BNUMBER:  B-266192
DATE:  June 5, 1996
TITLE:  [Letter]

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

B-266192

June 5, 1996

Ms. Brenda B. Barker
Manager, Accounts Receivable & Travel Team
Bureau of Reclamation Service Center
Finance and Accounting Services
P.O. Box 25508
Building 67, Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO  80225-0508

Dear Ms. Barker:

This replies to the letter you resubmitted on September 14, 1995, 
reference D-7736, concerning the charges for excess weight of Mr. Rick 
D. Stubbs' household goods that were shipped incident to his transfer.

Mr. Stubbs agrees that his shipment was over the authorized weight 
limit, but he objects to the manner in which his liability was 
determined by application of the formula found in the Federal Travel 
Regulation,  sec.  302-8.3(b)(5).  He believes that the "total charges" in 
that formula should not include "packing, destination, storage and 
container" charges that were applicable to his shipment but should 
only consist of the line-haul transportation charge.

The formula for determining excess weight charges states that "total 
charges" consists of transportation and other charges applicable to 
the excess weight.  These other charges include Mr. Stubbs' packing, 
destination, and container charges.  William A. Schmidt, Jr., 61 Comp. 
Gen. 341 (1982).  In this case the storage charge was not applicable 
to the excess weight because it was not part of the charges for the 
shipment that was picked up at the old duty station and delivered at 
the new duty station.  The storage charge was a separate charge 
applicable only to 7,000 pounds of household goods that remained after 
delivery of the overweight shipment.  We note that the Bureau of 
Reclamation, properly, did not include this storage charge in the 
"total charges" in the formula.  We note, also, that the Bureau, 
properly, used the mover's lowest, discounted charge that the Bureau 
actually paid for the "total charges" in the formula.

There is one charge (the insurance surcharge) applicable to the excess 
weight that the Bureau included in the "total charges" in the formula 
that should not have been included.  The insurance surcharge was 
assessed to insure Mr. Stubbs' household goods above the valuation of 
$1.25 times the net weight of the shipment in pounds that the 
government assumes on each shipment transported under a Government 
Bill of Lading.  This additional protection is the responsibility of 
the employee and may not be reimbursed by the government.  John S. 
Phillipo, 62 Comp. Gen. 375, 379 (1983), copy enclosed.  Thus, Mr. 
Stubbs is liable for this entire surcharge, and that amount should be 
deducted from the "total charges" figure that the Bureau used in the 
formula to determine excess weight charges.  The revised "total 
charges" figure should be used in the formula to determine Mr. Stubbs' 
liability.  See Ganesh C. Bhuyan, B-202906, Sept. 15, 1982.

Accordingly, Mr. Stubbs' liability for excess weight charges should be 
calculated as described above.  The cited decisions are enclosed. 

Sincerely yours,

Lowell Dodge
Associate General Counsel
B-266192

June 5, 1996

DIGEST

Liability of an employee who shipped household goods in excess of the 
18,000-pound weight limit is determined under Federal Travel 
Regulation  sec.  302-8.3(b)(5) based on a proration of the excess weight 
to the total weight of the shipment multiplied by the total charges 
for the shipment.  The "total charges" for this shipment include 
packing, destination, and container charges but not a storage charge 
that was not part of the charges for the shipment picked up at the old 
duty station and delivered at the new duty station.  Also, an 
insurance surcharge for additional protection of the household goods 
is the entire responsibility of the employee and should be deducted 
from the "total charges" of the shipment and paid separately by the 
employee.