Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________________ September 22, 1999 _________________________ GSBCA 15021-RELO In the Matter of SABRINA L. SWENSON Sabrina L. Swenson, Ames, IA, Claimant. Kevin Shea, Acting Director, Business Services, Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, Riverdale, MD, appearing for Department of Agriculture. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Sabrina L. Swenson, a veterinarian employed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), was transferred from Kansas to Iowa. Dr. Swenson's household goods were transported by United Van Lines under a contract with the Government. The Swensons included a small tractor with the household goods moved by the Government's shipper, with the understanding that it was eligible for transport and that, based on the mover's estimate, the total weight of the shipment would not exceed 18,000 pounds. After the move, USDA billed Dr. Swenson for $662.71, the cost of shipping goods weighing more that 18,000 pounds. Claimant contends that she did everything she could to avoid shipping excess weight and that she relied on the expertise of the Government's moving company which provided the estimate. Dr. Swenson has requested the Board's review of the agency's action. Background The shipper's representative visited the Swenson home in Kansas prior to the move to estimate the weight of household items to be transported. Dr. Swenson states that the representative explained that to ensure that the weight of goods to be transported is not underestimated, ten percent of the approximate weight is added into the estimate given to the relocating employee. Dr. Swenson and her husband mentioned to the shipper's representative that their household goods had been moved by a professional moving company three years earlier. At that time, the weight of their household goods had been 13,000 pounds without their tractor. The tractor had been estimated to weigh 3500 pounds, for a total of 16,500 pounds. The United Van Lines representative told claimant when he left her home that the weight should not be a problem. Shortly after this visit, however, he called to advise that the weight of the goods, including the tractor, was "on the bubble" for 18,000 pounds. Since they were fully aware of the 18,000 pound limitation on the Government's payment for moving household goods, the Swensons made a concerted effort to reduce the amount and weight of household items to be transported, including donating items to the local church, holding a garage sale, and hauling several loads of heavy items totaling approximately 1000 pounds, including a metal stock rack, a metal stock tank, and a small plow and blade, to Iowa in their own vehicles. When the United Van Lines packers arrived, the Swensons again asked about the weight of the load and were assured there would be no problem staying within the 18,000 pound limit. The same question was posed to the loaders and the driver, and again the Swensons were told the 18,000 pound limit would not be exceeded. When the agency informed Dr. Swenson that the 18,000 pound limitation had been exceeded, Dr. Swenson expressed concern about the estimating process used by the shipper. Given the practice of adding ten percent to the estimated load, she concluded that the weight of her household goods to be shipped was underestimated by more than twenty-four percent. The agency communicated these concerns to United Van Lines but was not able to get an explanation as to why the estimate was so deficient. USDA has stated that Dr. Swenson's concerns about the deficient estimating process used by United Van Lines will be brought to the attention of the General Services Administration (GSA). Regardless of the poor estimate received from United Van Lines, after looking into the matter, USDA concluded that the overage was, in any event, attributable to the inclusion of the tractor, which was not eligible to be transported as an item of household goods. With respect to the tractor, claimant contends that she received a pamphlet on moving household goods from the agency and, because the pamphlet stated that she could not move a farm vehicle, called an agency representative to ask specifically if it could be included. Claimant told the agency representative that there were two tractors: a small tractor used for mowing grass and moving snow and a garden tractor (riding mower) for gardening and lawn work close to the house. The Swensons understood the advice of the moving coordinator to be that the small tractor was an "acreage tractor" and as such could be included in household goods moved by the Government. The agency coordinator apparently assumed that the small tractor (as opposed to the garden tractor) was equivalent to a riding mower. As a result, Dr. Swenson was led to believe she could transport the small tractor with her household goods. When the administrative office inquired about the small tractor after the move was completed, it determined, based on the make and model number of the tractor, that it was designed to do agricultural field work and, as such, required to be classified as a piece of farm, rather than lawn, equipment. Dr. Swenson states that had she been clearly advised that the tractor could not be included in household goods she would have transported it herself at an approximate cost of $100. Dr. Swenson, in filing her request for the Board's review, states that the emphasis on the tractor being a farm vehicle is misplaced. In her opinion, the issue here is that the mover grossly underestimated the weight of the household goods. She had no say in the selection of a moving company and had no choice but to rely on the professional estimate provided. Nonetheless, as she points out, it is the employee, not the moving company, that is held ultimately accountable for the cost of transporting excess weight. Similarly, the Swensons tried to determine in advance if the tractor was properly includable in household goods and relied on the opinion of the moving coordinator. Under these circumstances, claimant believes that she should not be required to pay for the overage. Discussion Although we sympathize with Dr. Swenson's situation, the Board is not in a position to grant her relief. Neither is the agency. In making her arguments, as the Board has recently observed: 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 . . . only 18,000 pounds net weight of the employee's household goods. 5 U.S.C. 5724(a)(2), 5726(b) (Supp. II 1996). Robert K. Boggs, GSBCA 14948-RELO (June 23, 1999). Because the Government is prohibited by statute from paying to transport more than 18,000 pounds of household goods, the transferring employee is required to pay for overages even when the employee has relied to his or her detriment on an erroneous pre-move estimate of weight by the moving company or has received inadequate advice from the agency. E.g., Boggs; John F. Tefft, GSBCA 14740-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,292; Charles S. Wayman, GSBCA 14338-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,169 (1998); Michael J. Kunk, GSBCA 14721-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,164 (1998); Linda D. Brainerd, GSBCA 14598-RELO (Oct. 6, 1998). There are no circumstances shown here, such as clear proof that the final determination of the weight of the shipment was erroneous, that would enable us to grant any relief. E.g., Jerry Jolly, GSBCA 14158-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,518 (1997). Accordingly, we affirm the agency's determination. ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge