PMV and Travel Limits While on TD

[ballz]

The cost comparison is for the travel by POMV to and from the TD location.  That still has to be done.  The policy is quite clear that travel has to be by the most economical means.

That’s entirely incorrect and it’s a myth I’ve been trying to dispel for quite a while now. This is something that has been pushed by RMS Clerks (now HRAs and FSAs) / 1 type officers (Adjutants, G1 / A1 / N1 / J1 types, etc…. variously backgrounds depending on element) and has been absolutely poor advice to Commanders, causing us to screw members many times over.

The policy is quite clear that the approving authority determines the appropriate mode of travel based a long list of factors, cost only being one of them (actually, only half of one of them, as it's "relative cost and efficiency"). The arcs are actually very very very wide open for the approving authority to use his judgement.

CFTDTIs 5.20(2), 6.20(2), and 7.20(2)

(2) (Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s mode — or combination of modes — of transportation on duty travel after consideration of all of the following:

(a) the relative cost and efficiency of available modes of transportation during the duty travel;

(b) the conditions of road transportation and all other modes of transportation — in the duty travel area;

(c) forecasted weather conditions during the duty travel;

(d) the preferred transportation for short, local trips is by bus, taxi, shuttle, and other local transportation services;

(e) the CF’s operational needs;

(f) an intermediate sedan is the standard rental vehicle across government;

(g) the member’s safety and convenience;

(h) the amount of baggage or supplies that the member is required to transport; and

(i) any other factor that is immediately relevant to the duty travel requirement.

If the approving authority determines, given those factors, that the best method is for the method to take their own vehicle at the high-rate, then he *should* request the member to take their POMV and if the member agrees, there is *no* cost-comparison done as the member gets high-rate, the hotels, the meals, etc.

The approving authority does not have the option to ask the member to take their vehicle on a cost-comparison. The purpose of the cost-comparison is if the member decides to request to use their POMV *rather than* the method selected by the approving authority. However, that analysis needs to have been done first, because if the member *ought to have been asked to take his POMV* then he should never have had to make the decision to ask to take his vehicle and take a cost comparison.

Another nuanced point of contention, a cost-comparison is not in any way meant to calculate the most economical means. A cost-comparison is a tool to calculate an amount that a member is entitled to. That may sound like splitting hairs, but it’s not. For example, the cost comparison limits rentals to 2 days on either end but won’t allow you to include fees for returning it to a third location. It also doesn’t allow you to factor in GMT or other mechanisms that might be available to you. It is purely hypothetical for the purpose of calculating an amount to pay a member who has requested to take his vehicle and that’s it. It only comes into play *after* the mode of travel has been selected, and then the member subsequently asks to take their POMV instead.

And there was recently a letter sent out by the Commander Canadian Army to his L2 Comds, which references a letter from DCBA, which also reiterates what I've pointed out above.

 

[ballz]

A CO cannot order someone to use PMV but if someone agrees to using his/her PMV and the CoC agrees it is the “most practical and economical” mean?  I have done that before.

If they decide it's the best method given the circumstances outlined above, they request you to take it, and then if you agree to that request, you get the high-rate of mileage, meals, hotels (if req'd), etc. No cost-comparison.

 

[Pusser]

That’s entirely incorrect and it’s a myth I’ve been trying to dispel for quite a while now. This is something that has been pushed by RMS Clerks (now HRAs and FSAs) / 1 type officers (Adjutants, G1 / A1 / N1 / J1 types, etc…. variously backgrounds depending on element) and has been absolutely poor advice to Commanders, causing us to screw members many times over.

We're actually saying the same thing (so I'm not incorrect). You just went into more detail.  "Most economical" is not the same as "cheapest."  Being economical includes all of the factors you mentioned.  Economy is not just about money.  It includes, efficiency, practicality, etc.  Unfortunately, you are correct that far too many folks (sadly in positions to approve this sort of thing) only consider actual dollar amounts vice all the other factors.

 

[CountDC]

Very true that too often our RMS and now HRA/FSA along with many others continue to focus way too much on the dollars instead of factoring everything in.  While RSS it was not uncommon to have someone mention having a Class A Cpl drive a mbr to the task rather than paying the member PMV because it would be cheaper (their thought was no cost as the mbr wouldn't be claiming the mileage).  I would then do a cost comparison that included pay for the Cpl, gas for the vehicle, meals if applicable.  That usually quickly changed the picture of paying someone $50 to take their own vehicle. The odd occasion it didn't I would then bring up that someone had to find a Cpl to drive, considering recent record for random items this was a task in itself and how much were they paying for someone to go through the unit in an attempt to find someone.  If that didn't end it the final straw was that the unit was now paying at least $200 to save another unit $50.  Yep, the RC Manager for the course or task wasn't paying our driver and gas bill.

Rental vehicles shouldn't have a drop off fee if booked for DND business.   

 

[ballz]

We're actually saying the same thing (so I'm not incorrect). You just went into more detail.  "Most economical" is not the same as "cheapest."  Being economical includes all of the factors you mentioned.  Economy is not just about money.  It includes, efficiency, practicality, etc.  Unfortunately, you are correct that far too many folks (sadly in positions to approve this sort of thing) only consider actual dollar amounts vice all the other factors.

You stated "The cost comparison is for the travel by POMV to and from the TD location.  That still has to be done." That is incorrect. I agree with your definition of economical (although most using that term are referring to cost only, and yes I assumed you were too since you are stating that a cost comparison must be done regardless), but that statement is incorrect, and particularly relevant. Doing that cost-comparison when it's not required can short the member money (particularly before the latest update to the cost comparison when it was limited to 500km each way), cost him/her annual leave, and a host of other benefits. If it is the most economical (using your definition... which I agree with but confuses a lot of people), there is no cost comparison required. The member gets the high-rate, all the travel days req'd, meals, accommodations, etc, the whole nine yards.

I actually don't believe it's the fault of the people approving these things. Well, not entirely. CO's have zero training on this and their only experience is getting their own claims done. If they are told, which they are by the many many many people who are supposed to be their expert advisors, that a cost comparison is required any time the member travels via POMV, then they sign it a cost-comparison and then the member gets whatever is dictated by the cost-comparison. Yes, the CO is responsible for everything but if every CO is making the same mistake, there's a bigger issue.

 

[ballz]

Very true that too often our RMS and now HRA/FSA along with many others continue to focus way too much on the dollars instead of factoring everything in.

That's what they've been trained to do. I explained the difference to my FSAs, showed them the analysis I wanted them to put into it before recommending a mode of travel, they got it and then moved forward with it and all was good. If every HRA / FSA is making this mistake across the CAF, it's the institution that's at fault.

*Note, this is all ignoring the fact that FSAs should not be initiating claims.

Rental vehicles shouldn't have a drop off fee if booked for DND business.

That may be true (wasn't tracking that) but is somewhat irrelevant to the point. I'll give a better example.... the task is 3 weeks long and there is nowhere to drop off the rental vehicle, so you'd keep it for the whole 3 weeks costing, say $1000..... the cost-comparison, as it is purely hypothetical, does not allow for that consideration. It's based on having a rental car for 2 days there and 2 days back, totaling to $200, even though that was never an actual option.

 

[ballz]

While RSS it was not uncommon to have someone mention having a Class A Cpl drive a mbr to the task rather than paying the member PMV because it would be cheaper (their thought was no cost as the mbr wouldn't be claiming the mileage).

The Reg Force does this as well, and it's also in many ways wrong. Yes, it is incrementally cheaper on your budget, but time is not free and that kind of thinking wastes valuable time. Just one Corporal's 8-10 hours day may not seem like a big waste of time, but multiply it across the entire force...

 

[Pusser]

You stated "The cost comparison is for the travel by POMV to and from the TD location.  That still has to be done." That is incorrect. I agree with your definition of economical (although most using that term are referring to cost only, and yes I assumed you were too since you are stating that a cost comparison must be done regardless), but that statement is incorrect, and particularly relevant. Doing that cost-comparison when it's not required can short the member money (particularly before the latest update to the cost comparison when it was limited to 500km each way), cost him/her annual leave, and a host of other benefits. If it is the most economical (using your definition... which I agree with but confuses a lot of people), there is no cost comparison required. The member gets the high-rate, all the travel days req'd, meals, accommodations, etc, the whole nine yards.

