Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 September 8, 1999 GSBCA 15061-RELO In the Matter of TIMOTHY E. ALDRICH Timothy E. Aldrich, Columbia, SC, Claimant. Cynthia S. Whitt, Chief, Accounting Branch, Financial Management Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA, appearing for Department of Health and Human Services. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). Section 5723 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes agencies to pay various expenses a new appointee incurs in moving from the place he resides when selected for his position to his first duty station. The expenses covered are those of travel; transportation of the employee's immediate family and household goods; and transporting a privately owned vehicle. 5 U.S.C. 5723(a) (Supp. II 1996); see also 41 CFR 302-1.10(e) (1998). A claim by Dr. Timothy E. Aldrich, a new employee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), tests the application of this statute. In July 1998, Dr. Aldrich, then a resident of Utah, was offered a position with the CDC in South Carolina. He accepted the job. Before reporting for duty in August, Dr. Aldrich moved his household goods to South Carolina in two separate trips. He first drove his own vehicle east, loaded with goods. Later, he returned to Utah, rented a truck, and drove the truck, with his car in tow, to South Carolina. The agency and the employee agreed that the Government would cover the actual expenses Dr. Aldrich incurred in transporting his belongings, up to the cost that would have been incurred if the goods had been shipped by Government bill of lading.[foot #] 1 The employee ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The agency did not issue travel orders until September 1998 -- after Dr. Aldrich was already at work in South (continued...) ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- submitted a voucher claiming the costs of both trips -- an amount per mile, an amount per day for meals and incidental expenses, and rental of the truck. (He did not seek any amounts for lodging.) Dr. Aldrich claimed $1567.80 in all. The CDC asserts that the cost of shipping Dr. Aldrich's goods by Government bill of lading would have been $2125. Although the cost of the two trips is less than this amount, the agency reimbursed the employee for only the cost of his second trip, in the rented truck -- $808.80. The CDC grounds its determination on a decision of the Comptroller General, who until mid-1996 settled claims against the United States involving expenses incurred by federal civilian employees for relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty station. In that case, Howard Robinson, Jr., B-271337 (July 1, 1996), the Comptroller General held that an employee who has been reimbursed for the costs of traveling in his own vehicle from one duty station to another may not be paid for those costs twice on the ground that the car was used to transport household goods as well as the employee himself. Dr. Aldrich's situation is very different from Mr. Robinson's. The doctor is asking to be reimbursed only once for each expense he incurred, not twice, as the other employee requested. We have already held that when an agency makes a commitment to reimburse a relocating employee for the actual costs incurred in transporting his goods, it must pay for those costs regardless of the number of trips involved, as long as each trip was necessary for the transport of the goods. Jerry U. Shimoda, GSBCA 14264-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,170 (payment for costs of eight trips); see also Ray R. Schuler, B-255997 (June 3, 1994) (payment for costs of three trips). The fact that Dr. Aldrich moved his goods from Utah to South Carolina in two stages should have no impact on reimbursement, since both trips were necessary for the transport of the goods. In commenting to the Board on the merits of the claim, the CDC has raised a new issue. It has properly observed (though for the wrong reason) that in one regard, its previous determination was excessively generous. The matter is the costs associated with the rented truck. Dr. Aldrich seeks reimbursement not only for the rental itself, but also for the cost of driving the truck. The amount claimed for the latter element is $342, ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 (...continued) Carolina. These orders authorize shipment of household goods by the commuted rate system. The agency states, however -- and Dr. Aldrich does not challenge this statement -- that the authorization is in error and should have reflected the agreement stated above. The commuted rate system and actual expense method for transporting household goods are discussed in the Federal Travel Regulation at 41 CFR 302-8.3. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- calculated as fifteen cents per mile for the 2280 miles traveled from Utah to South Carolina. The agency believes that another decision of the Comptroller General, Mark A. Smith, B-228813 (Sept. 14, 1988), makes payment of this amount improper. Smith holds that an employee who has been reimbursed for the costs associated with driving a rented truck from one duty station to another may not also be paid for the mileage traveled by a car which is being towed by the truck. This holding does not apply to Dr. Aldrich's claim, for the doctor seeks reimbursement for only costs associated with the truck, not for any amount relating to the car. The difficulty we see in the claim for the costs associated with the rented truck is that the employee is entitled to reimbursement for actual expenses incurred, and while the rental cost is such an expense, the $342 claimed for mileage is not. The mileage rates prescribed by the Federal Travel Regulation are for travel in privately owned vehicles, not for travel in rented trucks. 41 CFR 302-2.3. Mileage rates include charges for items such as repairs, depreciation, replacements, grease, oil, and antifreeze -- costs which are presumably included in the rental fee for a truck. See id. 301-10.304. Dr. Aldrich should be reimbursed for that fee. He should also be reimbursed not for driving the truck at the regulation's mileage rate, but rather, at the actual cost he incurred in purchasing gasoline and other items additional to the rental fee to make the vehicle function as it moved from Utah to South Carolina. Receipts are the best proof of expenses actually incurred. Because Dr. Aldrich may not have kept receipts, however, and the cost of gasoline may be estimated with reasonable accuracy, to the extent that the employee does not have receipts, the agency should reimburse him for the costs he incurred as calculated through estimates. (For example, if a gallon of gas cost about one dollar and the truck traveled ten miles per gallon, reimbursement of ten cents per mile would be appropriate.) The claim is granted, except to the extent that the amount sought for driving the truck may be adjusted in accordance with the instructions given in the preceding paragraph. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge