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