B-169407, SEP. 15, 1970

B-169407, SEP. 15, 1970

TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS -- EXCESS WEIGHT -- LIABILITY DECISION TO FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEE ADVISING THAT HE IS LIABLE FOR THE AMOUNT OF $271.57 FOR COST OF SHIPPING UNDER A GB/L 2,820 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WEIGHT OF 11,000 POUNDS INCIDENT TO TRANSFER FROM LAS VEGAS, NEW MEX., TO SILVER LAKE, OREGON, IN JULY, 1969. EMPLOYEE, WHO CONTESTS LIABILITY FOR COST OF THE EXCESS WEIGHT OF HIS HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS SHIPPED UNDER GB/L ON BASIS THAT IT DOES NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWABLE HAD GOODS BEEN SHIPPED UNDER THE COMMUTED RATE BASIS, INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER TO NEW STATION, IS WITHOUT MERIT SINCE THE PRIMARY REASON FOR UTILIZING THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD OF SHIPMENT IS THAT IT WILL RESULT IN COSTS SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER THAN THE COMMUTED RATE PAYMENT. THUS, WHEN AN EMPLOYEE'S EFFECTS EXCEED THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT LIMITATION, THE QUANTITY MAY STILL BE SHIPPED BUT THE EMPLOYEE SHALL REIMBURSE THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE EXCESS WEIGHT.

TO MR. DONALD J. LABRAKE:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTERS OF MARCH 13, MAY 20, AND JULY 13, 1970, WITH ENCLOSURES, CONCERNING YOUR OBLIGATION TO REFUND TO THE UNITED STATES THE SUM OF $271.57, REPRESENTING THE COSTS OF SHIPPING UNDER A GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING 2,820 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WEIGHT OF 11,000 POUNDS INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER FROM LAS VEGAS, NEW MEXICO, TO SILVER LAKE, OREGON, IN JULY 1969.

YOU DO NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 5 U.S.C. 5724(A) AND BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 YOU WERE ENTITLED TO SHIP ONLY 11,000 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS INCIDENT TO YOUR CHANGE OF STATION. HOWEVER, YOU CONTEND THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE EXCESS COSTS SINCE THE TOTAL ACTUAL COSTS OF TRANSPORTING YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS ($1,360.87) DOES NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWABLE HAD YOUR GOODS BEEN SHIPPED UNDER THE COMMUTED RATE SYSTEM. ALSO, YOU OBJECT TO THE METHOD BY WHICH THE EXCESS COSTS WERE COMPUTED.

EACH AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE COMMUTED RATE SYSTEM OR THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD (GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING) WILL BE USED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD GOODS. SECTION 6.4C OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A 56 CONTAINS GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR AGENCIES TO FOLLOW WHEN EXERCISING SUCH RESPONSIBILITY. SUBPARAGRAPH (2) OF THOSE GUIDELINES READS AS FOLLOWS:

"(2)GENERAL RATE TENDERS WILL BE ARRANGED BY THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHENEVER FEASIBLE. UNDER THESE TENDERS, ALL OF THE PARTICIPATING CARRIERS AGREE TO TRANSPORT HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS FOR SPECIFIED PERIODS OF TIME AT REDUCED RATES BELOW THE COMMERCIAL TARIFFS. THESE TENDERS ARE ARRANGED UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND NO FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO USE THESE RATES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF USING THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD ARE NOT SO LARGE WHEN SUCH TENDERS ARE AVAILABLE AS WHEN FURTHER SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE MADE WITH CARRIERS. WHEN SUCH A TENDER IS AVAILABLE DEPARTMENTS SHALL COMPARE THE AMOUNT WHICH WILL BE PAID FOR TRANSPORTATION AND TEMPORARY STORAGE UNDER THE COMMUTED RATE SYSTEM AND UNDER THE APPLICABLE TENDER AND THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD WILL BE USED IF THE COMPARISON INDICATES THAT A SAVING OF $100 OR MORE WILL RESULT."

ACCORDING TO A MEMORANDUM DATED FEBRUARY 26, 1970, SIGNED BY WILLIAM A. CAMPBELL, REGIONAL FISCAL AGENT, A GENERAL RATE TENDER (UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT) WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS. MR. CAMPBELL'S MEMORANDUM CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

"THE COST COMPARISON ESTIMATES SUBMITTED BY GSA SHOWED THAT IT WOULD COST THE GOVERNMENT $279 LESS TO SHIP BY GBL. OUR GUIDELINES ARE THAT IF THE COST COMPARISON INDICATES A SAVING OF $100 OR MORE, THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD (GBL) WOULD BE USED. THE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION WAS, THEREFORE, ISSUED AUTHORIZING SHIPMENT BY 'GBL WHEATON VAN LINES'".

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT YOUR AGENCY TOOK THE PROPER ACTION IN CONTRACTING FOR THE SHIPMENT OF YOUR GOODS UNDER A GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING. IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT YOUR DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY FOR THE EXCESS COSTS, BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL ACTUAL COSTS OF YOUR SHIPMENT DID NOT EXCEED THE COMMUTED RATE PAYMENT, IS WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT SINCE THE PRIMARY REASON FOR UTILIZING THE ACTUAL EXPENSE METHOD OF SHIPMENT IN A GIVEN CASE IS THAT SUCH METHOD WILL RESULT IN COSTS SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER THAN THE COMMUTED RATE PAYMENT.

CONCERNING THE METHOD OF COMPUTING THE EXCESS COSTS, SUBSECTION 6.4E(2) OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56 PROVIDES:

" *** WHEN THE WEIGHT OF AN EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS 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 TEMPORARY STORAGE OF THE EXCESS WEIGHT, COMPUTED FROM THE TOTAL CHARGES ACCORDING TO THE RATIO OF EXCESS WEIGHT TO THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF THE SHIPMENT."

THE EXCESS COSTS OF YOUR SHIPMENT WERE COMPUTED IN THE MANNER STATED ABOVE, AND THE AMOUNT WHICH YOUR AGENCY HAS REQUESTED YOU TO REMIT IS CORRECT.