BNUMBER: B-247563.4
DATE: December 11, 1996
TITLE: Expenditures by the Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (II)
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Expenditures by the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (II)
File: B-247563.4
Date: December 11, 1996
______________________________________________________________________
_____
DIGEST
1. The Department of Veterans Affairs was not authorized to use its
medical care appropriation for an employee breakfast since the event
was not an awards ceremony under the Government Employees Incentive
Awards Act,
5 U.S.C. sec. 4501 et seq.
2. The Department of Veterans Affairs was not authorized to use its
medical care appropriation to pay for refreshments at employee
meetings. Agencies generally may not furnish meals or refreshments to
employees within their official duty stations and the record contains
no evidence that the expenses at issue fell within the exceptions
contained in 5 U.S.C. sec. 4109 and 4110.
3. The Department of Veterans Affairs was not authorized to use its
appropriation for medical care to purchase Christmas cards and stamps
since the cost of holiday greeting cards is a personal expense of the
officer who authorizes their use.
4. The Department of Veterans Affairs was not authorized to use its
medical care appropriation to pay traveling employees per diem in
excess of the amount authorized by governing regulations since the
record contains no evidence that the accommodations for which the
excess payments were made were necessary for the accomplishment of the
agency's mission.
5. The Department of Veterans Affairs was authorized to use its
medical care appropriation to purchase items for a Combined Federal
Campaign (CFC) reception. The CFC is a government sanctioned charity
for which a limited amount of appropriated funds may be used and
regulations governing the CFC specifically contemplate the type of
event for which the purchases at issue were made.
______________________________________________________________________
_____
DECISION
In the aftermath of an investigation by its Office of Inspector
General (IG), the Department of Veterans Affairs requested an opinion
on the legality of 72 expenditures made between March 1990 and
September 1991 by the VA Medical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
from VA's medical care appropriation. VA also requested relief from
liability for seven Medical Center officials believed to be liable for
the payments. Finally, VA requested guidance on the liability of
various procurement and financial management officials for improper
payments.
To facilitate our analysis and discussion, we divided the 72
expenditures at issue into four broad categories: recruitment,
contests, refreshments, and miscellaneous.[1] In B-247563.3, April 5,
1996, we addressed the Medical Center's use of appropriated funds for
15 recruitment- and contest-related expenditures and associated
requests for relief. We also provided VA with guidance on financial
liability generally. This decision addresses the remaining 57
expenditures and associated relief requests.
In its request, VA identified 11 expenditures for refreshments for
"awards ceremonies," as well as one for a floral centerpiece,
totalling $2,004.90. VA identified 41 additional expenditures for
refreshments in connection with various employee meetings totalling
$2,105.54. As discussed below, we conclude that one of the
expenditures for refreshments in connection with "awards ceremonies,"
totalling $287.75, was not authorized. We also conclude that none of
the expenditures for employee meetings were authorized. With respect
to the four "miscellaneous" expenditures, we conclude that VA was not
authorized to purchase Christmas cards and stamps or to pay excess per
diem to employees on travel. However, VA was authorized to purchase
the items used in connection with a Combined Federal Campaign (CFC)
reception.
BACKGROUND
During the period covered by the IG's investigation, the Medical
Center purchased refreshments for a variety of events during which
employees were recognized for their contributions to the Medical
Center's operations. In addition, the Medical Center purchased
refreshments for a variety of employee meetings, including new
employee orientations and conferences with other medical
professionals.
The IG's report identified several other questionable expenditures.
The Medical Center purchased Christmas cards (and stamps) for service
organizations, state veterans' centers, and nearby VA medical centers.
The Medical Center also paid an amount in excess of per diem to three
VA employees on travel. Finally, the Medical Center purchased several
items for a reception in connection with the annual CFC.
Payments for all of the items were made from VA's appropriations for
"Veterans Health Service and Research Administration, Medical Care"
for fiscal years 1990 and 1991. The appropriations were available,
among other things, for necessary expenses for the maintenance and
operation of hospital nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities and
for furnishing inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to VA
beneficiaries. Title I of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
1991,
Pub. L. No. 101-507, 104 Stat. 1351, 1352-1353 (1990); Title I of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-144,
103 Stat. 839, 840-841 (1989).
DISCUSSION
Under 31 U.S.C. sec. 1301(a) (1994), appropriated funds are available
only for authorized purposes. During the period covered by the IG's
investigation, VA did not have express authority to make the types of
expenditures at issue here. Since the expenditures were not expressly
authorized, they were permissible only if reasonably necessary or
incident to the proper execution of an authorized purpose or function
of the agency. 71 Comp. Gen. 527 (1992). The application of the
"necessary expense rule" is, in the first instance, a matter of agency
discretion. However, agencies do not have unfettered discretion.
Therefore, when we review an expenditure to determine whether it falls
within an authorized purpose or function, we consider whether, under
the circumstances, the relationship between the authorized function
and the expenditure is so attenuated as to take it beyond the agency's
legitimate range of discretion. B-257488, Nov. 6, 1995.
Refreshments
As a general rule, agencies may not furnish meals or refreshments to
employees within their official duty stations. 68 Comp. Gen. 604
(1989). However, provisions of title 5, United States Code, set forth
exceptions to the general rule in the case of awards ceremonies and
meetings incident to approved training or conferences that satisfy
specified conditions.
Awards ceremonies
The Government Employees Incentive Awards Act (act), 5 U.S.C. sec. 4501
et seq., authorizes agencies to make monetary and honorary awards and
grants agencies broad discretion to determine when such awards are
appropriate. See 66 Comp. Gen. 536 (1987). In addition, the act
specifically authorizes agencies to "incur necessary expense[s] for
the honorary recognition" of employees who meet the statutory
criteria. 5 U.S.C. sec. 4503. In light of this authority, agencies may
conduct awards ceremonies and provide "light refreshments" at
receptions incident to such ceremonies. 65 Comp. Gen. 738 (1986).
While we have not specifically defined the phrase "awards ceremony,"
we have emphasized that the purpose of such events is to allow
agencies to publicly recognize employees' meritorious performance and
allow other employees to honor and congratulate their colleagues. Id.
at 740. Thus, the act authorizes expenditures of appropriated funds
for "light refreshments" to complement agency functions whose
principal purpose is to recognize employees. This is not to say that
the act authorizes such expenditures in connection with an event or
function designed to achieve other objectives simply because the
agency distributes awards as part of the event or function.
The submission includes vouchers for 11 functions. In our view, one
of the 11 functions cannot be characterized as an awards ceremony.
During the period covered by the IG's investigation, the Medical
Center provided a buffet breakfast to a number of Medical Center
employees. The submission indicates only that the employees were
recognized with a special contribution award for their efforts during
a Medical Center fire. However, the submission contains no indication
that employees other than the 45 specifically recognized and the
Medical Center Director participated in the event. Nor does the
record contain any other evidence to suggest that the awards
recognizing the employees' contributions were otherwise publicized
within the Medical Center community. As discussed above, appropriated
funds may be used to purchase food for receptions incident to award
ceremonies to facilitate public recognition of award recipients.
However, this purpose is not served where, as here, the award
recipients and the donor are the only participants at the event.
Given these facts, we find that the Medical Center's use of
appropriated funds for the breakfast refreshments was improper.[2]
The Medical Center also used its appropriation to purchase supplies
and light refreshments for a picnic and Valentine's Day Dance. The
submission indicates that the picnic and dance were both annual
events. The submission also indicates that the Medical Center
recognized employees' accomplishments at both events.
As discussed above, the act authorizes agencies to purchase
refreshments for receptions incident to awards ceremonies where the
agency determines that the refreshments will enhance the awards
ceremonies and foster public recognition of employees'
accomplishments. Expenditures for receptions incident to awards
ceremonies do not become impermissible merely because such receptions
coincide with social or recreational events. However, agencies may
only use appropriated funds for expenditures that are properly
allocable to such receptions. For example, an agency could decide to
distribute performance awards in connection with an annual agency
sporting event on the grounds that the event has been well-attended by
agency staff. Under these circumstances, the agency would not be
authorized to use appropriated funds for expenses, such as the rental
of equipment, that are unrelated to the distribution of awards and
public recognition of award recipients. As we noted earlier, where
the totality of facts and circumstances indicates that the awards are
purely incidental to an unrelated social or recreational event and
appear on close scrutiny to be no more than an artifice, there is no
reception incident to an awards ceremony to which expenses for
refreshments could be attributed.
The record indicates that the Medical Center used its appropriation to
purchase light refreshments and supplies, presumably those supplies
required for employees to enjoy the refreshments, for the picnic and
Valentine's Day Dance. The record also includes the Medical Center
Director's assertion that the distribution of "performance award
certificates" and "years of service awards" were the highlights of the
organized activities at the annual picnic and that the Valentine's Day
Dance was the highlight of the Medical Center's Employee of the
Month/Year Program. Based on these facts, we are not prepared to
conclude that the Medical Center's expenditures in connection with the
two events were unauthorized. However, we point out that where, as
here, an agency combines awards receptions with social events for
which the use of appropriated funds would be unauthorized, the
expenditures should be subject to greater scrutiny than expenditures
made in connection with more traditional awards ceremonies.[3]
In its submission, VA characterized two of the 11 events as "employee
retirement recognition ceremonies" and stated that "certificates of
appreciation and
years-of-service awards" were presented. As discussed above, VA's
medical care appropriation was not available to purchase refreshments
for social functions, including retirement parties. However, we have
no reason to conclude that the "awards" presented to the retirees here
failed to meet the criteria set forth in the Government Employees
Incentive Awards Act and OPM's implementing regulations. Although we
remain skeptical of such multipurpose functions, based on the present
record, we have no basis to object to VA's expenditures for
refreshments incident to these "ceremonies." We also note favorably
that guidance on the Incentive Awards Program issued in response to
the IG's report states that refreshments for retirement parties may
not be purchased with appropriated funds. MP-4, Part V, Change 206, sec.
3A.13.
The submission also indicates that the Medical Center used
appropriated funds to purchase a floral centerpiece for a Nursing
Service awards ceremony. Since the
appropriation at issue was available for awards ceremonies and
accompanying refreshments, we do not object to VA's use of
appropriated funds for a floral
centerpiece where it determined that such a centerpiece would enhance
the ceremony. See B-158831, June 8, 1966 (authorizing an agency to
use appropriated funds for flowers at a building dedication).
Meetings
Section 4109 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes payments for
meals or refreshments for those attending training programs at their
duty stations where the agency determines that providing meals or
refreshments is a necessary incident to providing the training and to
the employees' achieving the objectives of the program. B-221940,
Oct. 7, 1987. For example, in 48 Comp. Gen. 185 (1968), we approved
an agency's payment of room and board for an employee at his
headquarters where dinner meetings, and other meetings integral to the
training, were conducted in the evenings. Similarly, in B-193955,
Sept. 14, 1979, we approved an agency's payment of luncheon expenses
where attendance at the luncheon was mandatory and the luncheon
included a training speaker.
Section 4109 applies only to those events that actually qualify as
"training" under
5 U.S.C. sec. 4101;[4] mere references to meetings or other events as
"training" are insufficient. B-249795, May 12, 1993. The submission
from VA characterizes a number of the events for which it purchased
refreshments as "training." However, the submission does not provide
us with a basis for concluding that any of the 41 events at issue meet
the statutory definition.
Moreover, even if these events are aptly characterized as "training,"
the record provides us with no basis to find that the refreshments
were a necessary incident of the training or important to the
achievement of the training objectives. With respect to several
expenditures, the submission contains only the conclusory comment that
the refreshments were necessary to achieve the objectives of the
events. Further, with respect to a Regional Medical Education
Center[5] seminar on equal employment opportunities, an official
observed that refreshments were served to enhance employees' interest.
