B-308774, Architect of the Capitol--Reimbursement of Office of Compliance Investigating and Monitoring Costs, March 15, 2007

B-308774 Mar 15, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Under the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), the Office of Compliance (Compliance) is responsible for investigating and litigating compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) with regard to legislative branch entities, including the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), and it receives an appropriation to carry out these activities. In view of Compliance's statutory responsibility to investigate, prosecute, and monitor alleged violations of the CAA, and absent any specific statutory authority to the contrary, Compliance lacks authority to accept reimbursement of its costs from AOC as part of an agreement to settle a Compliance complaint alleging violations of the OSHA provision of the CAA. Any acceptance of such reimbursement by Compliance would improperly augment appropriations made to it by Congress. Conversely, AOC's appropriation is not available to cover costs properly incurred by Compliance in discharging its statutory responsibilities. View Decision B-308774, Architect of the Capitol--Reimbursement of Office of Compliance Investigating and Monitoring Costs, March 15, 2007 Decision Matter of: Architect of the Capitol—Reimbursement of Office of Compliance Investigating and Monitoring Costs File: B-308774 Date: March 15, 2007 DIGEST Under the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), the Office of Compliance (Compliance) is responsible for investigating and litigating compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) with regard to legislative branch entities, including the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), and it receives an appropriation to carry out these activities. In view of Compliance's statutory responsibility to investigate, prosecute, and monitor alleged violations of the CAA, and absent any specific statutory authority to the contrary, Compliance lacks authority to accept reimbursement of its costs from AOC as part of an agreement to settle a Compliance complaint alleging violations of the OSHA provision of the CAA. Any acceptance of such reimbursement by Compliance would improperly augment appropriations made to it by Congress. Conversely, AOC's appropriation is not available to cover costs properly incurred by Compliance in discharging its statutory responsibilities. DECISION The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) has requested an advance decision under 31 U.S.C. sect. 3529 on the propriety of using its appropriated funds to reimburse certain costs incurred by the Office of Compliance (Compliance) General Counsel in resolving a formal complaint filed under the Congressional Accountability Act. Under a proposed settlement agreement, AOC would reimburse Compliance for its costs of investigating, prosecuting, and monitoring the alleged violations and the planned abatement actions. As explained below, Compliance is required by statute to enforce Occupational Safety and Health Act standards in the legislative branch, and it receives an annual appropriation to fund its activities. Because Compliance's authorizing statute does not specifically authorize it to accept reimbursement for its costs in the performance of its statutory responsibilities, any such reimbursement would be an improper augmentation of Compliance's appropriation. In the same vein, AOC is not authorized to use its appropriated funds to reimburse Compliance. Paying Compliance's expenses is not a purpose for which AOC receives an appropriation. Our practice when rendering decisions is to obtain the views of the relevant federal agencies to establish a factual record and to elicit the agency's legal position on the matter. GAO, Procedures and Practices for Legal Decisions and Opinions, GAO'06'1064SP (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2006), available at www.gao.gov/legal.htm. In this regard, AOC and Compliance both provided additional information on facts underlying this dispute and on their views regarding the legal issues involved. Letter from Peter M. Kushner, General Counsel, Architect of the Capitol, to Thomas H. Armstrong, Assistant General Counsel, GAO, Feb. 9, 2007; Letter from Peter Ames Eveleth, General Counsel, Office of Compliance, to Thomas H. Armstrong, Assistant General Counsel, GAO, Feb. 9, 2007 (Eveleth Letter). BACKGROUND The Office of Compliance is the legislative branch entity tasked with administering and enforcing the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA). Pub. L. No. 104'1, 109 Stat. 3 (Jan. 23, 1995), codified at 2 U.S.C. sections 1301--1438; see Office of Compliance, Who We Are and What We Do, available at www.compliance.gov/organization/organization.html (last visited Mar. 13, 2007). This act incorporated many significant statutes involving employee rights and protections not otherwise applicable to the legislative branch and extended coverage of these statutes to Congress and legislative branch agencies and offices. 2 U.S.C. sections 1301--1302.