________________________ August 20, 1998 ________________________ GSBCA 14590-RELO In the Matter of TERRY BECK Terry Beck, Meadow Grove, NE, Claimant. Barbara McNiff, Branch Chief, Fiscal Services Branch, Budget and Finance Division, Office of Management, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Agriculture. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Claimant, Terry Beck, is an employee of the Department of Agriculture. The agency has denied his claims for various expenses arising from his moving his household goods (HHG) during his permanent change of station from Omaha, Nebraska, to Petersburg, Nebraska, and his purchase of a residence at his new duty station. Claim for Additional Reimbursement from Move of HHG Claimant states that prior to moving in July 1996, his travel orders were issued indicating that he would be paid pursuant to the actual expense method for moving his HHG. He states that he was given verbal authorization, by an employee who is no longer employed at the agency, that he would be paid the commuted rate for moving his own HHG. Subsequently, when he submitted his voucher for payment in February 1997, he was advised that the agency typically did not reimburse employees under the commuted rate, and had made a cost comparison prior to issuing claimant s travel orders that the actual expense method would save the agency $100 or more. The agency has supplied a copy of the cost comparison to the claimant, who states that this information was not made available to him until after he completed his move. The agency acknowledges that when the employee who allegedly advised the claimant that he was authorized to move and be reimbursed at the commuted rate was contacted, she had no present recollection of the advice she gave the claimant. Statute specified that, in accordance with regulations, when authorized or approved, an agency shall pay the expenses of transporting and temporarily storing (among other activities) household goods and personal effects not in excess of 18,000 pounds net weight. 5 U.S.C. 5724(a)(2) (1994). Statute also specified that instead of paying an employee the actual expenses of transporting and temporarily storing (among other activities) goods and effects, an agency may reimburse on a commuted basis utilizing rates in regulations. 5 U.S.C. 5724(c). The fact that an employee chooses to make his own arrangements and perform a self-move of HHG does not limit the employee to reimbursement solely of actual expenses. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides that the cost of shipping HHG may be reimbursed from any origin to any destination so long as the amount paid by the Government does not exceed the cost of transporting the property in one lot by the most economical route from the last official duty station of the transferring employee to the new official duty station. 41 CFR 302-8.2(e) (1996). The FTR further provides for two alternative methods of reimbursement: the commuted rate method and the actual expense method. 41 CFR 302-8.3. Under the commuted rate method, the employee makes the arrangements for transporting HHG, selecting the carrier, and receiving reimbursement from the Government in accordance with published rate schedules which may exceed actual costs. This is so because the reimbursement in excess of actual costs is meant to reimburse the employee for assuming the administrative responsibility of moving HHG. Under the actual expense method, the Government assumes responsibility for making shipment arrangements, ships the goods under a Government Bill of Lading, and pays the carrier directly. The FTR provides that for individual moves, the commuted rate method is preferred, principally because the Government is spared the administrative expenses associated with selecting a carrier, arranging for the carrier services and for packing and crating, preparing the GBL, paying charges incurred, and processing loss and damage claims. See Jeffrey P. Herman, GSBCA 13832-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,704 (1996). The FTR permits an agency to use the GBL method for an individual move, however, if it determines, under an appropriate cost comparison, that such a move would be more economical. Id. Apparently, in this case, the agency did just that. Having made a cost comparison prior to authorizing a do-it-yourself move, the agency concluded that the commuted rate basis was not more economical to the Government than an actual expense move. The claimant, who did not want to utilize a Government-selected mover, opted for a do-it-yourself move. The record reveals no impropriety in the agency's conclusion that payment of actual expenses would be more economical to the Government than payment under the commuted rate method. However, claimant was not informed that a cost comparison had been made. Instead, he allegedly was told that he was authorized to perform a self-move and be paid the commuted rate. In any event, the travel authorization appropriately informed the claimant that his HHG would be moved under the actual expense method. We need not determine if claimant was verbally advised that he would be reimbursed the commuted rate, because such advice, even if given, would have been erroneous. Absent a statutory or regulatory provision allowing for reimbursement of a particular relocation expense, neither the agency nor this Board may authorize its payment, despite the fact that an employee may have incurred costs in good faith reliance on erroneous advice. See, e.g., Chesley F. Kimbrel, GSBCA 13680-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,043 (1996); Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,688 (1996). As the agency had made a valid cost comparison, the claimant may be reimbursed the allowable, incurred costs not to exceed the amount the Government would have incurred had a Government- selected carrier been utilized. 41 CFR 101- 40.203-2(d). Claimant has been reimbursed $557.75 for the rental of a truck, the only actual expense he incurred for which he provided a receipt. Accordingly, claimant is not entitled to additional reimbursement. Claims for Additional Reimbursement for Expenses Arising from Purchase of New Residence Claimant also incurred various costs for reimbursement arising from the purchase of his residence at the new duty station. The agency disallowed certain costs, and he requests review of the agency s decision. After claimant filed his request for review at this Board, the agency filed a response conceding entitlement as to the items for which review had been requested, except for $1612.50 in professional services. The agency response read in relevant part: The first time that we were provided with a copy of the HUD-1 [form] for Mr. Beck s settlement on the purchase of new home was when the GSA Board of Contract Appeals provided it to us as an enclosure to Mr. Beck s claim. . . . After reviewing the HUD-1 and the AD-424 signed by Mr. Beck on 5-12-98, it appears to us that Mr. Beck should be reimbursed $75 for the settlement fee; $51 for the credit report; $30.50 for the recording fees; $752 for the survey fees[[foot #] 1], and $21 for the water sampling. We will approve the $1,612.50 expense for professional services, . . ., however, a ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Claimant originally claimed $1300 for survey fees, which were actually charged by the survey company, which justified the cost of the survey because claimant bought a rural dwelling. Claimant has voluntarily reduced his claim to $752. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- final determination on the legality of this expense must be made . . . . With regard to the professional services of $1612.50, the agency has submitted a letter from claimant s realtor, which indicates this amount was the brokerage fee charged as buyer s broker. Such fees are not reimbursable pursuant to the FTR, which reads in relevant part: Brokers' fees and real estate commissions. A broker's fee or real estate commission paid by the employee for services in selling his/her residence is reimbursable but not in excess of rates generally charged for such services by the broker or by brokers in the locality of the old official station. No such fee or commission is reimbursable in connection with the purchase of a home at the new official station. 41 CFR 302-6.2 (a). Accordingly, claimant is not entitled to reimbursement for this expense. Decision Claimant is not entitled to be reimbursed for the moving of his HHG pursuant to the commuted rate, nor is he entitled to reimbursement of the brokerage fee incurred in the purchase of his residence. The agency has stated its willingness to reimburse claimant for the other charges for which he seeks reimbursement. ___________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge