I haven't run your code, but as I see no reference to either 840 or 900 within it, I somehow think you missed some of the requirements?

Here's some code using randomizations and a modified "best fit" algorithm. It enforces the 900 cap, but still ignores the 840 minimum (mostly out of necessity). The naïve approach above has better load balance than I have been able to achieve here (and is also simpler and faster).

Update: Added some more packing algorithms (though, "next fit" and "worst fit" are unlikely to produce any results)

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict; use warnings; use 5.010;
use POSIX 'ceil';
use List::Util qw/ sum shuffle min /;

my @a = sort { $b <=> $a } qw(
  121 182 111 160 105 113 121 97 123 157 133 161 141 135 137 145 133 1
+37
  151 118 126 141 174 181 154 109 198 114 122 162 91 99 116 122 195 19
+9 150
  192 163 88 112 157 182 210 124 105 144 166 144 257 164 156 173 154 1
+93
  142 143 126 118 130 107 86 131 154 131 147 134 118 115 135 141 158 1
+29
  143 126 128 134 129 167 130 135 117 127 146 96 117 99 99 139 152 149
+ 136
  105 124 136 160 160 139 177 115 123 103 150 183 132 171 121 114 111 
+113
  131 144 122 141 111 139 145 109 114 122 103 160 153 147 172 155 122 
+296
  124 112 161 124 311 99 157 122 120 198 152 140 162 177 98 138 156 17
+7 103
  180 187 173 150 135 168 132 196 112 195 126 113 116 105 116 151 216 
+188
  158 121 166 148 132 89 197 92 115 98 130 103 120 261 143 126 167 203
+ 95
  165 129
);

my $MAX_ITEMS = 6;
my $bins = try_hard( ceil(@a/6), 900, \@a, \&pack_best_fit, 5000 );
show_bins( $bins );


sub min_bin {
  min(map sum(@$_), @{$_[0]})
}

sub show_bins {
  my $bins = shift;
  my $i = 1;
  for (@$bins) {
    my $size = sum @$_;
    say "Bin $i ($size): @$_";
    $i++;
  }
}

sub try_hard {
  my ($bins, $size, $data, $sub, $attempts) = @_;
  my $best;
  my $max;
  for (1..$attempts) {
    my $new = $sub->($bins, $size, $data);
    next unless @$new == $bins;
    my $test = min_bin($new);
    next if $max and $test <= $max;
    $best = $new;
    $max = $test;
  } continue { @$data = shuffle @$data }
  return $best;
}

sub pack_best_fit {
  my ($n, $size, $data) = @_;
  my @bins = map [], 1..$n;
  our @free = map $size, 1..$n;
  for my $item (@$data) {
    my $i = [-1, 1+$size];
    for (0..$#free) {
      next unless $free[$_] >= $item and @{$bins[$_]} < $MAX_ITEMS;
      @$i = ($_, $free[$_]) if $free[$_] < $$i[1];
    }
    $i = $$i[0];
    if ($i >= 0) {
      push @{$bins[$i]}, $item;
      $free[$i] -= $item;
    } else {
      push @bins, [$item];
      push @free, $size-$item;
    }
  }
  return \@bins;
}

sub pack_next_fit {
  my ($n, $size, $list) = @_;
  my @bins = ([]);
  my $free = $size;
  for my $item (@$list) {
    if ($free >= $item and @{$bins[-1]} < $MAX_ITEMS) {
      push @{$bins[-1]}, $item;
      $free -= $item;
    } else {
      push @bins, [$item];
      $free = $size-$item;
    }
  }
  return \@bins;
}

sub pack_first_fit {
  my ($n, $size, $list) = @_;
  my @bins = ([]);
  my @free = ($size);
  for my $item (@$list) {
    my $i;
    for (0..$#free) {
      if ($free[$_] >= $item and @{$bins[$_]} < $MAX_ITEMS) {
        $i = $_;
        last;
      }
    }
    if (defined $i) {
      push @{$bins[$i]}, $item;
      $free[$i] -= $item;
    } else {
      push @bins, [$item];
      push @free, $size-$item;
    }
  }
  return \@bins;
}

sub pack_worst_fit {
  my ($n, $size, $data) = @_;
  my @bins = map [], 1..$n;
  our @free = map $size, 1..$n;
  for my $item (@$data) {
    my $i = 0;
    for (1..$#free) { $i = $_ if $free[$_] > $free[$i]; }
    if ($free[$i] >= $item and @{$bins[$i]} < $MAX_ITEMS) {
      push @{$bins[$i]}, $item;
      $free[$i] -= $item;
    } else {
      push @bins, [$item];
      push @free, $size-$item;
    }
  }
  return \@bins;
}
[download]

Good Day,
    Dean

No, I saw those. I just chose to ignore them :) ... In particular, I did some additional tests using randomization with the traditional bin packing algorithms and found that the less-packed bins were typically filled to only 760 or so. Additionally, since sum(@a)/31 = 851.7, strictly enforcing the 840-900 limits is difficult/unlikely. Thus, I took the 840-900 limits to really mean "as balanced as possible", hence my solution.

Good Day,
    Dean