I actually don't believe it's the fault of the people approving these things. Well, not entirely. CO's have zero training on this and their only experience is getting their own claims done. If they are told, which they are by the many many many people who are supposed to be their expert advisors, that a cost comparison is required any time the member travels via POMV, then they sign it a cost-comparison and then the member gets whatever is dictated by the cost-comparison. Yes, the CO is responsible for everything but if every CO is making the same mistake, there's a bigger issue.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.  Although we both recognize that there are a number of factors involved in making the decision, the fact remains that cost is a factor.  It may only be one factor, but it is still a factor.  No member should ever be out of pocket for doing their job, but neither is it reasonable to expect the Crown to pay extra for a member's convenience or desire.  For a variety of reasons, commercial transportation can often be cheaper than POMV travel.  If that is the case, then if the member chooses POMV, their reimbursement should reasonably be limited to what the commercial transportation would have cost.  In fact, CANFORGEN 098/19 says exactly that:

2. AS PER REF B, WHEN A CAF MBR REQUESTS AND IS AUTHORIZED TO USE PMV RATHER THAN THE MORE ECONOMICAL AND PRACTICAL MODE OF TRANSPORTATION, THE MBR IS ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED THE LESSER OF:

A. THE HIGHER KILOMETRIC RATE FOR COMPLETE DIRECT ROAD DISTANCE TO AND FROM THE TD LOCATION, AND

B THE COST OF THE MORE ECONOMICAL AND PRACTICAL MODE OF TRANSPORTATION


Without doing the cost comparison, how are you going to know?

 

[Lumber]

Without doing the cost comparison, how are you going to know?

Because there is a difference between doing a cost comparison, and doing a "cost comparison".

What I mean is this: it is make prudent financial and business sense to do up a rough cost comparison in order to determine what the relative costs of different modes of transportation. You takes those numbers and lumbs them in with all the other factors listed in the TDTIs, and decide upon the method of travel. In THIS process, there are no formal rules. You can do your cost comparison using an excel spreadsheet or a cocktail napkin. You can use google flights or HRG.

On the other hand, when an approving authority selects a method of travel that is NOT pomv, and the member elects to take pomv anyway, then there is an OFFICIAL "cost comparison" sheet that must be filled out. That sheet has particular rules surrounding it, and once it is filled out and signed, then it becomes "locked in" and the member can't receive anymore than what was included in the cost comparison worksheet.

So, if I'm supposed to be flying to Quebec city from Halifax for a conference, but I want to take some leave and drive there, my CoC might do up a "rough" cost comparison and see if driving is actually a suitable method of travel. They would not be using the cost comparison work sheet for this purpose. If, however, they determine that driving does not make sense (based on ALL the factors), and I want to drive anyway, then they would whip out the formal cost comparison work sheet, and I'd only be eligible to receive the amount calculated on that worksheet, no matter the actual costs.

 

[Pusser]

Because there is a difference between doing a cost comparison, and doing a "cost comparison".

What I mean is this: it is make prudent financial and business sense to do up a rough cost comparison in order to determine what the relative costs of different modes of transportation. You takes those numbers and lumbs them in with all the other factors listed in the TDTIs, and decide upon the method of travel. In THIS process, there are no formal rules. You can do your cost comparison using an excel spreadsheet or a cocktail napkin. You can use google flights or HRG.

On the other hand, when an approving authority selects a method of travel that is NOT pomv, and the member elects to take pomv anyway, then there is an OFFICIAL "cost comparison" sheet that must be filled out. That sheet has particular rules surrounding it, and once it is filled out and signed, then it becomes "locked in" and the member can't receive anymore than what was included in the cost comparison worksheet.

So, if I'm supposed to be flying to Quebec city from Halifax for a conference, but I want to take some leave and drive there, my CoC might do up a "rough" cost comparison and see if driving is actually a suitable method of travel. They would not be using the cost comparison work sheet for this purpose. If, however, they determine that driving does not make sense (based on ALL the factors), and I want to drive anyway, then they would whip out the formal cost comparison work sheet, and I'd only be eligible to receive the amount calculated on that worksheet, no matter the actual costs.

Except that there is no "official" cost comparison worksheet.  The one everybody uses was made up by somebody at DCBA (or they endorsed it).  Hence CANFORGEN 098/19, which essentially tells DCBA (again) to stop enforcing what they THINK should be policy, vice actual policy...

 

[Navy_Pete]

So question on CANFORGEN 098/19; it lifts the 500 km limit, but the CFTDI still says you won't be expected to drive more than 500 km a day, and the annex you sign says you are on annual leave for the drive, and you are only reimbursed for the first day of travel.

Does that not still effectively limit the reimbursement to 500km each way?  Also, if the options are drive down in a rental vs drive down in a PMV, am I suddenly taking leave for the trip down if I take my PMV for anything after 500km?  I think it says the first day of travel and return is duty, which seems reasonable but not going to take a day of annual and split my travel into two days for a 560 km one way trip.

Think I will ditch my plan for taking a PMV and some in area leave after the trip, and just do it on my own time later.  CAF seems to excel at making straightforward things complicated.  Looks like I'll be taking the train down to Union Station in Toronto and driving from there.

Here's the excerpt from Annex A of the CFTDI;

2. I hereby acknowledge the reimbursement of the transportation and traveling expenses, in accordance with ref will be limited to the cost of the most economical and practical method of travel as per the cost comparison worksheet attached. I further understand that I will be permitted to travel by PMV on TD or Att Posting provided I have sufficient leave to enable this trip to be made safely. Utilizing the daily kilometrage maximum of one calendar day of paid leave for each 500 km traveled. The day of departure to the TD location and the first day of the return journey will be considered as duty. One additional day is required if the distance traveled on the last day is more than 150 km but less than 500 km.

 

[ModlrMike]

The CFTDI doesn't actually set a limit of 500km. What I read is that in order to calculate how much leave you need to make the journey, each day is capped at 500km. I've made longer daily drives without issue.

 

[QV]

Only the CAF could complicate something as simple as taking your own car vs a bus/plane/taxi. 

 

[CountDC]

. One additional day is required if the distance traveled on the last day is more than 150 km but less than 500 km.

You get the full mileage or the approved MOT, which ever is cheaper on the cost comparison.  The limitation is that the unit cannot tell you to drive over 500 kms, you can choose to drive as far as you want.

For a trip of 560 km you don't need a leave pass.  Per the part you posted it has to exceed 650 kms before the leave becomes an issue.

 

[ballz]

Because there is a difference between doing a cost comparison, and doing a "cost comparison".

Yes, which is why everybody needs to stop using the term "cost comparison" which refer to a specific, official, instrument with a specific purpose (which is ironically not for comparing costs... they could have saved a lot of BS by calling it "POMV (Member's Request) Amount Calculator" which is what it is). It bleeds into stuff because we start using the words "cost comparison" every time some kind of cost estimate needs to get done, such as SLTA for disembarkation leave, and then people start literally trying to calculate SLTA based on the CFTDTI cost comparison sheet.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.  Although we both recognize that there are a number of factors involved in making the decision, the fact remains that cost is a factor.  It may only be one factor, but it is still a factor.  No member should ever be out of pocket for doing their job, but neither is it reasonable to expect the Crown to pay extra for a member's convenience or desire.  For a variety of reasons, commercial transportation can often be cheaper than POMV travel.  If that is the case, then if the member chooses POMV, their reimbursement should reasonably be limited to what the commercial transportation would have cost.  In fact, CANFORGEN 098/19 says exactly that:

2. AS PER REF B, WHEN A CAF MBR REQUESTS AND IS AUTHORIZED TO USE PMV RATHER THAN THE MORE ECONOMICAL AND PRACTICAL MODE OF TRANSPORTATION, THE MBR IS ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED THE LESSER OF:

A. THE HIGHER KILOMETRIC RATE FOR COMPLETE DIRECT ROAD DISTANCE TO AND FROM THE TD LOCATION, AND

B THE COST OF THE MORE ECONOMICAL AND PRACTICAL MODE OF TRANSPORTATION


Without doing the cost comparison, how are you going to know?

You've made the mistake I stated earlier, skipping the analysis and determining whether or not the member should be requested to take their POMV as the bet mode of travel. You are citing from "POMV (Member Requests" automatically because a POMV is involved, without realizing there are two different POMV options. One is requesting the member to take it, the other is the member requesting to take it. They are administered differently and the benefits are different. The former does NOT require a cost comparison because you've already done the analysis (including costs) and determined it was the best method, the latter requires the cost comparison because you determined something else was better but the member wants to take their POMV anyway.

See attached flow chart.

Except that there is no "official" cost comparison worksheet.  The one everybody uses was made up by somebody at DCBA (or they endorsed it).  Hence CANFORGEN 098/19, which essentially tells DCBA (again) to stop enforcing what they THINK should be policy, vice actual policy...

Yes there is. IAW CFTDTIs, the TB authorizes the CDS to determine a method in which the member can waive their benefits (transportation, meals, accommodations, etc.) and travel via POMV at their request instead. CDS delegated that to DGCB and the method they determined was the official cost comparison sheet. The grievance was won because DCBA *modified* the official cost-comparison *without the authority to do so* when they imposed the 500km limit in each direction.

Ref CFTDTI 7.41 para 3

3.(Cost Comparison) The cost comparison required under paragraph 7.40(2)(a)(ii) shall be calculated in a manner determined by and on a form issued by the DGCB.

Note. Para 7.40(2)(a)(ii) is when a member requests to use their POMV.... it is *not* when a member is requested to use their POMV.

 

[ballz]

So question on CANFORGEN 098/19; it lifts the 500 km limit, but the CFTDI still says you won't be expected to drive more than 500 km a day, and the annex you sign says you are on annual leave for the drive, and you are only reimbursed for the first day of travel.

Does that not still effectively limit the reimbursement to 500km each way?

No. This exactly what DCBA's mistake was and why they put the 500km limit each way, and exactly what the Grievance Authority stated was clearly wrong. That's taking a separate part of the policy and applying it where it does not exist / does not belong. You calculate the amount in the official cost-comparison an whatever number it spits out, that's what you get reimbursed. No further thought needs to be applied.

Also, if the options are drive down in a rental vs drive down in a PMV, am I suddenly taking leave for the trip down if I take my PMV for anything after 500km?  I think it says the first day of travel and return is duty, which seems reasonable but not going to take a day of annual and split my travel into two days for a 560 km one way trip.

It has always been the case that if you request to use your POMV instead of the method selected by the approving authority, that you would only receive 1 travel day each way and require some form of leave to cover off the remaining days req'd (based on 500km/day, the last day being up to 650km). It's asinine but that part hasn't changed.

If you're taking a rental, it's because that's the method picked by the approving authority, so that doesn't apply. If it's a 1000km trip, you get 2x travel days.

 

[Pusser]

Yes, which is why everybody needs to stop using the term "cost comparison" which refer to a specific, official, instrument with a specific purpose (which is ironically not for comparing costs... they could have saved a lot of BS by calling it "POMV (Member's Request) Amount Calculator" which is what it is). It bleeds into stuff because we start using the words "cost comparison" every time some kind of cost estimate needs to get done, such as SLTA for disembarkation leave, and then people start literally trying to calculate SLTA based on the CFTDTI cost comparison sheet.

You've made the mistake I stated earlier, skipping the analysis and determining whether or not the member should be requested to take their POMV as the bet mode of travel. You are citing from "POMV (Member Requests" automatically because a POMV is involved, without realizing there are two different POMV options. One is requesting the member to take it, the other is the member requesting to take it. They are administered differently and the benefits are different. The former does NOT require a cost comparison because you've already done the analysis (including costs) and determined it was the best method, the latter requires the cost comparison because you determined something else was better but the member wants to take their POMV anyway.

See attached flow chart.

Yes there is. IAW CFTDTIs, the TB authorizes the CDS to determine a method in which the member can waive their benefits (transportation, meals, accommodations, etc.) and travel via POMV at their request instead. CDS delegated that to DGCB and the method they determined was the official cost comparison sheet. The grievance was won because DCBA *modified* the official cost-comparison *without the authority to do so* when they imposed the 500km limit in each direction.

Ref CFTDTI 7.41 para 3
Note. Para 7.40(2)(a)(ii) is when a member requests to use their POMV.... it is *not* when a member is requested to use their POMV.

Although perhaps poorly named, we're stuck with the term "cost comparison."

