Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405







                                                 



                        September 10, 2004

                                                 





                         GSBCA 16451-RELO





                  In the Matter of JERRY C. WEST





     Jerry C. West, Boerne, TX, Claimant.



     Joseph E. Ross, Associate Chief Counsel, Office of the Chief Counsel, Drug

Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Justice.



DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).



     Jerry C. West, an employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), was

transferred in May 2003 from one permanent duty station to another.  His household goods

were moved, pursuant to a Government bill of lading, by a carrier selected by the agency. 

The goods weighed 23,260 pounds   somewhat more than the 18,000 pounds whose

transportation was the agency's financial responsibility.  Mr. West maintains that because he

was assured by the carrier's representative that the cost of moving the excess weight would

be "no more than a couple hundred dollars," and because the agency did not provide to him

in advance the formula it would use to determine his share of the total shipping charges, he

may not be charged more than $200.  DEA insists on recovering from Mr. West $2635, a sum

it calculated using a formula established in the agency's Transportation Standard Operating

Procedure.



     DEA's position is clearly correct.  Statute limits an agency's liability for transporting

a transferred employee's household goods to the cost of moving no more than 18,000 pounds. 

5 U.S.C.   5724(a)(2) (2000); see 41 CFR 302-7.2 (2002).  The cost of transporting any

additional goods the employee may need to have moved is to be paid by the employee.  The

formula used by DEA for determining that cost requires the employee to pay the percentage

of the carrier's total charges which is reflected in the fraction, excess weight divided by total

weight.  This formula "has consistently been recognized as an appropriate and equitable

method for deriving the portion of shipping costs attributable to excess weight and thus to

be borne by the employee."  John C. Bland, GSBCA 16094-RELO, 04-1 BCA   32,431

(2003).  DEA correctly applied the formula here.  



     If the agency did not advise Mr. West, in advance, of the existence of the Standard

Operating Procedure which includes the formula, as the employee asserts, that would not

affect the outcome of this case.  Employees are advised to read and comprehend an agency's

established rules, for those rules are to be followed whether affected employees are familiar

with them or not.  Michael L. Rivera, GSBCA 16350-RELO, 04-1 BCA   32,615.  If the

carrier's representative told Mr. West that moving the excess weight would cost "no more

than a couple hundred dollars"   something the representative denies   that would not affect

the outcome, either.  An agency's issuance to a carrier of a Government bill of lading creates

a contract between the agency and the carrier, for it is an effective acceptance of the carrier's 

tariff offer.  The employee is not a party to that contract, and the contract vests no rights in

him   even if the carrier's representative makes representations to the employee when acting

under the contract.  David O. Garner, GSBCA 15631-RELO, 01-2 BCA   31,637.  Nor can

a carrier's erroneous or inaccurate advice bind the Government to spend money in violation

of statute or regulation, as Mr. West would have the DEA do by paying far more than the

amount calculated through application of its formula.  George W. Currie, GSBCA

15199-RELO, 00-1 BCA   30,814.



     Mr. West's claim is denied.











                                   _________________________ 

                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS

                                   Board Judge