Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________ June 15, 1999 __________________ GSBCA 14961-RELO In the Matter of NICHOLAS R.DELAPLANE Nicholas R. Delaplane, Aiken, SC, claimant. Elizabeth E. Smedley, Controller, Department of Energy, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Energy. PARKER, Board Judge. In September 1997, Nicholas Delaplane, an employee of the Department of Energy (DOE), was transferred from Annandale, Virginia, to Aiken, South Carolina. According to Mr. Delaplane, a representative of the moving company hired by DOE to perform the move conducted a pre-move estimate of the weight of Mr. Delaplane s household goods but did not inform Mr. Delaplane that the goods were estimated to weigh more than the 18,000 pound limit for Government reimbursement. After the move, Mr. Delaplane received a bill from DOE for $1647.84, which represented the cost of moving 1950 pounds of household goods in excess of the 18,000 pound limit. Mr. Delaplane maintains that he would have disposed of some things prior to the move if he had been informed that his household goods were estimated to weigh more than 18,000 pounds. Mr. Delaplane has asked the Board to review DOE s decision to deny his claim for the cost of moving the excess goods. According to Mr. Delaplane, DOE should pay because it authorized the move knowing (the knowledge was allegedly imputed through the moving contractor) that his household goods weighed more than 18,000 pounds. In these circumstances, Mr. Delaplane argues, DOE has no authority to authorize a move of household goods in excess of 18,000 pounds unless it first obtains from the employee approval for the move and a commitment to pay the excess charges. Absent such approval and commitment, Mr. Delaplane concludes, the agency is responsible for any excess charges. Mr. Delaplane s arguments reflect a common misunderstanding of the applicable law. When an employee is transferred, the Government is prohibited by statute from paying to transport and temporarily store more than 18,000 pounds of the employee s household goods: The 18,000 pound weight allowance is more than an administrative limitation imposed by the agency. The allowance is established by a statute that permits agencies to pay the expenses of transporting household goods and personal effects not in excess of 18,000 pounds. 5 U.S.C. 5724(a)(2) (1994). Because the 18,000 pound weight allowance is mandated by a statute, neither [the agency] nor the Board has the authority to waive this limit in order to pay for shipping and storing 19,380 pounds of household goods for [the claimant], regardless of when [the agency] notified him that his goods exceeded the weight allowance. John F. Tefft, GSBCA 14740-RELO (Mar. 4, 1999). Thus, even where, for reasons of cost, the Government arranges for the shipping of a transferred employee s household goods by Government bill of lading, see 41 CFR 302-8.3(b) (1997), the employee retains sole responsibility for determining which of his household goods to ship. If the employee ships more than 18,000 pounds of household goods, regardless of the reasons therefor, he must account for the excess charges. Michael J. Kunk, GSBCA 14721-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,164 (1998) (and cases cited therein). Mr. Delaplane states that if he had been informed that his household goods were estimated to weigh more than 18,000 pounds, he would have disposed of some things before the move. Said another way, Mr. Delaplane moved some items that he would not have moved if he, and not the Government, were paying the bill. Under these circumstances, we find somewhat disingenuous Mr. Delaplane s claim that the DOE was completely unreasonable in declining to pay for something that Mr. Delaplane would have been unwilling to pay for himself. In his final response filed in connection with this case, Mr. Delaplane raised, for the first time, two additional points. First, he maintains that the charge for transporting the excess household goods should not have included packing and unpacking costs. According to Mr. Delaplane, because there is no way to know exactly which goods were the excess ones, it was unfair of DOE to charge a pro-rata share of the packing costs based upon weight. This argument is completely frivolous. The fact that DOE has no way of knowing the exact cost of packing and unpacking the particular items that Mr. Delaplane now considers excess does not mean that Mr. Delaplane is excused from paying the reasonable packing costs associated with those goods. DOE s decision to calculate the excess packing charges based upon the excess weight was fair and reasonable. Also, Mr. Delaplane now recalls that there were several (about eighteen) boxes of professional books and papers among his household goods. We infer from this comment that Mr. Delaplane does not believe that he should be charged for moving those items. Although, under certain circumstances, the cost of shipping professional books, papers and equipment may be paid separately by the agency as an administrative expense, such circumstances were not present here. First, the transferred employee must furnish an itemized inventory for review by the appropriate agency authorizing official. 41 CFR 302- 8.2(b)(3)(i). The authorizing official may authorize shipment only if he certifies that the books, papers or equipment are necessary in the proper performance of the employee s duties at the new duty station and that, if the items were not transported to the new duty station, the same or similar items would have to be obtained at Government expense for the employee s use. 41 CFR 302-8.2(b)(3)(ii). Finally, when possible, the professional books, papers or equipment must be packed and weighed separately, and stated as separate items on the Government bill of lading. 41 CFR 302-8.2(b)(3)(iii). None of these things happened here. Decision For the reasons discussed above, the claim is denied. ___________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge