Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Plains Regional Office, Incentive, B-288536, November 19, 2001

B-288536 Nov 19, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights We conclude that appropriations are available for this purpose. The Inspector General concluded that the Bureau could not pay the charge because the buffet was more of a dinner meal. Contending that the expenditure was proper and that the meal. Was in the best interest of the government. The reason is simple and straightforward. "[f]eeding oneself is a personal expense." 65 Comp. Appropriations are not available to provide food to employees at their permanent duty station. Agency officials have broad authority both to administer the incentive awards program and to determine the appropriate level of recognition for those employees who receive such awards. An awards ceremony is a proper if not an integral element of an awards program. 65 Comp. View Decision Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Plains Regional Office, Incentive Awards Ceremony, B-288536, November 19, 2001 DIGEST DECISION This decision responds to a request from Cora L. Jones, Director of the Great Plains Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, concerning the availability of appropriated funds for a buffet-style luncheon provided employees attending an awards ceremony. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that appropriations are available for this purpose. BACKGROUND On December 14, 2000, the Great Plains Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), an agency of the Department of the Interior, held an Employee's Incentive Awards Ceremony in recognition of the achievements of its personnel during the year. As part of the ceremony, the Office provided a buffet-style luncheon at a cost of $554.40. The Office used a government charge card to pay for the food, charging the amount to its appropriations. The Agency Charge Card Program Coordinator noted the charge and referred the matter to the agency's Inspector General. The Inspector General concluded that the Bureau could not pay the charge because the buffet was more of a dinner meal, rather than light refreshments. The Bureau's Regional Director disagreed, contending that the expenditure was proper and that the meal, as part of an award ceremony, was in the best interest of the government. DISCUSSION As a general rule, agencies may not feed their employees at taxpayer expense. The reason is simple and straightforward--"[f]eeding oneself is a personal expense." 65 Comp. Gen. 738, 739 (1986). Therefore, unless statutory authority exists or the expenditure falls under one of the recognized exceptions, appropriations are not available to provide food to employees at their permanent duty station. Id. The Government Employees Incentive Awards Act (GEIAA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 4501 (1994 and Supp. IV 1998), authorizes the use of appropriated funds to provide food at an awards ceremony. Under the GEIAA, an agency head may pay a cash award or grant time off to an employee who "by his suggestion, invention, superior accomplishment, or other personal effort contributes to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of government operations or achieves a significant reduction in paperwork," or "performs a special act or service in the public interest in connection with or related to his official employment." 5 U.S.C. Sec. 4503. Agency officials have broad authority both to administer the incentive awards program and to determine the appropriate level of recognition for those employees who receive such awards. Hayes v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 150 (1990). The Act authorizes an agency to use its operating appropriations to cover the "necessary expense for the honorary recognition of" the employee or employees receiving the awards. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 4503. An awards ceremony is a proper if not an integral element of an awards program. 65 Comp. Gen. 738, 740. An awards ceremony providing public recognition clearly differs from the agency's day-to-day conduct of official business. Id. Given the "ceremonial" purpose served by such events, refreshments, which would be inappropriate in other contexts, are appropriate so long as the agency determines that the refreshments will materially enhance the effectiveness of the ceremony. Id. Accordingly, we have held that an agency may use appropriated funds to pay for refreshments in this context as a "necessary expense for the honorary recognition of" employees in accordance with GEIAA. Id. This is not to say that agencies have unlimited discretion in the use of appropriated funds to pay for refreshments at an awards ceremony. Expenditures by the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (II), B-247563, B-247563.4, Dec. 11, 1996. We have not, however, constrained agency discretion by offering a hard-and-fast definition of what refreshments an agency may consider "necessary expenses" as that phrase is used in GEIAA, and will not do so here either. Instead, we have looked at this issue in the context of all the facts and circumstances.