I was nor referring in any way to a circumstance where the CO requests a member to use POMV.  That is pretty straightforward - member is reimbursed 100% of total road distance PLUS meals for the time it takes, PLUS any required accommodations en route.  I have only been talking about cases where the member requests to take their POMV.

It doesn't matter what DCBA tries to call it, their Cost Comparison Worksheet is NOT an official form.  It's an Excel spreadsheet that somebody made up.  Without a CF/DND form number, it's not an official form.  Any OR could modify it or design their own as long as it accomplishes the same thing.  They could even call it a "POMV Request (Member Request) Amount Calculator" if they want to.

 

[ballz]

It doesn't matter what DCBA tries to call it, their Cost Comparison Worksheet is NOT an official form.  It's an Excel spreadsheet that somebody made up.  Without a CF/DND form number, it's not an official form.  Any OR could modify it or design their own as long as it accomplishes the same thing.  They could even call it a "POMV Request (Member Request) Amount Calculator" if they want to.

The fact that it is not an "official" form is so irrelevant I can't even believe you are making that argument. That cost-comparison sheet, whether its on excel, the forms catalog, or a napkin, is the "manner determined by and on a form issued by the DGCB" as per CFTDTI 7.41 para 3. Making it an "official" form so its available on the forms catalog instead of posted on DCBA's website is a good approach but not at all necessary. Otherwise what you're saying is DGCB has literally failed to complete this task for 4+ years now, simply because it didn't get the cost-comparison sheet made into an "official" form. It's a bit ludicrous.

I was nor referring in any way to a circumstance where the CO requests a member to use POMV.  That is pretty straightforward - member is reimbursed 100% of total road distance PLUS meals for the time it takes, PLUS any required accommodations en route.  I have only been talking about cases where the member requests to take their POMV.

Which brings us back to the original question. Why did you necessitate the cost-comparison?

Without knowing the distances involved, the time of the task, etc., I can't know for sure... but it appears to me that Navy Pete's scenario could be a great of example of when the CO should be requesting the member to take their POMV, rather than paying for 2x 20m taxi rides per day for the entire task.

And the problem is, and the reason I'm all over this... is the CO probably doesn't even realize that's an option and so isn't considering that option. Or, more accurately..... the clerk that's doing the staff work on this doesn't realize that's an option, and the CO is just signing whatever is put in front of him.

 

[Lumber]

And the problem is, and the reason I'm all over this... is the CO probably doesn't even realize that's an option and so isn't considering that option. Or, more accurately..... the clerk that's doing the staff work on this doesn't realize that's an option, and the CO is just signing whatever is put in front of him.

I agree with everything you've said ballz, and I'll even go a step further and say the reverse is somewhat true. I've worked with clerks who are so set in there ways thta they don't even know who the "approving authority" is and don't realize there are more options than the cheapest option, or whatever method their particular claims office has been using for the past few years.

 

[CountDC]

let's add more fun to this one.

CFTDTI's 7.41-driver-administration

9.(Class A Reserve Service) A member of the Reserve Force, who requests to use their PMV on duty travel, shall be placed on Class A Reserve Service on the first day of travel to or from a destination and shall not be authorized any subsequent Class A Reserve Service for any subsequent days of that duty travel to or from that location

As I am sure everyone knows DCBA has pushed that a Class A Reserve can not be authorized PMV higher than the 500km limit unless they will earn enough leave while on TD and the hiring unit authorizes it.  Reading this section of the CFTDTI I disagree.  Seems straight forward enough to me, put on Class A day one and then no more pay until the start of the task/TD.  For example mbrs TD is 1500kms and course starts 4 May ends 15 Jul.  Class A 1 May (day one of travel) nothing 2 and 3 May, Class B pay starts 4 May.  Course ends 15 Jul along with Class B pay, Class A 16 Jul and all done.  When the mbr actually travels don't care as long as he is there to start 4 May. 

Perhaps someone here can help with this one.  I recall before where a factor in granting a member transportation expenses home for a break while on TD was allowed if it was determined that it was cost effective.  Believe it had to do with showing that the transportation back and forth was comparable to expenses paid if mbr stayed at the TD location.  This holiday block leave is a perfect example - pay mbrs tpt home vice meals and incidentals at TD location.  Maybe just me having a bad day but can't find it anywhere.