Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 May 10, 1999 GSBCA 14874-RELO In the Matter of DALE G. LUCKMAN, JR. Dale G. Luckman, Jr., Electric City, WA, Claimant. Brenda Barker, Manager, Accounts Receivable and Travel Team, Finance and Accounting Services, Reclamation Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of the Interior. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). In September 1997, the Bureau of Reclamation transferred Dale G. Luckman, Jr., from Bend, Oregon, to Grand Coulee, Washington. The agency paid for the costs of moving (under a Government bill of lading) the mobile home owned by Mr. Luckman and his wife, closing costs the couple incurred in purchasing land on which to put the home, temporary quarters subsistence expenses for ninety days, and a miscellaneous expenses allowance consisting of two weeks of Mr. Luckman's basic pay. Nevertheless, the move cost the Luckmans much more money than they had anticipated. Mr. Luckman asks that we direct the Bureau of Reclamation to reimburse him for $44,900.84 in expenses he and his wife incurred which the agency has refused to pay. We find that with only three exceptions, the agency's determinations were proper. Discussion As the Luckmans have learned, moving from one residence to another is expensive. The Federal Government, like many other employers, will reimburse its employees for some of the expenses they incur in making such moves, as long as they result from the employer's transfer of the employee from one permanent duty station to another. The Government's liability is circumscribed by statute (subchapter II of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code) and regulation (the Federal Travel Regulation, chapter 302 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations). Thus, the Bureau of Reclamation may pay to Mr. Luckman, and we may direct it to pay, only those expenses for which reimbursement is authorized by these laws. Mr. Luckman lists twenty-six separate items for which he seeks review. We group these items into five categories and discuss them below. Transportation expenses The expenses of transporting a mobile home from the old duty station to the new one are generally reimbursable, providing that the home is to be used as the employee's residence at the new station. 5 U.S.C. 5724(b)(2) (Supp. II 1996); 41 CFR 302-7.1(a) (1997). The allowance for transportation includes "costs generally associated with preparing a mobile home . . . for movement and resettling the mobile home at the destination." 41 CFR 302-7.3(d). One of the costs Mr. Luckman says he incurred was for axle rental. This cost was listed by the firm which transported the home as an expense of preparation for movement. Because the home was shipped under a Government bill of lading, the cost should have been billed by the carrier to the agency, not the employee. See id. 302-7.3(f). If Mr. Luckman can provide proof that he actually paid a charge for axle rental, the agency should make arrangements to assume that cost. Mr. Luckman paid to the Town of Coulee Dam, Washington, $154.50 as a fee for inspecting the mobile home to determine whether it was properly placed on its foundation. This a cost which is associated with resettling the dwelling at the destination, so the agency should reimburse the claimant for it. Jack D. Draper, B-254163 (Apr. 4, 1994). One of Mr. Luckman's entries is labeled, "Space payment on lot until home moved from park." We understand this to refer to a charge for storing the home until the site where it was to be resettled was prepared. If our understanding is correct, the agency's denial of payment was proper, since the transportation allowance the Government pays for moving a transferred employee's mobile home may not include costs of storage. 41 CFR 302-7.3(e)(3). If our understanding is not correct, the claim should not be paid, either, because the Board's Rules of Procedure require the claimant to explain the basis of his claim clearly, and if a claim is not capable of being understood, it must fail. See Rule 402(a) (48 CFR 6104.2(a) (1997)). Mr. Luckman also asks that the agency be directed to reimburse him for money he paid to rent trucks for the purpose of moving his household goods and for money he paid to store those goods temporarily for ninety days. The agency properly denied reimbursement for these two items. Statute and regulation allow payment to be made for either transportation of a mobile home to be used as a residence or transportation of household goods and personal effects, but not both. 5 U.S.C. 5724(b); 41 CFR 302-7.1(a); Judy T. Barnette, GSBCA 14612-RELO, 98-2 BCA 30,098; Charles A. Miller, GSBCA 13679-RELO, et al., 97-1 BCA 28,865. Costs of temporary storage of household goods are reimbursable "only when such storage is incident to transportation of the household goods at Government expense." 41 CFR 302-8.5(a). Because the goods could not have been shipped at Government expense, costs of their storage were not the agency's responsibility. Expenses of preparing the site on which the mobile home was placed Mr. Luckman and his wife purchased land on which to situate the mobile home. The agency reimbursed them for closing costs they incurred in doing so, but not for the cost of the land itself. This determination was for the most part correct. Statute requires each agency to "pay to or on behalf of an employee who transfers in the interest of the Government, expenses of the . . . purchase of a residence at the new official station that are required to be paid by the employee, when the old and new official stations are located within the United States." 5 U.S.C. 5724(d)(1). Regulation provides that "[t]he residence . . . may be a mobile home and/or the lot on which such mobile is located or will be located." 41 CFR 302-6.1(b). There is no authority in either statute or regulation, however, for an agency to reimburse an employee for the cost of a new residence itself. The agency's only error in reimbursing Mr. Luckman for the closing costs on the purchase of the land, but not the cost of the lot, was that it paid more than is permissible. The Government is liable for transaction expenses incurred in the purchase of a residence only to the extent that those expenses do not exceed five percent of the purchase price. 5 U.S.C. 5724a(d)(7)(B); 41 CFR 302-6.2(g)(2). The land the Luckmans bought cost $12,000, and the transaction expenses associated with the purchase were $654.80. Because the agency was authorized to pay the employee no more than five percent of $12,000, or $600, it may recoup the additional $54.80 it paid. The Luckmans also paid a contractor to construct a foundation for their home, and to install backfill around the foundation. They paid the Town of Coulee Dam for a building permit for the construction of the foundation. "Expenses that result from construction of a residence" are made expressly nonreimbursable by regulation, so the agency acted correctly in not repaying the employee for these costs. 41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(2); Barnette; see also 41 CFR 302-3.1(c)(13) (miscellaneous expenses allowance does not cover "[c]osts incurred in connection with structural alterations"). Before they moved into their home, the Luckmans paid the Town of Coulee Dam two fees associated with bringing electrical power to the house, one fee for bringing water and sewer facilities to the home, and yet another amount for a building permit relating to electricity. In addition, they paid a contractor to connect the electric service and the water and sewer services. As the agency recognized, all of these costs of connecting utilities are expressly unallowable as costs of transporting the mobile home, but are intended to be covered by a miscellaneous expenses allowance. 41 CFR 302-3.1(b)(1), -7.1(e)(4). Such an allowance must be paid by an agency to an employee it transfers in the interest of the Government, "for defraying various contingent costs associated with discontinuing residence at one location and establishing residence at a new location in connection with an authorized or approved permanent change of station." Id. 302-3.1(a); see also 5 U.S.C. 5724a(f)(1). The miscellaneous expenses allowance for an employee with an immediate family, such as Mr. Luckman, is limited to $700 or the equivalent of two weeks' basic pay, whichever is less, if the employee has not documented his expenses. Id. 302-3.3(a). An allowance for such an employee may be authorized in a greater amount if documentation exists, but even then, it may not exceed the employee's basic pay for two weeks or the maximum rate of pay for an employee at "the maximum rate of grade GS-13," whichever is lower. Id. 302-3.3(b). Because the agency has already paid Mr. Luckman the highest possible miscellaneous expenses allowance, given his grade level, the employee must absorb all costs which might be covered by the allowance but are in an amount greater than he has been paid. Other miscellaneous expenses Other expenses incurred by the couple for which Mr. Luckman seeks reimbursement, and which are covered by the miscellaneous expenses allowance, are those associated with changing driver's licenses, motor vehicle title, and motor vehicle license; and a "use tax" imposed by Washington on the importation of their vehicle into the state (equivalent to a sales tax). 