Doubtless, the availability of refreshments will enhance employees'
interest and enthusiasm for official events. However, given the types
of light refreshments served and the absence of any more compelling
justification, the sole purpose of the refreshments was apparently to
make the events more pleasant for the attendees. This is not
sufficient to authorize the expenditures under 5 U.S.C. sec. 4109. See
B-270199, Aug. 6, 1996 (holding that the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation was not authorized to provide refreshments to "break the
ice" and "reward" participants during a training session).
Section 4110 of title 5, United States Code, authorizes payment for
meals in conjunction with a conference or meeting when a determination
is made (1) that the meals are incidental to the conference or
meeting; (2) that attendance is necessary to full participation; (3)
that the employees are not free to take meals elsewhere without
missing essential formal discussions, lectures or speeches concerning
the purpose of the meeting; and (4) that the meal is part of a formal
conference or meeting that includes not only functions such as
speeches or business carried on during a meal, but also includes
substantial functions taking place separate from the meal. Id. at 2.
However, section 4110 does not authorize the payment of meal expenses
in connection with internal business meetings sponsored by government
agencies. 68 Comp. Gen. 606 (1989) (holding that section 4110 did not
authorize the Army to pay for employees' meals at quarterly meetings
of agency supervisors). Rather, section 4110 applies to formal
conferences or meetings, typically externally organized or sponsored,
involving topical matters of general interest to governmental and
nongovernmental participants. Id. at 608.
The record suggests that most of the functions for which the Medical
Center purchased refreshments were routine internal meetings involving
the operations of the Medical Center and the activities of its
personnel.[6] Presumably, such functions were led by Medical Center
staff and involved no nongovernmental participants. Moreover, for
many of these functions, Medical Center officials offered only general
justifications that had, at most, a transparent resemblance to the
criteria for purchases of refreshments. The Director of the Medical
Center asserted, for example, that refreshments were served during new
employee orientations as part of the Medical Center's retention
program. The Medical Center Director also asserted that randomly
selected employees were invited to Director's Breakfasts as a form of
recognition. Others asserted that the purchases were necessary to
enhance employee morale. In short, VA's submission does not provide
us with a reasonable basis to find that any of these purchases
satisfied the criteria of section 4110.
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES
Christmas greetings
During the period covered by the IG's review, the Medical Center used
its appropriation to purchase Christmas cards and stamps. According
to the Medical Center Director, VA sent Christmas cards to service
organizations, other VA medical centers, state medical facilities, and
others for the purpose of enhancing the relationship between the
Medical Center and these organizations. We have long held that the
cost of holiday greeting cards is a personal expense of the officer
who authorizes their use, even where the agency's name rather than the
officer's name appears on the card. See, e.g., 64 Comp. Gen. 382
(1985); 37 Comp. Gen. 360 (1957). Both cases specifically rejected
the argument that objectives such as engendering goodwill or ensuring
the recipients' cooperation justified using appropriated funds for
this purpose. Therefore, the cost of Christmas cards and stamps was
not properly charged to VA's medical care appropriation.
Excess per diem
According to the submission, VA contracted for the lodging of three
employees who traveled to Oklahoma City for two nights each to
interview for the chief of staff position at the Medical Center.
Travel orders included in the submission indicate that the employees
were to be reimbursed on a per diem basis.[7] They also indicate that
the cost of lodging was not to exceed $47 per day and that contract
lodging would be provided. At the time the travel at issue here
occurred, governing regulations authorized reimbursement at a rate of
$47 per day for lodging and $26 per day for meals and incidental
expenses. 41 C.F.R. Chap. 301, App. A. However, according to the
IG's report and invoices included in the submission, charges for
lodging paid by the Medical Center were $76.56 per night.
Appropriated funds are not available to pay per diem or actual
subsistence expenses in excess of those allowed by statute or
regulation. 60 Comp. Gen. 181 (1981). In addition, while agencies
may generally contract for lodging and meals, limitations on per diem
or actual expense rates apply to such contracts as they do to
reimbursements. Id. Consistent with this decision, applicable
regulations provided that when lodging was to be furnished at no cost
to the employee through use of an agency purchase order, the agency
was not to authorize or approve a per diem allowance for other
subsistence expenses that would, when combined with the cost of
lodging furnished, exceed the applicable maximum per diem rate. 41
C.F.R. sec. 301-7.7(a). Since the allowance paid here exceeded the
applicable rate, we find that the payment was not authorized.
We have previously recognized that where failure to provide a
particular accommodation would frustrate an agency's ability to carry
out its statutory mandate, the agency, applying appropriate
safeguards, may pay an allowance in excess of the authorized amount.
B-209375, Dec. 7, 1982. In B-209375, we found that the United States
Information Agency was authorized to pay excess per diem to agency
employees assigned to cover the President since it was essential to
the successful accomplishment of the Agency's mission that such
employees stay with the White House Press Corps. However, we have
construed this exception narrowly; conclusory statements that
particular accommodations are necessary for an agency to carry out its
mandate do not provide a sufficient basis to invoke the exception to
the general rule. See 64 Comp. Gen. 447 (1985).
Here, VA has not asserted that the particular accommodations provided
were necessary for the employees to participate in interviews for the
chief of staff position and there is no evidence in the record that
would provide us with a basis for reaching this conclusion.[8] In
addition, the record contains no suggestion that
the Medical Center intended to compensate the traveling employees for
actual subsistence expenses in the amounts specified due to special or
unusual circumstances as authorized by 41 C.F.R. sec. 301-8.2.
Accordingly, payment of per diem in excess of the authorized amount
was impermissible.
The IG's report states that the invoice for lodging also reflects the
expenses of meals for Medical Center staff participating in the
interviews. As discussed above, payment for meals for employees
within their official duty stations is generally not authorized. In
addition, we have specifically denied employees' claims for
subsistence expenses at their duty stations, even where, as here, the
employees were escorting or participating in meetings with visiting
officials. Id. Finally, it is not clear from the record whether
these meals were also provided to the employees on official travel.
If so, the cost of the meals should have been deducted from any
otherwise authorized per diem. See 41 C.F.R. sec. 301-7.4(d),
301-7.7(b).
CFC-related items
The Medical Center held a ceremony to recognize associates and key
workers for a successful effort in the annual CFC. Refreshments were
provided by service chiefs, but the Medical Center used appropriated
funds to purchase forks, cups, and napkins. We have long held that
agencies may cooperate in charity fund-raising campaigns for health
and welfare activities, even though these activities are not
specifically provided for by statute. See, e.g., B-155667, Jan. 21,
1965. Further, we have held that agencies may spend reasonable
amounts of appropriated funds specifically to promote the CFC. 67
Comp. Gen. 254 (1988). The question remains whether a reception in
the aftermath of the annual CFC is the type of event for which an
agency may use appropriated funds. CFC regulations promulgated by OPM
state that events not specifically provided for, such as raffles,
lotteries, and carnivals, are strictly prohibited. 5 C.F.R. sec.
950.602. However, they also provide that "kick-offs, victory events,
awards, and other non-fund raising events to build support for the
CFC" are not prohibited. Id. Since the Medical Center's reception
was an inclusive, "victory" event, we do not object to its use of a
limited amount of appropriated funds to purchase necessary items.
Liability of VA Officials
We now address VA's request that we relieve designated officials from
liability for the improper payments discussed above. VA has
identified an imprest funds clerk as the official who made 34 of the
41 purchases of refreshments for various employee meetings. The same
imprest funds clerk purchased the stamps for the Medical Center's
Christmas cards. As an imprest funds clerk, this individual issued
third party drafts for each of the improper purchases.[9] VA's
submission indicates that a program analyst made an additional
purchase of refreshments, also with a third party draft. However, in
the absence of a statute or agency regulation to the contrary, agency
officials other than those designated as accountable officers are not
financially liable for improper payments of government funds.
B-247563.3,
April 5, 1996 (and cases cited therein). Further, unless otherwise
designated, issuers of third party drafts are not financially liable
for improper purchases made with such drafts since government funds
are not disbursed when third party drafts are issued. Id. at 9.
Therefore, we need not consider VA's requests for relief for these
individuals.
