________________________________________ December 2, 1997 ________________________________________ GSBCA 14366-RELO In the Matter of KEITH D. WEVERSTAD Keith D. Weverstad, Burnsville, MN, Claimant. Timothy H. Hamilton, Chief, Accounting Operations Branch, Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of the Interior. BORWICK, Board Judge. Claimant, Keith D. Weverstad, an employee of the Department of the Interior, seeks relief from the debt incurred for the costs of moving more than 18,000 pounds during his permanent change of station (PCS). For the reasons stated below, we conclude claimant is not entitled to relief. Claimant was authorized a PCS move from Spokane, Washington, to Minneapolis, Minnesota. In connection with the move, he was authorized reimbursement of expenses incurred in shipping and storing household goods (HHG). Claimant shipped his HHG by government bill of lading (GBL). Before the move, claimant was advised of the weight limit of 18,000 pounds for reimbursement. Also, prior to the move, the mover came to estimate the weight of the items, and noted that claimant desired to move unusual items: a taxidermy collection (including a full body stuffed bear), three motorcycles, a motorcycle trailer, an anvil, ore, petrified wood, a J.D. plow, a mannon mill, tires, a compressor, and many boxes of books. Claimant packed about 8,000 books. The mover's surveyor advised the agency's travel service that claimant's move was the most difficult he had ever encountered. The mover estimated the weight to be 25,000 pounds. He based his estimate on three separate standard estimating method- ologies: the shipment's estimated cubic feet times a weight factor of seven pounds per cubic foot; the total number of pieces (plus fifteen percent of the total) times forty pounds per piece, and the total cubic feet of the shipment (minus book cartons) times seven pounds per cubic foot, plus a separate allowance for the book cartons. In every case the weight estimate came within ten percent of the original 25,000 pound estimate. Claimant maintains that upon being advised of the estimate "he proceeded to dispose of many items that had been included in the weight estimate." Claimant does not provide a further description of the items disposed of or the weight of those items. The mover reports that claimant decided not to move 10,000 feet of computer cable, a horse-drawn carriage, a portable garage, a second plow, carpeting, windows, and a forge. These items were not included in the original estimate of 25,000 pounds. Claimant says that the day the packers arrived, they estimated the weight to be 21,000 pounds. The move involved approximately 600 cartons and weighed, according to the GBL, 36,140 pounds. Claimant's house in Minne- sota sits at the end of a two-mile-long primitive dirt road, usually traversed by logging trucks. Due to the weight of the contents and the condition of the road, the driver was concerned about the possibility of damage to the truck and its contents if he attempted to drive up the road. The moving company sought and received permission from the Government to use auxiliary shuttle service to move claimant's HHG from the foot of the road to claimant's house. The billing amount on the GBL was $19,805.04. The mover made an adjustment of $1,272 to account for a discrepancy in the number of cartons that the mover identified as mover-packed, but that claimant said he packed himself. The charge for the auxil- iary shuttle and associated labor was $3,800.40. The total charge (including the credit of $1,272) was $21,814.68. Taking 50.19% (the percent of the shipment's weight which exceeded 18,000 pounds) the total debt was $10,948.79. The mover made a goodwill adjustment of $2,853 to account for the extraordinary circumstances of the move, leaving an incurred charge of $8,- 095.79for which theagency held theclaimant responsible.[foot #] 1 Statute authorizes an agency to pay for transportation of HHG and personal effects not in excess of 18,000 pounds net weight when an employee is transferred in the interest of the Government from one duty station to another. 5 U.S.C. 5724(a)- (2) (1994). The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides that "the maximum weight of household goods that may be transported or stored at Government expense is limited to 18,000 pounds net ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 In this regard, the calculation was overly generous to claimant as it gave claimant the full benefit of the goodwill adjustment. The agency should have reserved 49.81% of the goodwill adjustment for itself, which would have resulted in a debt of $9,515.86. ($21,814.68 - $2,853 = $18,961.68. $18,961.68 x .5019 = $9,516.86.) ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- weight for all employees." 41 CFR 302-8.2(a) (1994). The FTR also provides: If [HHG] in excess of the weight allowable under this regulation are shipped on a [GBL] . . . the employee shall promptly upon completion of the shipment pay the proper agency official for the excess cost. The excess cost shall be computed from the total charges according to the ratio of excess weight to the total weight of the shipment. 41 CFR 302-8.4(e)(2). Claimant maintains that he should not have to pay for the excess weight of his shipment because the mover's estimate was lower than the actual weight of the shipment. He also maintains that he should not have to pay for the cost of the shuttle, because it was an unnecessary expense. Claimant does not contest that the correct weight of the shipment was 36,140 pounds. On this point he states in his submission to the Board that: "I am not disputing the weight of 36,1[4]0 pounds. I have no way of knowing what the actual weight was, and am not qualified to even venture a guess." The limit of 18,000 pounds is statutorily based. A certi- fied net weight appearing on a GBL cannot be lightly set aside. Such a statement of weight controls in the absence of clear and substantial evidence of error or fraud. Estimates by drivers, packers, inspectors or owners, are not sufficient to invalidate a weight certificate. Jayme A. Norris, GSBCA 13663-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,049. Further, an estimate is only an approximation; it is settled that erroneous or inaccurate advice by Government offi- cials or, for that matter, by third parties cannot bind the Government to spend money in violation of statute or regulation. Michael L. Martin, GSBCA 13821-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,142. Claimant also alleges the shuttle service was unnecessary. The agency acted reasonably in authorizing the shuttle service in light of the weight of the shipment and the condition of the dirt road accessing claimant's residence. The shuttle service was necessary both to protect the driver and his truck from harm and to protect the contents of the shipment from damage. The agency did not abuse its discretion in authorizing the service and the cost of the service was therefore properly included in the GBL and the cost pool from which the debt of $8,095.79 was estab- lished.[foot #] 2 The claim is denied. __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 Claimant complains that the mover charged for packing boxes that claimant actually packed. The agency mover deducted $1,272 from the Government's bill for that discrepancy. Claimant has not shown he is entitled to further relief.