BNUMBER:  B-261314
DATE:  November 30, 1995
TITLE:  [Letter]

**********************************************************************

B-261314

November 30, 1995

Bobby L. Cates
Resource Protection
P.O. Box 3417
Tampa, FL  33601-3417

Dear Mr. Cates:

This is in response to your appeal of Settlement Z-2866671.34, dated 
May 5, 1995, by our Claims Group involving the damage to the household 
goods of Patrick Whaley that were shipped by Carlyle Van Lines, Inc., 
under government bill of lading No. UP-722-623.

The appeal is based on your contention that the bedroom suite used to 
replace the member's furniture damaged in shipment was of a much 
better quality than the damaged items.  You contend that the repair 
estimate submitted by the member describes the damaged items as 
particle board furniture covered with a photo finish while the 
replacement furniture was made of hardwoods and particle boards with 
an oak finish, engraved end panels, veneer tops and brass plated 
hardware-a much more expensive type of furniture.

Our Office will not question an agency's calculation of the value of 
damages to items or the replacement costs in a shipment of household 
goods without clear and convincing evidence from the carrier that the 
agency acted unreasonably.  See, e.g., American Van Services, Inc., 
B-260394, Aug. 15, 1995.  Such evidence is lacking in this case.  A 
review of the file shows that the member submitted two photographs of 
the damaged bedroom furniture and the pages from the catalog showing 
the replacement furniture.  The photographs show the damaged furniture 
to be almost identical to the replacement items, which also contained 
veneers and particle board.  Moreover, the claim form submitted by the 
member shows the cost of the bedroom suite to be $1,300 in 1982 and 
the replacement cost was $1,460 prior to depreciation.  This lends 
additional credence to the fact that the replacement was of the same 
quality as the damaged items.

Therefore, we find the amount assessed against Carlyle to have been 
reasonable and affirm the Claims Group's settlement.

Sincerely yours,

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

B-261314

November 30, 1995

DIGEST

Carrier who argues that replacement furniture is of a higher quality 
than the furniture damaged by the carrier in a shipment of household 
goods fails to establish clear evidence that agency assessment of 
damages is unreasonable where photographs of damaged furniture show 
that it is of the same quality and type as the furniture purchased as 
a replacement.