Excess Weight Charges in Transportation of Household Goods

Two Department of Energy employees claimed reimbursement for expenses involving household goods shipments under the actual expense method where the shipments exceeded the maximum permissible weight allowance. Both employees contended that an agency official informed them that if they did some of their own packing they could ultimately save on a possible overcharge since that part of the packing would be deleted from the total packing charge. The first employee pointed out that no credit was given for the packing. In addition, the first employee contended that the agency computed the wrong excess weight charges. The second employee contended that a large number of pounds that were included in the total net of the household goods shipment should have been excluded. In addition, the second employee contended that the computations for the excess weight charges were wrong and that he did not owe the Government for any excess weight charges due to a scale discrepancy. GAO held that, in both cases, the employees were liable for excess costs incurred in the transportation of household goods under the actual expense method where the total exceeded the statutory maximum limit. Federal regulations prescribe the procedure for determining the charges payable by the employees for excess weight when the actual expense method of shipment is used. These regulations have the force and effect of law and may not be waived or modified by the employing agency or GAO regardless of the existence of any extenuating circumstances. The computation of the employee's liability was based on total transportation costs. There is no basis upon which an employee may be reimbursed by the Government for packing his household goods shipped under the actual expense method. In accordance with applicable Federal regulations, the second employee's shipment was treated as an administrative expense of the agency provided that an appropriate agency official certified that the shipment was necessary and that similar materials would have had to have been obtained at Government expense. In the second employee's contention of a scale discrepancy, GAO believed that such evidence was dispositive of whether the scales were defective at the time of his shipment. There was no basis to support the conclusion that the agency's determination of excess weight was clearly in error. Accordingly, the claims for reimbursement were denied and the expenses were recovered by the Government.