Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 June 23, 1999 GSBCA 14948-RELO In the Matter of ROBERT K. BOGGS Robert K. Boggs, Falls Church, VA, Claimant. Noreen Sneddon, Chief, Transportation Division, Department of State, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of State. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). The Department of State assigned Robert K. Boggs to posts in Asia, and temporarily to places in the United States for training, between 1990 and 1997. During this time, the household goods belonging to Mr. Boggs and his family were stored at various locations in the United States. After the employee was transferred back to Washington, D.C., and his goods were removed from storage and shipped to him, the department learned that the total weight of the items was slightly more than 18,000 pounds. It charged the employee for the proportional cost of storage and delivery attributable to the weight in excess of that amount. Mr. Boggs has asked us to review the State Department's assessment of costs. He asserts that the department should be held responsible for the charges in dispute because it (1) initially estimated that his goods weighed somewhat less than 18,000 pounds; (2) accepted a weight figure as to which he is skeptical from one of the companies that stored some of his goods; and (3) failed to respond fully to his inquiries about the weight of the goods in storage. In making these arguments, the claimant runs headlong into a hard-and-fast rule established by Congress: when an agency transfers one of its employees, in the interest of the Government, from one permanent duty station to another, the Government is liable for the costs of shipping and storing only 18,000 pounds net weight of the employee's household goods. 5 U.S.C. 5724(a)(2), 5726(b) (Supp. II 1996). Because the 18,000 pound weight allowance is mandated by statute, neither an agency nor this Board has authority to waive it. Nicholas R. Delaplane, GSBCA 14961-RELO (June 15, 1999); John F. Tefft, GSBCA 14740-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,292; Michael J. Kunk, GSBCA 14721-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,164 (1998). The Board has heard several cases involving the first two justifications advanced by Mr. Boggs. As to the first, we have held that "[e]rroneous estimates by an agency employee do not alter the Government's obligations and authority under the statute." Robert C. Berg, GSBCA 13655-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,939. As to the second, "[a]gency determinations of net weight will be set aside only where a claimant can show clear and substantial evidence of error or fraud." Robert G. Gindhart, GSBCA 14288-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,405 (1997); see also Douglas V. Smith, GSBCA 14655-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,171 (1998); Jayme A. Norris, GSBCA 13663-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,049. We have set aside agency determinations where the carrier's notations on which the agency based its conclusion were unreliable (and the agency itself later questioned their validity), Jerry Jolly, GSBCA 14158-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,518 (1997), and where the employee's goods were waterlogged due to the negligence of the mover hired by the agency, Gindhart. Mere suspicion that the reported weight of goods was not accurate, which is all Mr. Boggs asserts here, is not sufficient to constitute clear and substantial evidence of error or fraud. The third justification advanced by the claimant -- that the department should be liable for the charges at issue because it failed to respond fully to his inquiries about the weight of the goods in storage -- has not been raised here before. Mr. Boggs and the State Department agree that while the employee was posted away from Washington, the department did not keep good records of the weights of employees' goods which were being stored and shipped. Especially when an employee's goods were stored in more than one location -- as happened to Mr. Boggs -- the department was not able to respond to questions about the total weight of the items stored. We sympathize with Mr. Boggs' dilemma. Without accurate data, he could not make informed judgments as to which of his belongings merited his spending his own money to store, and which should be sold or donated to other persons. We note that the State Department recognizes that its own management problems contributed to Mr. Boggs' predicament, and that it has recently installed a computerized record keeping system which it believes should cure those problems. We also agree with the claimant's suggestion that in the interest of fairness, wherever possible, an agency should advise an employee of the weight of his household goods before they are shipped or stored, so that he may decide how to deal with the quantity in excess of the weight for which the Government has financial liability. (The State Department, at 6 FAM 162.2(b) and 162.3-3(a), now incorporates this suggestion in its regulations.) Nevertheless, our sympathies and the department's recent action to remedy an administrative concern and acceptance of a procedure more fair than the one which applied when Mr. Boggs was first posted abroad may not override the law's command that the Government pay for shipping and storing no more than 18,000 pounds of a transferred employee's household goods. We conclude that Mr. Boggs is not entitled to any relief. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge