BNUMBER: B-270199
DATE: August 6, 1996
TITLE: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation-Provision of
Food to Employees
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation-Provision of Food to
Employees
File: B-270199
Date: August 6, 1996
DIGEST
Appropriated funds were not available for the purchase of food for
employees at Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation training sessions.
In general, appropriated funds are not available to provide food to
government employees at their official duty stations, unless specific
authority exists. Here, the food was not a proper training expense
under 5 U.S.C. sec. 4109, because provision of the food was not necessary
for the employees to obtain the full benefit of the training.
Further, the food was not a proper expense of a meeting or conference
under 5 U.S.C. sec. 4110, because the sessions were internal events,
sponsored by the government, with participants drawn wholly from
agency employees, for the purpose of discussing issues relating to the
business, management, or day-to-day operations of the agency.
DECISION
This decision is in response to a request from Wayne Robert Poll,
Inspector General of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC),
concerning the use of appropriated funds for the purchase of food for
government employees at PBGC training sessions. For the reasons set
forth below, we conclude that appropriated funds were not available
for the purchase of food for PBGC employees in the circumstances
described by the Inspector General in his submission.
BACKGROUND
The materials submitted by the Inspector General indicate that during
1995, the PBGC held a series of "seminars"-each lasting 3 hours-for
senior officials on the topic of "transforming the organization."
These seminars were planned and led by an outside consultant, and
"included developing participants' skills in strategic planning and
transforming the organization, and also improving interactions and
dialogue among the senior level managers of the agency who were the
participants." In connection with these seminars, PBGC provided
"continental breakfasts" to participants, as well as beverages during
"coffee breaks."
The Inspector General also has inquired regarding "customer service
training" conducted by PBGC during 1995. The submission of the
Inspector General indicates that candy and other snack items were
provided to participants during this training.[1]
DISCUSSION
In general, appropriated funds are not available to provide food to
government employees at their official duty stations. 72 Comp. Gen.
178 (1993). Feeding oneself is a personal expense which a government
employee is expected to bear from his or her salary. 65 Comp. Gen.
738, 739 (1986). There are, however, exceptions to this general rule.
We will discuss applicability in the instant case of two exceptions
based on provisions of the Training Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 4109 (1994),
regarding training expenses, and 5 U.S.C. sec. 4110 (1994), regarding
expenses of meetings and conferences.
The Training Exception, 5 U.S.C. sec. 4109
Food may be provided for employees as a necessary expense under the
Government Employees Training Act, which provides that the head of an
agency may pay the necessary expenses of training, including the
necessary cost of "other services or facilities directly related to
the training of the employee." 5 U.S.C. sec. 4109(a)(2)(F) (1994).
Under this specific statutory authority, food may be provided at
government expense to employees attending an authorized training
program when provision of that food is necessary to achieve the
objectives of the training program. 49 Comp. Gen. 185 (1968).
Generally, provision of food under section 4109 requires a
determination that provision of the food is necessary in order for the
employees to obtain the full benefit of the training. B-247966, June
16, 1993.
Here, we do not question that the gatherings at PBGC constituted
training. On balance, the submission indicates that the sessions,
which were funded with training funds, reasonably were determined by
PBGC to constitute training within the meaning of that term in 5
U.S.C. sec. 4109. See 5 U.S.C. sec. 4101(4) (1994); 68 Comp. Gen. 606, 607
(1989). However, we that provision of the food was necessary in order
for the employees to obtain the full benefit of the training was not
reasonable. At the senior executive breakfast seminars, the food was
provided during a preliminary social gathering of seminar attendees or
at coffee breaks. The stated purpose of providing the food was not
the training itself, but rather "to maximize the time of these busy
executives," "to get the participants acquainted and interacting," and
to improve the "on time attendance" of the participants. Although all
of these objectives clearly were desirable from the perspective of
those who managed the seminars, they were not "necessary" to the
training. Had no food been provided, i.e., had the employees obtained
breakfast or beverages with their own resources, the training would
have occurred as planned and the objectives of the training would have
been achieved nonetheless.
Similarly, the food provided at the PBGC customer service training,
although perhaps desirable, was not necessary to that training. The
Inspector General's submission indicates that the purpose of providing
that food was to "break the ice," as a "reward," and "to prevent
participants from going up to their offices for snacks and delaying
their return to the training." There is no authority for the use of
training funds to reward government employees for arriving punctually
at their assigned duty location and performing to the best of their
abilities. Those are elements of job performance that all government
employees are expected to achieve, without recourse to free food,
rewards, or other inducement beyond their salary.
In support of its view that the provision of food was necessary, PBGC
has cited our decision in Floyd F. Terranova, 50 Comp. Gen. 610
(1971). That decision, however, involved extraordinary circumstances
that are likely to occur extremely infrequently. In Terranova, we
approved the provision of food to employees who were attending
training on "professional growth and development." We concluded that
the training had "unique objectives" resulting from the design of the
training, which required maximum interaction and communication among
the participants, including during meals. In addition, the meals were
also "working sessions," at which either problem assignments were
discussed or speakers were heard. Finally, because of time
constraints, it was determined not to be feasible to excuse conference
participants for meals outside of the training environment. In the
case at hand, however, none of these "unique" circumstances was
present. The social interaction that PBGC sought to achieve, although
possibly desirable, was not an integral part of the training itself.
The provision of food occurred independently of the instruction and
there is no indication in the record that issues related to the
training were required to be discussed during consumption of the food.
Finally, unlike the circumstances in Terranova, there is no indication
in the instant case that it was not feasible for training participants
to obtain meals or refreshments outside of the training.
The Meetings Exception, 5 U.S.C. sec. 4110
Food expenses may also be payable in connection with the attendance of
government employees at meetings and conferences under 5 U.S.C. sec. 4110
(1994). The submission of the Inspector General indicates that PBGC
may have deemed the food expenses payable under this statute, viewing
the gatherings in question as meetings rather than as training.[2] A
threshold test for application of section 4110, however, is whether
the food in question was provided at a formal conference or meeting
involving topical matters of general interest to governmental and
nongovernmental participants, rather than at a routine business
meeting primarily involving day-to-day agency operations and concerns.
68 Comp. Gen. 604, 605 (1989). In the instant case, this threshold
test was not met. The training sessions were internal events,
sponsored by the government, with participants drawn wholly from
agency employees. The sessions clearly were not meetings or
conferences within the contemplation of the specific authority of
section 4110.
Accordingly, we conclude that appropriated funds were not available
for the purchase of food for government employees in the circumstances
set forth in the submission of the Inspector General.
/s/Robert P. Murphy
for Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The attachments to the Inspector General's letter refer to the
provision of a cake at what apparently was an awards ceremony
authorized by the Government Employees Incentive Awards Act, 5 U.S.C. sec.
4501-4506 (1994). We note that the provision of modest refreshments
at an awards ceremony is an appropriate expense under the Incentive
Awards Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 4501.
2. The submission of the Inspector General indicates that PBGC
apparently relied on our decision in Ruth J. Ruby, 65 Comp. Gen. 143
(1985). That case involved training, but the decision erroneously
applied the test for application of 5 U.S.C. sec. 4110. Accordingly, to
the extent that our decision in 65 Comp. Gen. 143 is inconsistent with
this decision, that decision is modified accordingly.