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.