Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________ March 5 , 1999 ________________________________ GSBCA 14703-RELO In the Matter of JOSEPH NGUYEN Joseph Nguyen, Melbourne, FL, Claimant. Charles N. Stockwell, Liaison Office, Directorate of Resource Management, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of Defense. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. A transferred employee who was authorized to ship his household goods under a Government bill of lading (GBL) instead performed a self move. Because the employee had no documentation of his actual expenses, the agency properly disallowed reimbursement. Background Claimant, Joseph Nguyen, an electronics engineer with the Department of the Air Force, was transferred from Griffiss Air Force Base (AFB), New York, to Patrick AFB, Florida, on June 24, 1996. In a travel authorization issued on April 12, 1996, claimant was authorized to ship his household goods by GBL. In April 1997, Mr. Nguyen asked whether the Air Force would pay for costs he would incur in moving the goods himself. On April 30, 1997, the Traffic Management Office at Patrick AFB sent claimant via facsimile copies of relevant pages of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) with a cover sheet stating: "You need to get a cost comparison from Hanscom to determine which rate is cheaper. See paragraph C [of JTR C8001.D.3.c]." Although this regulation provides that a cost comparison shall be made between the actual expense (GBL) and commuted rate methods of shipping household goods, claimant in May 1997 shipped his household goods himself, using his personal van, without obtaining the cost comparison. Claimant states that on April 29, 1997, he contacted personnel offices at Hanscom AFB and Patrick AFB to request authorization to move his household goods himself. He claims that on April 30, 1997, Patrick AFB personnel "allowed me to ship my own household goods as long as I could save the Government at least $100," citing the April 30 facsimile cover sheet as the signed statement Patrick personnel provided him on that day. However, claimant does not explain why he did not request Hanscom personnel to perform the cost comparison. Claimant contacted a moving contractor to obtain an estimate to move his three bedroom household from Buffalo, New York, to Melbourne, Florida. According to claimant, a moving company, whose identity is not in the record, quoted him an estimate of $3500. Claimant contends that based upon several trips using his own van the moving cost totaled $3150 (average trip ($630) times five trips equals $3150). Claimant submitted no receipts or other explanation in support of these moving costs, claiming none were available. On May 28, 1998, claimant submitted his travel voucher. The agency denied reimbursement of the $3150 in its entirety based upon the following: 1. No amendment authorizing a commuted rate move. 2. No tare receipts showing weight of shipments. 3. Using own personal vehicle to transport items during trips back and forth from new and old [permanent duty station]. 4. AF Form 3535 is a fax transmittal not an amendment authorizing Mr. Nguyen to move his own household goods. Discussion Claimant seeks to be reimbursed for moving his household goods himself via the commuted rate method when his travel authorization permitted him reimbursement for using the GBL method of shipment. Claimant never received authorization to ship his household goods via the commuted rate. Rather, claimant was expressly advised to call the appropriate Air Force office, in this case Hanscom AFB, to initiate the cost comparison process to determine whether the GBL method or the commuted rate method would be less expensive. Claimant did not follow this clear directive. Instead, he contacted a local mover in Buffalo, apparently obtained a verbal quote from that moving company of a cost of $3500 for commercially transporting his household goods, never asked Hanscom personnel to do a cost comparison, and proceeded to do a self move without weighing his household goods or retaining any receipts for expenses associated with these moves. Claimant has not explained how he calculated the $630 average per-trip cost. Under the circumstances, claimant is not entitled to reimbursement at the commuted rate, but instead would be limited to actual expenses if supported by adequate documentation or receipts. JTR C8001.D.3.c provides: A cost comparison will be made between the actual expense (GBL) and the computed rate method of shipping [household goods]. In the event the estimated cost under one method exceeds the estimated cost under another method by more than $100, the more economical method will be used. An employee's request for a particular method will be the determining factor in cases where the costs are within $100 of each other. When it has been determined that shipment by GBL is the most economical and the employee chooses to make his/her own arrangements for shipment, the employee may be reimbursed the actual expenses incurred not to exceed what it would have cost the Government had the shipment been made by GBL. As this Board has held in interpreting that regulation, if shipment by GBL is more economical and the employee chooses to make his own arrangement for shipping his household goods, the agency will reimburse the employee for his actual expenses not to exceed what it would have cost if the goods had been shipped using the GBL method. Robert W. Miller, GSBCA 13919-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,051. In Miller the Board held that claimant was not entitled to be reimbursed at the commuted rate where the agency had determined that shipment by GBL was more economical and the employee chose to make his own arrangements for shipping his household goods; the Board limited reimbursement to actual expenses incurred. Similarly, in Terry Beck, GSBCA 14590-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,969, the Board denied reimbursement at the commuted rate where an employee did a self move even though his travel authorization provided for movement under the GBL method. In Beck the Board limited claimant's recovery to the only actual cost incurred for which he had a receipt, i.e., a truck rental in the amount of $557.75. In George M. Karmis, B-250002 (Aug. 26, 1993), the Comptroller General disallowed any reimbursement for a self move where claimant did not obtain weight certificates or proper receipts supporting actual expenses of his move. GAO reasoned: Mr. Karmis stated that he arranged with a friend to move his goods for a $1,950 fee which Mr. Karmis indicates he paid the friend in cash. While reimbursement of such charges is not categorically barred . . . such an arrangement where the mover is not a commercial mover raises obvious questions as to whether an actual arms length transaction occurred. . . . In such a case it is appropriate to require complete documentation before payment may be authorized. The Comptroller General found the documentation insufficient and denied the claim in its entirety. See also, JTR C8009 ( If a bill of lading isn t used, the receipt shall show point of origin, destination, and weight. ). Here, as in Karmis, claimant's alleged costs of $3150 are not supported by sufficient documentation, since he did not provide any receipts or weight certificates. Indeed, claimant has not articulated how his claimed average per-trip cost of $630 was derived. Based upon claimant's failure to obtain a cost comparison and to document or substantiate his alleged actual expenses, the agency reasonably denied reimbursement. Decision The claim is denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge