Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405




                     _______________________

                          March 3, 2005
                     ________________________


                         GSBCA 16508-TRAV


               In the Matter of NIDAVAN KANASAWADSE


     Nidavan Kanasawadse, Bangkok, Thailand, Claimant.

     Robert Hussey, Chief, Employee Claims Division, Charleston Financial Service
Center, Department of State, North Charleston, SC, appearing for Department of State.

HYATT, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Nidavan Kanasawadse, is a Foreign Service national employed by the
Department of State in Bangkok, Thailand.  In February 2003, she and several co-workers
from her office performed temporary duty in New Delhi, India.  Ms. Kanasawadse was the
senior member from her office group.

     Travel commenced on Sunday, February 23.  The travel orders for all four employees
authorized per diem at the level of $190 per night for lodging and $70 per day for meals and
incidental expenses.  

     Upon arriving at the hotel in New Delhi, Ms. Kanasawadse was advised by the hotel
desk clerk that for the rate of $192.57 per night, she could stay in an upgraded room rather
than in the small room reserved for her at $100 per night .  After considering this offer, she
decided to accept it, reasoning that her temporary assignment in New Delhi was for twelve
days, she expected to spend considerable amounts of time in the room after work hours, the
upgraded room would be significantly more comfortable, and she would only incur a minimal
personal expense above the authorized per diem rate.  Her three co-workers apparently
decided to accept the same offer from the hotel.  

     After her assignment was completed, claimant returned to Bangkok and sought to be
reimbursed her out of pocket expenses.   She submitted a voucher in May 2003.  Two months
later, in July 2003, she was told that her reimbursement for the lodging expense had been
reduced from $190 per night to $100 per night because she should have stayed in the less
expensive room that had been reserved for her.  [Foot # 1 ]  The certifying official explained
that claimant had received an electronic mail message sent just prior to the travel, informing
her of the $100 room reservation, that the upgrade had not been approved in advance by the
Bangkok Financial Service Center (BFSC), and that claimant had not provided any
satisfactory justification for the upgrade.  He further stated that travel expenses could be
approved only to the extent considered "necessary and reasonable" and that the portion of her
claim attributable to the upgraded room expense was not considered necessary or reasonable. 
His memorandum refers to chapter six of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), paragraph
156.2-2.

****************** Footnote Begin **********
[Foot # 1 ]         Claimant tells us that initially the certifying officer proposed to charge
her for the additional costs incurred by the other three travelers because she was the senior
Foreign Service national on the trip and may have unduly influenced the others to accept the
upgrade. This was overruled at a higher level in the organization and claimant was never
asked to pay for the additional costs incurred by her co-workers.  In fact, the other three
travelers were eventually reimbursed for the full amounts claimed. 
****************** Footnote End ************


     Ms. Kanasawadse appealed the certifying officer's ruling within the State Department
to the Employee Claims Branch.  She pointed out that the cable confirming the $100 room
reservation was received after close of business on the Friday preceding the travel and noted
that her travel authorization, issued just prior to the trip, reflected a $190 lodging rate, rather
than $100.  Ms. Kanasawadse notes that had she been apprised in advance that her lodging
reimbursement would be limited to $100 per night, rather than to $190 per night, she would
not have agreed to the upgrade.  She further noted that the reduction of her claim was based
on the provision of the FAM applicable to "Reimbursement of Actual Subsistence Expenses"
and not on the provision pertinent to standard travel.   

     Claimant's formal appeal was denied by the Employee Claims Branch, which advised
her she could appeal to the Board.  The Director of the Office of Disbursing Oversight for
the State Department supports payment of the claim under the circumstances, noting that the
traveler should be paid and the originating office counseled to include any intended
limitations on lodging expenses in travel orders issued in the future.  Ms. Kanasawadse has
appealed the certifying officer's decision, asking to be reimbursed the difference between the
amount she was allowed and the amount of expense she incurred, a total of $1080.

                            Discussion

     The reimbursement of travel expenses of Foreign Service nationals traveling on
temporary duty (TDY) outside the continental United States is regulated by chapter six of the
State Department's FAM.  Claimant's orders were issued under the uniform worldwide
lodgings-plus per diem computation system established in 6 FAM 151.1, under which the
employee receives a fixed allowance for meals and miscellaneous expenses and is reimbursed
for the actual cost of lodging, not to exceed the maximum rate established by regulation for
the particular TDY location.  6 FAM 152.2.

     The FAM allows for a reduced maximum per diem rate under appropriate
circumstances as determined in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation's (FTR's)
provision  301-11.200, which is cross-referenced in FAM 153.1.  FTR 301-11.200 permits
an agency to reduce the maximum allowable per diem rate to an amount that is lower than
the prescribed maximum when the agency has determined in advance that lodging and/or
meal costs will be lower than the per diem rate.  The lower authorized per diem rate,
however, must be stated in the travel orders in advance of travel.  41 CFR 301-11.200 (2003). 

     The Board has recently resolved another travel claim that, for all intents and purposes,
is on all fours with this one.  In that case, a Foreign Service national employee of the
American Embassy in Bangladesh traveled to New Delhi, India, for temporary duty.  This
employee stayed in the discounted $100 room the first night of travel and thereafter, like Ms.
Kanawadase, he upgraded from the $100 per night room to one costing the maximum per
diem lodging amount of $190.  The agency initially reduced his reimbursement to $100 per
night for lodging, reasoning that he had run afoul of the FAM's "prudent person rule."  The
Board rejected the agency's reasoning that the prudent person rule dictated that the traveler
be limited to the cost of the discounted room.  The Board noted that under the lodgings-plus
system a traveler is ordinarily entitled to be paid for expenses within the assigned limits of
that system.  Absent an advance determination that a lower rate will be prescribed, and a
concomitant entry on the travel orders limiting the lodging rate to the lower amount, the
agency in essence is implementing an unauthorized reduction of the prescribed maximum
after the fact.  Arjumand Wohra Khan, GSBCA 16356-TRAV, 04-2 BCA   32,697.  
 
     The certifying official, in concluding that Ms. Kanasawadse's lodging expenses
exceeded reasonable and necessary amounts, erroneously relied on 6 FAM 156.2, a provision
addressing claims for payment of actual expenses in excess of the prescribed lodgings-plus
maximum rates.  This provision pertains to travel to localities where the actual subsistence
expenses necessarily incurred by the employee are higher than the maximums under the
prescribed per diem rates.  In such cases, the employee may be paid for actual costs incurred
in excess of the per diem rate so long as those costs are reasonable and necessary.  This level
of review is not applicable when the employee is seeking nothing more than the amount
recognized to be within the range of expected expense at the locality where TDY is
performed. 

     With respect to Ms. Kanasawadse's claim, her request for reimbursement does not
exceed the maximum amount payable under the lodgings-plus system.  Even if we were to
conclude that the agency effectively determined that a reduced amount should be paid as
reflected by the reservation of the $100 per night room, it did not properly state this
determination on Ms. Kanasawadse's travel orders.  Under the applicable regulations and
precedent, claimant is entitled to be reimbursed an additional $1080 in connection with her
travel.



                                   _________________________________
                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                   Board Judge