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

                                        
________________________________________

September 24, 1998
________________________________________


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 seeks reconsideration of our rulings on two issues
in our decision in Keith D. Weverstad, GSBCA 14366-RELO, 98-1 BCA
 29,435.  That matter primarily concerned  claimant's request
for relief from his debt to the Government incurred in shipping
more than eighteen thousand pounds of goods in connection with
his permanent change of station move from Washington to Minneso-
ta.   In addition, claimant contested the mo-
ver's charges for a shuttle used to move goods between claimant's
house in Washington, located at the end of a two-mile long
unimproved dirt road, and the moving trucks.  The moving company
concluded that its moving truck could not safely negotiate the
unimproved road, and the agency authorized the extra charge.   
Claimant maintained that he was charged by the mover for packing
boxes which claimant maintains he packed himself.  As to the
shuttle issue, we concluded that the agency did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that the extra service was warranted.  
On the packing, we noted that the mover made monetary adjustments
in the bill and that claimant had not shown he was entitled to
more.

     As for the shuttle, claimant correctly notes that the
shuttle was used at the beginning of the move in Washington, not,
as we had thought, at the end of the move in Minnesota.  We
misunderstood the shuttle's location, but that does not change
the result.  Our rules provide that mere disagreement with a
decision on points already made and rearguments of old evidence
are not sufficient grounds for reconsideration of the decision. 
Rule 407; George E. Lingle, GSBCA 13946-TRAV, 98-1 BCA  29,439. 
Claimant's argument that the shuttle was not necessary is no more
convincing on the second telling than it was the first time. 
Claimant has not established that he has better knowledge than
the moving company of the safety and performance constraints of
the moving company's trucks.       

     The packing issue deserves expanded treatment because in our
original opinion, we addressed the matter briefly in a footnote. 
Claimant points to attachment one to his claim in establishing
that he packed twenty-five barrels, dish-packs and drums, seventy
cartons of less than three cubic feet in dimension, and ten
corrugated containers.   He applies movers' packing rates and
asserts he is due $1,791.25 as a refund because he, not the
movers,  packed those boxes.  The agency notes, however, that
attachment one is simply the mover's statement of the number of
containers supplied to the claimant, and is not evidence of how
many boxes and crates claimant packed.  The mover's statement of
additional services provided by the agency, which was signed by
claimant at the destination after the move, shows that the mover
provided claimant five hundred  eighteen cartons, barrels and
crates, and that the mover packed four hundred and forty of those
items, with the claimant packing seventy-eight.  

     Claimant also states that the mover erroneously charged
claimant for packing about one hundred fifty additional personal
cartons and one hundred book cartons, because claimant packed the
cartons.  Claimant maintains he is due a refund for those cartons
totaling $3125.  The amount of boxes, crates and barrels claimant
maintains he packed is based on speculation and guesswork.  The
agency analysis of the Government Bill of Lading shows that the
mover moved five hundred ninety-nine boxes; the record establish-
es that the mover packed four hundred forty of those boxes. 
Claimant overestimated the number of boxes, barrels and crates he
himself packed.  In our original decision, we noted that the
mover made a goodwill adjustment of $2853 to account for the
extraordinary circumstances of the move and a further adjustment
of $1272 for the alleged discrepancy in boxes.  Claimant has not
established he is entitled to a greater adjustment from the
Government.  

                            Decision

     Upon reconsideration, the result remains the same. 



__________________________
ANTHONY S. BORWICK
Board Judge