B-252103, June 17, 1993

B-252103, June 17, 1993

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL Relocation Household goods Shipment costs Waiver An employee who shipped excess weight of household goods incident to his transfer argues that the agency representative refused to give him the agency relocation packet which presumably would have informed him of the weight limits, and therefore he should not be responsible for the resulting debt. Unlike in some circumstances, where active erroneous oral advice upon which the employee reasonably relies to his detriment has been considered as erroneous agency authorization of service not permitted by law, and the agency's payment for which may be considered an "erroneous" payment subject to waiver, the agency's failure to provide the packet is not sufficient to constitute erroneous authorization of shipment of excess weight so as to make the payment to the mover an "erroneous" payment subject to waiver under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5584.

Mr. Edward L. Davis Associate Director, Budget and Administration/Assistant to the Director for Human Resources National Park Service P.O. Box 37127 Washington, DC 20013-7127

Dear Mr. Davis:

This further responds to your request of January 19, 1993, for an advance decision whether Mr. Edward Brosnahan's debt for excess weight of his household goods shipment should be collected. We conclude that the debt should be collected and that it is not subject to waiver under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5584 (1988).

When household goods are shipped under the GBL method, as in Mr. Brosnahan's case, long-standing government practice is for the agency that arranged the shipment to pay the contract mover and then collect any excess weight charges from the employee. Thus, the initial payment to the mover by the agency, which may include charges to be collected back from the employee, is not generally an "erroneous payment" which may be waived under the waiver statute, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5584. In most cases the government has committed no "error" but has merely made payment in the normal course of business to satisfy its obligation to the carrier. 67 Comp.Gen. 484, 486-487 (1988); and Paul Rodriguez, 67 Comp.Gen. 589 (1988). And, as you informed Mr. Brosnahan, an agency's failure to inform an employee about weight limits or what items may be shipped as "house-hold goods" does not make the agency's payment to the carrier an "erroneous payment" or relieve the employee of his debt. See Allan C. Harris and Lance S. Mamiya, B-246581, Apr. 9, 1992.

We have recognized that an agency can actively give an employee erroneous authorization concerning the shipment of household goods in a written travel order, and in some unusual circumstances orally, which the employee reasonably relies on to his detriment and which results in payments under the GBL method that are considered "erroneous" and subject to waiver under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5584, supra. In these situations, we have concluded that the circumstances amounted to agency authorization of the part of the shipment that was not permitted by law and thus resulted in an "erroneous" payment. For oral advice to rise to that level, however, it must be clearly shown to have been given by an agency official with the responsibility for providing such advice and it must be shown that it clearly purported to provide the authorization on which the employee relied. See John W. Meeker, B-239663.3, Oct. 11, 1991; Kenneth T. Sands, B-229102, Dec. 5, 1988.

Mr. Brosnahan argues that the Park Service's conduct went beyond failure to inform him about a weight limit. In a letter of September 30, 1992, he describes the conduct in this manner: "At the time of my move, I requested a relocation package from my coordinator, Gordon Smith, and he said that I did not need one because I was not selling a house, that everything would be taken care of. Presumably the regulation on weight overage would have been noted in that literature, and I would have had a chance to make a decision about the situation." In a subsequent letter of December 8, 1992, he characterizes this conduct as a "refusal to notify" him about the weight limit and a denial to him of the information.

Mr. Brosnahan does not allege that he asked and was refused answers to specific questions about his shipping entitlements and weight limits. He states only that he requested a relocation packet, which presumably would have included information about weight limits, and he was told he did not need one and that everything would be taken care of. Without the record demonstrating more than a failure by the agency to provide a relocation packet, we cannot conclude that the agency in effect provided erroneous advice under circumstances amounting to agency authorization of the shipment of excess weight. See John W. Meeker, B-239663.3, and Kenneth T. Sands, B-229102, supra. Thus, Mr. Brosnahan's debt cannot be considered to have arisen out of an erroneous payment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5584, and it is not subject to waiver. Harris and Mamiya, B-246581, supra.