Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – Payment of a Non-, B-281063, December 1, 1999

B-281063 Dec 01, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The payment was not improper because the fee was all-inclusive. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requests our opinion on whether it was proper for NRC to pay a non-negotiable. We conclude that the payment was not improper. The workshops were held at the William F. The workshops were attended by NRC employees exclusively and focused on internal NRC matters. The employees were not in official travel status. An NRC employee was tasked with obtaining on very short notice (within two weeks) an off-site conference facility convenient to headquarters at a cost less than $2. /1/ the employee determined that it was comparable to. Two more workshops were scheduled at Bolger for August 15 and October 21. View Decision Matter of: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – Payment of a Non-Negotiable, Non-Separable Facility Rental Fee that Covered the Cost of Food Served at NRC Workshops File: B-281063 Date: December 1, 1999 DIGEST DECISION The Director of the Division of Accounting and Finance, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requests our opinion on whether it was proper for NRC to pay a non-negotiable, non-separable facility rental fee for five NRC workshops when the fee covered the cost of meals and refreshments served at the workshops. Under the circumstances described below, we conclude that the payment was not improper. Background The NRC sponsored five workshops for its employees between July and October 1997. The workshops were held at the William F. Bolger Center for Leadership Development (Bolger) in Potomac, Maryland. The workshops were attended by NRC employees exclusively and focused on internal NRC matters. The employees were not in official travel status. Regarding the first three workshops held in July, an NRC employee was tasked with obtaining on very short notice (within two weeks) an off-site conference facility convenient to headquarters at a cost less than $2,500 to accommodate 20 to 25 individuals to pursue NRC strategic planning initiatives. Due to the short timeframe, the employee only made inquiries to Bolger, which had been used by NRC in prior years, and one other facility. After receiving Bolger's proposal to charge a daily flat fee of $45.00 per person, /1/ the employee determined that it was comparable to, if not less expensive than, the other facility and procured its use through his NRC BankCard (Visa). Bolger's flat fee included the use of a conference room and a breakout room, breaks (refreshments), lunch, equipment, and appropriate supplies. /2/ With the success of the first three workshops at Bolger, two more workshops were scheduled at Bolger for August 15 and October 21, 1997 and procured in a similar manner. One NRC certifying officer certified the payments to VISA for the first three workshops and another NRC certifying officer certified the last two. Some NRC officials questioned whether these payments were proper to the extent of the cost of the food provided, and whether the workshop attendees or the certifying officers should reimburse NRC for the questioned costs. Although Bolger's flat rate was non-negotiable and non-separable, Bolger responded to NRC's request to identify the portion of the daily fee attributable to meals and refreshments. Bolger stated that of the $45.00 flat rate, $13.00 represents amounts attributable to meals and refreshments. NRC identified 73 different employees attending one or more of the workshops, resulting in a total of 89 instances in which employees received meals and refreshments. NRC estimates the questioned costs to be $1,157. NRC then requested our opinion on whether the payments were improper. /3/ Analysis As a general rule, the government may not furnish meals or refreshments to employees within their official duty station. 65 Comp. Gen. 508, 509 (1986). This principle comes from the proposition that expenses for food and refreshments are considered personal expenses that government employees are expected to bear from their own salaries. Id. Two provisions of the Government Employees Training Act (Training Act) are often cited as authority for government agencies to provide meals or refreshments to employees within their official duty station. The first, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 4109, authorizes agencies to reimburse the necessary expenses incurred by those who attend training programs at their duty stations. Agency funds may be used to provide meals under section 4109 if necessary to achieve the training program's objectives, 50 Comp. Gen. 610 (1971); 48 Comp. Gen. 185 (1968); B-247966, June 16, 1993. Agency funds also may be used to pay for an employee's meals incident to training provided by other than the government if the employee's attendance at the meals is necessary to obtain the full benefit of the training, B-193955, Sept. 14, 1979.