Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ___________________________ April 6, 2000 ____________________________ GSBCA 15221-RELO In the Matter of DAVID A. WAAG David A. Waag, Loveland, CO, Claimant. Roland V. Erickson, Fiscal Accounting Manager, Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy, Lakewood, CO, appearing for Department of Energy. PARKER, Board Judge. The Department of Energy (DOE) asks us whether it may pay for the shipment of one canoe (sixteen feet, nine inches long) and one kayak (fifteen feet long) in connection with an employee s relocation. The items were shipped in September 1997 under a Government bill of lading in connection with David Waag s relocation from Montrose, Colorado, to Loveland, Colorado. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that DOE should pay for the shipment. Congress authorized agencies to reimburse transferred employees for the expenses of transporting household goods not in excess of 18,000 pounds net weight. 5 U.S.C. 5724(a)(2) (1994). The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which implements this provision, defines the term household goods as follows: All personal property associated with the home and all personal effects belonging to an employee and the immediate family when shipment or storage begins . . . except the items excluded in this paragraph. Snowmobiles and vehicles with two or three wheels, e.g., motorcycles, mopeds, and golf carts, may be shipped as household goods. The following items are specifically excluded from the definition of household goods: (i) Automobiles, trucks, vans, and similar motor vehicles; boats; airplanes; mobile homes; camper trailers; and farming vehicles[.] 41 CFR 302-1.4(j) (1997). 2 But for the exclusion of boats from the definition, there would be little doubt that canoes and kayaks should be considered to be household goods; both are personal effects belonging to the employee or his family. The question to be answered is whether, by excluding boats from the definition of household goods, the regulation also excludes canoes and kayaks. The Comptroller General, the Board s predecessor in deciding claims for relocation expenses incurred by federal civilian employees, answered the question in two different ways. In one case, he reasoned that because a canoe is, by dictionary definition, a type of boat, the regulations prohibited the Government from shipping it at Government expense. Jay Johnson, B-215629 (Nov. 27, 1984). In a later case, the Comptroller General stated that he would not object if the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) were revised to include small boats and canoes within the definition of household goods. Uniformed Service Members Household Goods Small Boats and Canoes Included, 67 Comp. Gen. 230 (1988). The JFTR, which apply to uniformed members of the military services, were eventually amended to include boats within the definition of household goods. See JFTR app. A (definition of household goods). The FTR, which applies to federal civilian employees, was not changed. We think the second Comptroller General decision is more reasonable. First, it is clear that not all boats are intended to be excluded from the definition of household goods. If the regulation were to be taken literally, a child s toy boat would not be considered to be household goods. A small inflatable raft would be similarly excluded. This could not have been the intent of the regulation writers. On the other hand, large boats -- i.e., the kind that could not fit into a moving van -- would not appear to be household goods. Such boats fit logically on the list with the other large vehicles that are specifically excluded from the definition of household goods: automobiles, trucks, vans, airplanes, mobile homes, etc. In the middle of these two extremes are items such as canoes and kayaks, which fit into a moving van with other household goods, but which may require special handling. Canoes and kayaks strike us as being similar to other items specifically included in the definition of household goods: motorcycles, mopeds and golf carts. These items, like canoes and kayaks, are similar in purpose and function to the excluded items, only smaller. Any special handling requirements would not exceed those of any other unusually-shaped or unusually fragile household goods, such as pianos or antique grandfather clocks. Although we recognize that the dictionary defines canoes and kayaks as types of boats, we do not believe that the definitions should be flatly applied without reference to context. In context -- the FTR s attempt to define the types of 3 goods that Congress mandated be transferred at Government expense -- the fact that something floats on the water is not as important as its purpose, size and shape. Under these criteria, there is no rational reason for excluding canoes and kayaks of reasonable size (i.e., those that can fit into a moving van) from the definition of household goods. We refuse to interpret the FTR in a way which leads to an irrational result. Accordingly, DOE should pay for shipment of the items. _____________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge