_________________ February 12, 1998 _________________ GSBCA 14137-RELO In the Matter of CLIFFORD SIELING Clifford Sieling, Richland, WA, Claimant. George M. Tengan, Chief Certifying Official, Department of Energy, Germantown, MD, appearing for Department of Energy. NEILL, Board Judge. This case concerns two claims filed by Mr. Clifford Sieling, an employee of the Department of Energy. In early 1995, Mr. Sieling was transferred from Washington, D.C. to Richland, Washington. As part of his relocation, Mr. Sieling sought and received authorization to move his houseboat, which serves as his permanent residence. He has since submitted three claims relating to the cost of moving the boat. One claim has been paid in its entirety and is not in issue here. The second has been denied in part, and payment of the third has been deferred. The chief certifying official of the agency asks our opinion as to whether the partial denial of the second claim was correct and whether it is proper to proceed with payment of the third claim. For the reasons set out below, we conclude that the partial denial is correct in part and that a small portion of the third claim may be paid. Background Mr. Sieling's travel orders, as originally issued in late February 1995, authorized transport of his houseboat to his new duty station pursuant to a Government bill of lading (GBL). The orders also authorized packing and unpacking of household goods loaded in the houseboat which was to be used as a permanent residence. In addition, the orders authorized temporary quarters for thirty days or until arrival of his houseboat -- whichever was less. Following Mr. Sieling's departure from Washington, it was determined that his boat could not be moved by the Government itself pursuant to a GBL since the carriers contacted had insisted on advance payment, which is not allowed with GBLs. Mr. Sieling, therefore, was instructed to make all arrangements for moving the boat on his own. His travel orders were amended to authorize movement of the houseboat using the actual expense method. The orders provided for an estimated cost of $15,300. The agency explained that this amount was based on what it would otherwise pay had Mr. Sieling requested instead to ship the standard allowance of 18,000 pounds of household goods plus ninety days of temporary storage. The agency further explained that this amount was available as an advance to be used to pay costs incurred. Preparation of Mr. Sieling's boat for shipping was begun by an agency representative. When it was determined, however, that 2 the boat could not be moved by the Government pursuant to a GBL, Mr. Sieling himself was required to assume responsibility for the hauling, cleaning, and loading of his vessel. By this time, however, he was already at his new duty station in Richland, Washington. Before Mr. Sieling's boat was shipped from the Washington, D.C. area, arrangements were made for upgrading of the vessel's head by installing a new Sealand Vacuflush Head System with holding tank and deck pump-out only. This was done to insure that the vessel would be in compliance with the requirements of the area where it was to be docked. While the upgrade was being done, it was discovered that the aft shower bottom was rotted out. Arrangements were then made to have a new shower and shower pan custom built. The statement provided by the marina responsible for all of this work indicates that there was prior discussion of the vessel's head upgrade and other requested work with Mr. Sieling. When the vessel renovation was complete, the marina contractor began preparations for the packing Mr. Sieling's household goods on board and for shipment of the vessel. During the course of these final preparations, the main engine and generator were tested. The carburetor was found to be contaminated with debris. It was cleaned and reassembled. The cost of the work done on the vessel before leaving the Washington area came to a total of $6,827.18. By voucher dated February 19, 1997, Mr. Sieling sought reimbursement for $6,037.18 of this amount. The reduction of $790 from the original invoice represents the subcontractor's charge for constructing the new custom-built shower and shower pan. It is this claim for the remaining $6,037.18 which the agency has referred to us for an opinion on the propriety of payment. In late July 1995, Mr. Sieling's boat was finally conveyed overland to Clarkston, Washington, by Associated Boat Transport Inc. The carrier's charges came to a total of $7173. Mr. Sieling submitted a claim voucher for this amount. It was paid in its entirety by the agency. A third claim voucher submitted by Mr. Sieling concerns costs associated with arrival of his boat in Clarkston, and its recommission and transport by water to its ultimate destination. The claim came to a total of $1,204.34. The agency denied only two of the several costs claimed. One was for $50 and was said to be for the rebuilding of the boat's carburetor. The second was for $312 and was said to be for mileage. The claimant explained that the claim for mileage represented the cost of four trips by car from his temporary residence to Clarkston. One trip was in June, before arrival of his boat, to inspect the port and its facilities. Another was to supervise unloading of the boat upon arrival. Two subsequent trips were to clean the boat and remove items so it could be piloted to its final destination. It is the denial of these two claims for costs which the agency now asks us to review. Discussion In commenting on the agency's request for our opinion regarding the allowability of the claims discussed above, Mr. Sieling writes: First, it is my contention that a verbal agreement was in existence between me and the DOE [Department of 3 Energy] through its agents and that conditions of the agreement were changed unilaterally by the agency. Mr. Sieling goes on to state that among the conditions to this alleged agreement was that shipment of his thirty-six-foot cabin cruiser from Washington, D.C. to Washington state, would include preparing the boat for shipment and rendering it compliant with Federal boating regulations in effect on the west coast. In answering the questions posed here by the agency regarding the allowability of the claims in this case, we look to applicable statute and regulation. If the agency and Mr. Sieling did in fact agree to something over and above what is allowed under those regulations, it is of no significance. An agency and an employee clearly lack the authority to expand, even by mutual agreement, the entitlements otherwise available to a government employee in the event of a permanent change in station. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides that relocating employees who are entitled to transportation of their household goods shall, instead of such transportation, be entitled to an allowance for the transportation of a mobile home for use as a residence. 41 CFR 302-7.1(a) (1995) (FTR 302-7.1(a)). These provisions regarding mobile homes also apply to boats which serve as the employee's primary residence. FTR 302-1.4(i). "Residence" is defined as the "residence or other quarters from which the employee regularly commutes to and from work." FTR 302-1.4(k). The FTR provisions provide for reimbursement of costs related to transportation by commercial carriers, by private means, and by a combination of the two. They also cover situations where the residence is transported in part over land and in part over water. Provisions also exist for reimbursement of costs associated with preparation at the point of origin for moving the mobile home and at destination for resettling the residence. FTR 302-7.3. The FTR also contains a variety of illustrative, allowable costs relating to preparing the home at origin for transportation and settling it at destination. This regulation additionally lists a limited number of specific costs which are unallowable. Among these is a prohibition of reimbursement for replacement of parts, tire purchases, structural repairs, brake repairs, or any other repairs or maintenance. FTR 302-7.3(e)(1). We turn first to Mr. Sieling's claim for the cost of work done on his vessel prior to it being transported from the Washington, D.C. area. We find that the majority of the costs claimed represent the costs of repair and modification of his residence. As such, they are not transportation costs for which he is entitled to reimbursement. It is true that he has deducted from the original invoice the subcontractor's cost for construction of a new shower and shower pan. This relatively small adjustment, however, is far from sufficient. The work description provided with the prime contractor's invoice indicates that this contractor provided services relating to identification of the shower problem and the effecting of repairs. To the extent that these services relate to repair and maintenance, their cost is unallowable. The same must be said for costs associated with testing the engine and carburetor and cleaning of the latter. As to the costs of parts and labor for upgrading the vessel's head, these are certainly not 4 transportation costs, but rather relate to the cost of modifying Mr. Sieling's residence so as to render it compliant with environmental laws in force at the new area where he planned to moor his boat. This same invoice does show charges relating to U-haul boxes ($25.08), a padlock ($4.99), crew charges to pack vessel contents ($195), and shipping charges ($9.30). The explanation provided with the contractor's description of work done supports a conclusion that these costs relate to packing Mr. Sieling's household goods loaded in the houseboat and otherwise securing the vessel. We find that these costs may be allowed as part of the vessel's preparation for shipment. The labor charge shown in the invoice for work done on Mr. Sieling's boat prior to its leaving the Washington, D.C. area is a total figure not broken down according to specific tasks done. From the work description provided by the prime contractor, however, it would appear that some of the services included in that charge may relate to the preparation of the vessel for shipment. We have no objection to some further reimbursement of the claimant for such services based on an agency estimate or on more specific information which Mr. Sieling or his contractor may be able to provide. As to the costs denied by the agency which were allegedly associated with conducting Mr. Sieling's boat to its ultimate destination, we find the agency's denial of the cost of rebuilding the carburetor proper because it involved an unallowable repair cost. We consider the denial of mileage for four trips to the port at Clarkston, however, to be unjustified. The agency imposed on Mr. Sieling the responsibility of personally attending to all arrangements for the shipment of his boat. The final leg of this trek was not a simple matter. It involved unloading and launching the vessel at Clarkston, unpacking household goods, lightening ship, and bringing the boat under its own power to its final anchorage. This was clearly part of the transportation process. Mr. Sieling chose to play an active role in this phase. As the individual with the full responsibility for the move of his residence, he was entirely free to do so. Indeed, the decision was undoubtedly a wise one for, as the experienced owner of the vessel, he, perhaps more than anyone else, could contribute significantly to the efficient and successful conclusion of the boat's transportation to its new location. His four trips to Clarkson were made for good cause and, in all probability, ultimately cost the Government less than what its liability would have been if a competent third party had been retained to provide the services necessary to shift transportation of the boat from an overland to an overwater mode and then pilot the boat to its final location. Mr. Sieling's mileage costs should, therefore, be allowed as a bonafide cost of transporting his residence. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge