Board of Contract Appeals

                    General Services Administration

                         Washington, D.C. 20405

 

 

 

                                                   

 

                           February 23, 2000

                                                   

 

 

                            GSBCA 15199-RELO

 

 

                   In the Matter of GEORGE W. CURRIE

 

 

        George W. Currie, Lexington, KY, Claimant.

 

        Donald  M.  Suica  and  David  A.  Ingold,  Office of  Chief

   Counsel, Internal  Revenue Service, Washington, DC, appearing for

   Department of the Treasury.

 

   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

 

        When the Internal  Revenue Service (IRS)  transferred George

   W. Currie from New  York to Kentucky, it had  his household goods

   shipped by Government bill of lading.   The mover engaged by  the

   agency  to  transport  the  goods  estimated  that  Mr.  Currie's

   belongings weighed 18,000  pounds.  When the goods  were shipped,

   they were  found to weigh  somewhat more than the  estimate.  The

   agency  demanded that  Mr.  Currie  pay for  the  portion of  the

   shipment attributable to the weight  in excess of 18,000  pounds.

   Mr. Currie asked the IRS to absorb this cost.  The agency refused

   to do so.

 

        Mr. Currie has  asked us to  review the IRS's decision.   He

   offers two  justifications for his  position:  first,  the agency

   did not advise him, in advance of the move, that he might have to

   pay for shipping  some of his belongings; and  second, the agency

   should be  responsible for  all costs  attributable to  weight in

   excess of the estimate made by the carrier, since the carrier was

   hired  by the agency.  Mr. Currie says  that if he had been told,

   before  moving, that  he might have  to pay some  of the shipping

   costs, he would have sold or given away items whose weight caused

   him to be liable for payment.

 

        The agency's continuing  determination that the employee  is

   responsible  for  the payment  is  in  accord  with  statute  and

   regulation.  Congress has limited the Government's obligation for

   costs  of  moving  a transferred  employee's  belongings  to "the

   expenses of transporting, packing,  crating, temporarily storing,

   draying, and unpacking  his household goods and  personal effects

   not  in  excess   of  18,000  pounds  net  weight."     5  U.S.C.

     5724(a)(2)  (1994)  (emphasis  added).    The   Federal  Travel

   Regulation  provides that  "when  the  weight  of  an  employee's

   household  goods exceeds the maximum weight limitation, the total

   quantity may  be shipped on a Government  bill of lading, but the

   employee  shall  reimburse   the  Government  for  the   cost  of

   transportation  and  other  charges  applicable   to  the  excess

   weight."    41  CFR  302-8.3(b)(5)  (1999).    These  rules   are

   uncompromising; they  prohibit  the Government  from  paying  for

   shipment  of an  employee's  goods in  excess  of 18,000  pounds.

   Robert K. Boggs,  GSBCA 14948-RELO, 99-2  BCA   30,491; Linda  D.

   Brainard, GSBCA 14598-RELO,  98-2 BCA   30,104; Jayme  A. Norris,

   GSBCA 13663-RELO, 97-2 BCA   29,049.

 

 

        We have often  been asked to provide relief,  for one reason

   or another, from this restriction.   Our position has always been

   the same: we may  not do so.  Michael J.  Kunk, GSBCA 14721-RELO,

   99-1 BCA   30,164 (1998)  (citing numerous decisions).  The  fact

   that  a  mover  estimated  that  the  weight  of  the  employee's

   belongings would not  exceed 18,000  pounds does  not affect  the

   result.  "[E]rroneous or inaccurate advice by . . . third parties

   cannot bind the Government to spend money in violation of statute

   or  regulation."  Keith D.  Weverstad, GSBCA 14366-RELO, 98-1 BCA

     29,438  (1997).     Additionally,  "inadequate   counseling  or

   erroneous  advice by  the agency  does  not provide  a basis  for

   relieving  an employee from liability for exceeding the statutory

   weight  limit."   Charles S.  Wayman, GSBCA 14338-RELO,  99-1 BCA

     30,169 (1998).

 

        Mr. Currie's argument that if  he had known the agency would

   not pay the whole  bill for the shipment, he would  have disposed

   of  enough goods  to  lower the  weight  to no  more than  18,000

   pounds, is not well taken,  either.  Relocating federal employees

   are  expected to  use the same  care in incurring  expenses to be

   reimbursed by the Government as they would in incurring  expenses

   to be paid by themselves.   If goods with excess weight were  not

   appropriate for shipment  at the claimant's expense,  they should

   not have been shipped at all.  Wendy Castineira, GSBCA 15092-RELO

   (Dec.  14, 1999); Nicholas  R. Delaplane, GSBCA  14961-RELO, 99-2

   BCA   30,489.

 

 

 

                                 _________________________

                                 STEPHEN M. DANIELS 

                                 Board Judge