41 CFR 302-3.1(b)(5); see also John F. Manfredi, 65 Comp. Gen. 285 (1986)[foot #] 1 (as to use tax). Because the ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 We note that in referencing the General Accounting Office's (GAO's) Manfredi decision, the agency has ________ enclosed copies of pages from a 1989 GAO publication, Civilian ________ Personnel Law Manual: Title III -- Travel. Although this _______________________________________________ publication is an excellent treatise on federal travel and relocation law as of a decade ago, portions of it may be out of date. In the ten years since it was written, the statutes governing federal travel and relocation have been amended and the Federal Travel Regulation has been substantially rewritten. Additionally, since July 1996, this Board, and not the GAO, has settled claims involving expenses incurred by federal civilian employees for official travel and transportation and for relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty (continued...) ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- allowance may not be increased beyond what has already been paid, the employee must absorb these costs as well. The claim also includes an item listed as "post office box." We do not know what this covers, but if the miscellaneous expenses allowance applies to it, that will not serve to increase the Government's obligation. Taxes and loans Mr. Luckman seeks reimbursement for property taxes he paid on land he and his wife owned in Oregon before the transfer and on the land they purchased in Washington after the move. He also asks that his agency repay interest costs he incurred on a loan he took out in connection with construction of the foundation for the house in Coulee Dam. The agency properly did not comply with the requests, since these expenses are not reimbursable. 41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(2)(ii), (iii). Mr. Luckman also lists, among the categories of expenses for which he seeks reimbursement, "1st closing cost of first refinance loan" and "2nd closing cost on second refinance loan." He does not explain what these entries mean, however, or what relationship refinancing loans might have had to the Government's decision to transfer him from Oregon to Washington. In any event, we are aware of no law authorizing agencies to reimburse a transferred employee for transaction costs associated with loans, other than those involving a mortgage on a residence being purchased at the new duty station. Since the Luckmans already owned their mobile home before they moved to Washington, and the agency has paid all permissible transaction costs which stem from the purchase of land at the new location, any additional claim in this area must be disallowed. Damage to mobile home The last item for which Mr. Luckman asks to be repaid is the cost he incurred to replace the back door of the mobile home. Evidently, he believes that the door was damaged en route from Oregon to Washington. As we have explained, claims by employees ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 (...continued) station. See 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3) (Supp II. 1996); Pub. L. No. ___ 104-316, 202(n)(1), 110 Stat. 3826, 3843 (1996); Pub. L. No. 104-53, 211, 109 Stat. 514, 535 (1996); Delegation of Authority from Acting Administrator of General Services (July 17, 1996). The Board has thus replaced the GAO as the authoritative administrative interpreter of the laws in this area. The GAO's decisions, while often persuasive in their reasoning, are not binding on us. Board decisions, which are binding, are published in the Board of Contract Appeals Decisions reporter (referenced ____________________________________ as "BCA") and are also available at the Board's Internet website (www.gsbca.gsa.gov) and electronically through various commercial services. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- for loss or damage incident to a move are covered by the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3721 (1994). That law vests claims settlement authority in agency heads, not this Board. Thus, we have no authority to review this item. Paul W. Johnson, GSBCA 13815-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,407; Gretchen F. Ridgeway, GSBCA 14074-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,942; Miller. Decision The Bureau of Reclamation shall reimburse Mr. Luckman for the cost of the fee he paid to have his mobile home inspected to determine whether it was properly placed on its foundation, $154.50. If Mr. Luckman presents proof that he paid $300 for axle rental associated with the transportation of the home, the agency should make arrangements to assume that cost as well. The agency may recoup the amount it paid in excess of the limit authorized by statute and regulation for transaction costs associated with the Luckmans' purchase of land on which to place the mobile home -- $54.80. In all other respects, we confirm that the agency's determination not to reimburse the employee for costs he incurred was faithful to the law. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge