BNUMBER:  B-261729
DATE:  April 1, 1996
TITLE:  Flexiplace-Mobile Work Site

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Flexiplace-Mobile Work Site

File:     B-261729

Date:April 1, 1996

DIGEST

Appropriated funds may not be expended for a bus, even though equipped 
with office equipment, whose primary purpose is to daily transport 
employees from present headquarters to relocated headquarters.

DECISION

The Naval Air Systems Command (Command) has requested our opinion 
regarding the propriety of using appropriated funds for a mobile work 
site.  The Command considers the mobile work site concept they have 
proposed to be consistent with federal flexiplace work arrangements 
encouraged by the President.  We conclude that the expenditure would 
be improper.

In 1997, the Command will relocate from its current headquarters in 
Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia to St. Mary's County, Maryland.  The 
Command is considering equipping a bus with computer workstations, 
telephones, and work surfaces to daily transport employees to the new 
headquarters from a pick-up point close to the present headquarters.  
An employee's day would commence when he boarded the bus.  The return 
trip would start an hour and a half prior to the end of the work  day 
with the employee's work day ending when he got off the bus at the 
pick-up point.  The Command intends to screen employee workloads for 
suitability for the mobile work site.

The Command states that under the Federal Flexiplace Project, it will 
designate the bus an official workplace of the riders.  The Command 
contends that the arrangement, therefore, would be consistent with 
statutory and case law prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to 
subsidize employee commuting expenses.

We disagree.  The proposed arrangement was devised to reduce 
anticipated consequences of the longer commute the Command's employees 
will have when its headquarters are moved to St. Mary's County.  In 
its June 6, 1995 request for our opinion, the Command explained the 
rationale for its proposal as follows:  "It is anticipated that, 
unless alleviated, the Command will . . . experience decreased 
efficiency occasioned by loss of productivity, absenteeism, reduced 
morale, fatigue, and loss of highly skilled professionals, all 
resulting from substantially longer commutes to the new headquarters."  
The Command, under guise of a flexiplace arrangement, is proposing, 
simply, to accommodate its employees' commutes.

Commuting is a personal expense, and personal expenses are not payable 
from appropriated funds absent specific statutory authority.  5 U.S.C.  sec.  
5536; 72 Comp. Gen. 225, 227 (1993).  Specific guidelines for the use 
of appropriated funds to pay for transportation for official purposes 
is contained in section 1344(a)(1) of Title 31, U.S. Code, which 
provides:

     "Funds available to a Federal agency, by appropriation or 
     otherwise, may be expended by the Federal agency for the 
     maintenance, operation, or repair of any passenger carrier only 
     to the extent that such carrier is used to provide transportation 
     for official purposes.  Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, transporting any individual other than the individuals 
     listed in subsections (b) and (c) of this section between such 
     individual's residence and such individual's place of employment 
     is not transportation for an official purpose."[1]

Once the Command completes its move, the "place of employment" for its 
employees, within the meaning of section 1344(a)(1), will be in St. 
Mary's County, Maryland.  All of the usual expenses incurred by an 
employee prior to his arrival at that location, whether or not he 
makes an intermediate stop at a different location, are commuting 
expenses.  Vehicles may not be operated with appropriated funds except 
for an "official purpose" and since the term "official purpose" does 
not include transportation between home and work, it cannot logically 
include transportation to work from some point in between.

The Command's desire to expand the concepts underlying the Federal 
Flexiplace Project and consider its bus an alternate work site fails 
to overcome this prohibition.  Under flexiplace programs, employees 
perform their work at alternate work sites, such as the employee's 
home or a telecommuting site.  See Presidential Memorandum, July 11, 
1994, 59 Fed. Reg. 36017 (1994).  Guidance provided agencies by the 
Office of Personnel Management does not recognize a bus or other 
mobile work site as a flexiplace option.  Federal Personnel Manual 
Letter 368-1, attachment p.1 (1991).  The fact that work is performed 
while an employee is commuting does not turn the travel into something 
other than commuting, and does not allow the employee to obtain 
compensation for that work.  We conclude that expenditure of 
appropriated funds for the mobile work site would be improper.

We recognize the practical consequences the Command's move may have on 
its employees individually, and on the office as a whole.  However, 
unless the Command can obtain legislative authority for the proposed 
mobile work sites,      31 U.S.C.  sec.  1344(a)(1) prohibits it from 
mitigating the effects of the move in that manner.

/s/Robert P. Murphy
for Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The exceptions listed in subsections (b) and (c) are not applicable 
here.