VA also requested relief for three voucher auditors. One of the
voucher auditors reviewed the Medical Center's purchase of
refreshments for a stress management workshop. Another carried out
the same function with respect to the purchase of Christmas cards, and
the third with respect to the payment of per diem in excess of the
authorized amount. In each of the three cases, the voucher auditors
"certified," i.e., reviewed and approved, invoices for payment through
VA's automated finance center in Austin. In this regard, their
activities supported the certification ultimately made by an
authorized certifying officer at the Austin finance center. Further,
several documents included in VA's submission refer to their
"certifications" or their role as "certifying officers." However, VA
advised that these officials had not been designated as certifying
officers.[10] We therefore conclude that neither is liable for the
Medical Center's improper expenditures of appropriated funds.
VA requested relief from liability for seven Medical Center officials
in connection with 52 of the Medical Center's 72 questionable
expenditures.[11] In this decision, we have addressed VA's request
with respect to 36 of the 41 expenditures for refreshments in
connection with employee meetings, Christmas cards and stamps, and
excess per diem. However, these payments, as well as those for the
buffet breakfast and refreshments for five of the 41 employee
meetings, were also approved by an authorized certifying officer.
Since the circumstances under which the authorized certifying
officer(s) approved the unauthorized payments discussed in this
decision were identical to those present in B-247563.3, we grant
relief under the principles articulated in that decision.
CONCLUSION
The VA Medical Center in Oklahoma City charged a variety of
unauthorized purchases to VA's medical care appropriation during the
period covered by the IG's report. Specifically, an expenditure of
$287.75 for a buffet breakfast was not authorized. In addition, 41
expenditures for refreshments in connection with various employee
meetings, totalling $2,105.54, were unauthorized. Further, VA was not
authorized to use a total of $438.32 to purchase Christmas cards and
stamps or to pay amounts in excess of per diem to employees on travel.
However, since none of the officials specifically identified by VA in
connection with the expenditures were accountable officers, they are
not liable for these payments. For the reasons stated in our earlier
decision involving the Oklahoma City Medical Center,
B-247563.3, April 5, 1996, relief is granted to the authorized
certifying officer(s) who approved the payments.
/s/Robert P. Murphy
for Comptroller General
of the United States
ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT
Refreshments
Awards Ceremonies - 12 expenditures
PO# Amount Description
IF0237 287.75 Breakfast for Employee Recognition
IF0306 50.80 Nursing Staff Reception
IF0330 86.21 Nursing Staff Reception
IF0336 224.00 Nursing Staff Reception
IF0396 500.00 Annual All-Employees Picnic
IF1008 73.98 Employee Retirement Recognition Ceremony
IF1020 16.99 Employee Retirement Recognition Ceremony
I15378 52.65 Nursing Service Award Program
IF1160 125.00 Employee Recognition
IF1162 500.00 Annual Valentine's Day Dance
IF1199 45.52 Awards Ceremony for Chief of Staff
IF1192 42.00 Awards Ceremony Centerpiece
Total $2,004.90
Employee Meetings - 41 expenditures
PO# Amount Description
IF12244 207.00
125.00 Public Service Recognition
52.00 Employee Breakfast
30.00 Director's Breakfast
IF1286 88.22 Service Officers' Conference
IF1259 40.00 Employee Breakfast
IF1274 81.47 RMEC Seminar for EEO
IF0263 34.10 Doughnuts for Employee Breakfast
IF1048 19.10 New Employee Orientation
IF0327 110.14 RMEC Workshop
IF0259 14.33 Refreshments
IF0369 20.12 New Employee Orientation
IF1119 22.68 New Employee Orientation
IF1078 16.28 New Employee Orientation
IF1131 13.32 New Employee Orientation
IF1032 50.00 Service Officers' Meeting
IF0221 39.29 Cake for National Laboratory Week
IF1203 50.88 Refreshments for Audiology Service
IF1122 40.00 Director's Breakfast
IF0386 172.70 Supervisors Training
IF1061 20.04 New Employee Orientation
IF0297 29.15 New Employee Orientation
IF1104 148.00 RMEC Training
IF0370 19.22 New Employee Orientation
IF0371 31.40 New Employee Orientation
IF0325 24.41 New Employee Orientation
IF0262 60.00 In-service Meeting
IF1120 40.00 Hospital Residents Meeting
IF1159 40.00 Employee Recognition
IF0269 13.40 EEO Membership Drive
IF1012 20.12 New Employee Orientation
IF0387 18.77 New Employee Orientation
IF1182 44.00 New Employee Orientation
IF0326 25.31 New Employee Orientation
1. We have placed the Medical Center's expenditures for the following
items in the "miscellaneous" category: Christmas cards, stamps,
excess per diem, and items for a Combined Federal Campaign reception.
2. Although VA did not assert that the food itself was an award, we
note that under then-governing regulations of the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), agencies were not authorized to award food under the
Government Employees Incentive Awards Act. See 5 C.F.R. sec. 451.103
(1993) (defining the term "non-monetary award" as "a medal,
certificate, plaque, citation, badge or other similar item that has an
award or honor connotation" (emphasis added). See also Federal
Personnel Manual, ch. 451, sec. 7-3 (Inst. 265, Aug. 14, 1981).
3. According to the IG's report, an OPM official advised that picnics
and dances are "traditionally not considered [awards ceremonies]." We
note that the then-governing guidance from OPM merely stated that it
would be appropriate for agencies to provide light refreshments at
nominal cost at awards receptions. See Federal Personnel Manual at
451-5. There is currently no guidance for the agencies in this area.
4. Under section 4101, "training" means the process of providing for
and making available to an employee, and placing or enrolling the
employee in, a planned, prepared, and coordinated program, course,
curriculum, subject, system, or routine of instruction or education,
in scientific, professional, technical, mechanical, trade, clerical,
fiscal, administrative, or other fields which will improve individual
and organizational performance and assist in achieving the agency's
mission and performance goals.
5. Sections 7471-7474 of title 38, United States Code, require VA to
establish Regional Medical Education Centers at selected medical
facilities to train health personnel.
6. For example, 15 of the 41 expenditures were for refreshments for
"new employee orientation."
7. Under 5 U.S.C. sec. 5702 and the Federal Travel Regulation, 41 C.F.R.
Parts 301-7 and 8, maximum subsistence expense reimbursements are
established for federal employee travel. Typically, employees
traveling on official business are to be reimbursed on a per diem
basis consistent with administratively prescribed maximum per diem
rates. See 41 C.F.R. sec. 301-8.2(a) (1990). However, travel on an
actual subsistence basis may be authorized for travel assignments when
the maximum per diem rate is insufficient due to special or unusual
circumstances. Id.
8. According to the IG's Report, Medical Center officials cited
B-219147, Feb. 11, 1986, as justification for their decision not to
seek repayment from the employees to whom the Medical Center made
excess payments. B-219147 provides no such justification. B-219147
merely clarified the narrow scope of B-209375 and authorized the Army
to treat lodging costs in excess of authorized amounts as an
administrative expense due to its reliance on GSA and Joint Travel
Regulations that had misinterpreted our decision. More importantly,
B-219147 clearly held that an agency's contract for accommodations for
employees traveling on official business must be included in the
employee's per diem or actual expense allowance.
9. In B-247563.3, April 5, 1996, we described the Medical Center's
extensive use of third party drafts. In short, the Medical Center
obtained third party drafts from a contractor and used them for the
same types of purchases that they could make with imprest funds. The
contractors processed the drafts as they were presented for payment by
vendors of goods or services and subsequently provided VA with a list
of the cleared instruments, i.e., those paid by the contractor's
financial institution. VA then reimbursed the contractor for the
payments made.
10. Designation as a certifying officer requires a written
authorization from the head of the agency. See 31 U.S.C. sec. 3325;
Treas. Financial Manual, vol. I, sec. 2040.30d (T.L. No. 496).
11. VA's submission came in two parts. The first contained VA's
requests for our views on 52 expenditures and relief for seven
officials associated with those expenditures. The second contained
VA's request for our views on 20 additional expenditures, but did not
include any requests for relief.