Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________ December 4 , 1998 ________________________________ GSBCA 14478-RELO In the Matter of MARK E. SCHNEIDER Mark E. Schneider, Northfield, MN, Claimant. Ronald L. Page, Manager, External Relations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Transportation. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has requested our decision on whether, in calculating an employee's liability for transporting household goods in excess of 18,000 pounds, the total charges of shipment should include charges for "auxiliary van and time needed for the loading crew to shuttle household goods between the moving van and the residence." Claimant argues that the calculation of his liability for the excess weight should exclude these two charges because they did not relate to the excess weight. We disagree. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) prescribes a formula for calculating an employee's liability for excess weight predicated on the actual net excess weight as a percentage of the total charges of shipment. There is no legal basis for excluding auxiliary van and shuttle charges from the total charges of shipment since these charges were actually incurred and related to shipping all of claimant's household goods. Background Claimant was authorized a permanent change of station (PCS) move from Washington, D.C., to Farmington, Minnesota, effective April 30, 1997, with a reporting date of June 6, 1997. In conjunction with his PCS, claimant was authorized to ship his household goods at a maximum weight of 18,000 pounds under a Government bill of lading (GBL). On August 29, 1997, under GBL WP499532, claimant shipped his household goods from Stafford, Virginia, to Eden Prairie, Minnesota. According to the GBL, the weight of the shipment was 23,120 pounds. The GBL included the following charges: Line haul: $15,432.00 Fuel surcharge: 151.23 Additional transportation, origin: 219.64 Additional transportation, destination: 601.12 Container charges: 3430.90 Grandfather clock: 34.90 Packing (cubic foot crates): 4414.65 Auxiliary van: 460.20 Twelve hours extra labor (shuttle): 1305.00 One piano/organ: 78.65 After applying a "bottom line discount" to all charges except the fuel surcharge, the total charge to the Government was $12,879.99. The FAA accounting office paid the carrier but billed claimant in the amount of $2852.92 for the excess weight of 5120 pounds. The agency, following the General Accounting Office's (GAO's) decision in Genesh C. Bhuyan, B-202906 (Sept. 15, 1982), computed the excess weight on the full billing amount, which included the auxiliary van and extra labor services. Specifically, the FAA computed the charges using the following ratio: Step 1: Excess Weight 5120 Total Weight = Ratio to be applied 23,120 = .2215 Step 2: Ratio x Total Charges = Employee's .2215 x $12,879.99 = $2852.92 liability for the movement of the household goods Claimant argues that two of the charges -- those for an auxiliary van and extra labor -- should not have been included in the "total charges" in this computation because they were not "applicable" to the excess weight. Specifically, claimant argues: These charges are not related to the weight of the shipment but are a direct result of the inability of the large moving van to navigate the streets and driveway at our previous residence. These charges should not be computed into the overage charges on the weight. The excess weight charges are a direct result of the shipment of tools (woodworking equipment) that were part of my household goods. Once the shuttle and auxiliary van charges are backed out of the overall bill, then the ratios of excess weight should be applied to the balance and I will be happy to reimburse for the overage with the new calculations. The issue which the agency has asked us to resolve is whether the charges for the auxiliary van and the additional labor hours relating to the shuttle should be included in the total charges when applying the formula to determine claimant's liability for the excess weight. Discussion The FTR, at 41 CFR 302-8.3(b)(5) (1996), describes the procedure to be followed in determining the charges payable by the employee for the excess weight of household goods when the actual expense method of shipment is used. That paragraph provides: (5) Excess weight procedures. 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, computed from the total charges according to the ratio of excess weight to the total weight of the shipment. In the instant case, claimant contends that the charges attributable to the auxiliary van and the time needed for the loading crew to shuttle household goods between the moving van and his residence are not "applicable to the excess weight." Thus, claimant contends that these costs should be subtracted from the total charges before his liability for the excess weight is determined.[foot #] 1 The Comptroller General has explained that the excess weight charge computation provided in the FTR is predicated on the actual net excess weight as a percentage of the total charges of the shipment. John A. Byrd, 64 Comp. Gen. 59 (1984). The Comptroller General elaborated: "Charges that would be assessed even if the shipment did not exceed the [weight] limitation are to be included in the total charges." 64 Comp. Gen. at 62. Applying this rationale to the instant case, we conclude that the charges for the auxiliary van and the additional time for the loading crew to shuttle the household goods would have been assessed even if the shipment did not exceed the weight limitation. Thus, there is no basis to eliminate these charges from the "total charges" in the computation. Similarly, in Brenda B. Barker, B-266192 (June 5, 1996), the Comptroller ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Under claimant's methodology, $1765.20 would be deducted from $12,879.99, yielding $11,114.79 as the revised total charges to be multiplied by .2215, resulting in liability of $2461.92 instead of the $2852.92 claimed by the agency. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- General held that the total charges for determining excess weight include packing, destination, and container charges as well as "other charges applicable to the excess weight." In the instant case, the charges for the auxiliary van and the shuttle were attributable to the shipment from the old duty station to the new duty station. Claimant has not attempted to argue that the portion of household goods to which the excess weight is attributable was not included in the auxiliary van or the shuttle. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the excess weight as part of the total shipment and the auxiliary van and shuttle charges as part of the total charges in computing claimant's liability for the excess weight. Accord Ronald E. Adams, B-199545 (Aug. 22, 1980) (appliance service charge and bridge/ferry costs should not have been deducted from the carrier's total transportation charges in computing the employee's liability for excess weight); Gustavo R. Martinez, B-227581 (Feb. 16, 1988) (total charges for determining employee's liability for excess weight include "not only the line haul charge, but also the charges for packing, unpacking and other accessorial charges"). In William A. Schmidt, Jr., 61 Comp. Gen. 341 (1982), the Comptroller General rejected an argument similar to that made by the claimant here. In Schmidt, the employee claimed that a piano handling charge, a washer charge, and an origin surcharge should all have been deducted from the total charges in computing his liability for the excess weight because these charges had no relationship to the weight of the shipment. The GAO disagreed, reasoning: Under the formula prescribed in the FTR the employee must reimburse the Government for the cost of transportation and other charges applicable to the excess weight. Since there is no way to discern which charges are applicable to the authorized . . . pounds, and which charges are on account of the excess weight, the regulation provides an equitable estimation based on the ratio of the excess weight to the total weight as a proportion of the total charges. The net amount actually paid by the Government is for use in determining the prorata portion of shipping charges for collection from Mr. Schmidt and, as $2,461.30 was paid for packing, transporting, and unpacking his household effects that amount should be used in determining the excess cost. In sum, based upon the FTR's formula for calculating excess weight charges and the Comptroller General decisions construing that regulation, the auxiliary van and labor charges should be included in the total charges in computing claimant's liability for the excess weight. Decision The claim is denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge