement is final and conclusive, 31 U.S.C. 3721(k); and (3) is considered to be the exclusive remedy for federal employees, who may not file a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See Talstrom v. United States, 3 Cl. Ct. 106, 107 (1983). Further, a claim for loss or damage is a claim for a tort, not a claim for an expense incident to a transfer of official duty station. 97-1 BCA at 143,997-98; accord Gretchen F. Ridgeway, GSBCA 14074-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,865; George J. Krakie, GSBCA 14141-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,158 (claim for damage to a boat which was shipped during a transfer was not within the Board's jurisdiction, but claims by employees for loss or damage incident to service were covered by the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3721 (1994)); Ronnie Davis, B-204324 (Apr. 27, 1982) (GAO had no jurisdiction over claims under Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act for reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of an accident which occurred when a federal civilian employee was driving to a temporary duty site in his privately owned automobile). The SBA has asked the Board whether a federal regulation, 5 CFR 180.104 (1998), could authorize the reimbursement in these cases. That regulation, in pertinent part, provides: "A claim may be allowed only if the damage or loss were not caused fully or partially by the negligent or wrongful act of the claimant and the possession of the property damaged or lost and the quantity possessed is determined to have been reasonable, useful, or proper under the circumstances." This regulation was issued pursuant to the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 1964, 31 U.S.C. 240-243, and authorizes the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) to settle and pay certain claims of officers and employees of OPM for damage to or loss of personal property. The Board lacks authority to render a decision on its applicability. Decision The statutes and regulations governing official travel of federal civilian employees do not authorize reimbursement of repairs to a POV used on official business, in the circumstances outlined above. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge