B-306663, Contractors Collecting Fees at Agency-Hosted Conferences, January 4, 2006

B-306663 Jan 04, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Senator Mikulski asked us to revisit our March 2005 decision, National Institutes of Health--Food at Government-Sponsored Conferences, B-300826, Mar. 3, 2005. In that decision, we addressed the availability to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of its appropriation for the purpose of providing food to attendees at NIH-hosted conferences. In addition, in response to a question from NIH, we concluded that NIH may not charge an attendance fee at conferences and retain the proceeds, nor permit its contractor to do so, because NIH lacks statutory authority. Senator Mikulski expressed concern that this conclusion would reduce federal efforts to bring experts together at federally hosted conferences, particularly conferences hosted by the National Security Agency (NSA), to address evolving threats to the nation. View Decision B-306663, Contractors Collecting Fees at Agency-Hosted Conferences, January 4, 2006 B-306663 January 4, 2006 The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski United States Senate Subject: Contractors Collecting Fees at Agency-Hosted Conferences Dear Senator Mikulski: We received your letter dated October 4, 2005, asking us to revisit our March 2005 decision, National Institutes of Health—Food at Government-Sponsored Conferences, B-300826, Mar. 3, 2005. In that decision, we addressed the availability to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of its appropriation for the purpose of providing food to attendees at NIH-hosted conferences. Id. In addition, in response to a question from NIH, we concluded that NIH may not charge an attendance fee at conferences and retain the proceeds, nor permit its contractor to do so, because NIH lacks statutory authority. Id. You expressed concern that this conclusion would reduce federal efforts to bring experts together at federally hosted conferences, particularly conferences hosted by the National Security Agency (NSA), to address evolving threats to the nation. We appreciate your interest in our March 2005 decision. However, we find no basis to change our conclusion that when an agency lacks statutory authority to charge a fee at a conference and retain the proceeds, neither the agency hosting a conference, nor a contractor on behalf of the agency, may do so. When entertaining a request for reconsideration of a decision, we consider whether the request demonstrates an error of fact or law in the earlier decision, or presents new information not considered in the earlier decision. B-271838.2, May 23, 1997. You do not assert that our March 2005 decision contained legal or factual errors. While you present information regarding agencies' practices that we did not address in our March 2005 decision, such information does not change our conclusion, as explained below. In your letter, you state that for several years, agencies have engaged in the practice of allowing their contractors, on behalf of the agencies, to collect fees from conference participants to offset the costs of agency-hosted conferences. You explain that agencies initiated this practice after we determined that agencies themselves cannot collect such fees without statutory authority. The miscellaneous receipts statute provides that –an official or agent of the Government receiving money for the Government from any source shall deposit the money in the Treasury as soon as practicable without deduction for any charge or claim.— 31 U.S.C. sect. 3302(b). In earlier decisions, we indeed have advised that an agency, in the absence of statutory authority, may not retain fees or other amounts paid to the government for activities relating to official duties, but must deposit such funds in the general fund of the Treasury. E.g., B-302825, Dec. 22, 2004 (Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight may not retain money collected from third party litigants for copying costs, but must deposit the money in the Treasury). Both GAO and federal judicial decisions have concluded that the miscellaneous receipts statute precludes an agency of the government diverting to a contractor of the government any amounts the contractor receives on behalf of the government. See, e.g., Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices, Inc. v. Department of Defense, 87 F.3d 1356, 1361-63 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Motor Coach Industries, Inc. v. Dole, 725 F.2d 958, 968 (4th Cir. 1984) (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cannot hold in a trust fund amounts paid by airlines to defray FAA's cost of acquiring new shuttle buses for Dulles Airport); cf. B-300248, Jan. 15, 2004. A government agency that lacks the authority to charge and retain fees may not cure that lack of authority by engaging a contractor to do what it may not do. A contractor in this situation is –receiving money for the Government,— and the miscellaneous receipts statute requires that such funds must be deposited in the Treasury.