TITLE:  Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – Payment of a Non-, B-281063, December 1, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-281063
DATE:  December 1, 1999
**********************************************************************
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – Payment of a Non-, B-281063,
December 1, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – Payment of a
Non-Negotiable, Non-Separable Facility Rental Fee that Covered the Cost of
Food Served at NRC Workshops

File: B-281063

Date: December 1, 1999

DIGEST

Notwithstanding the general prohibition against serving food to employees
within their official duty station, agency may pay under limited
circumstances a facility rental fee that includes the cost of food provided
to agency employees at an agency workshop. The payment was not improper
because the fee was all-inclusive, not negotiable, and competitively priced
to those that did not include food.

DECISION

The Director of the Division of Accounting and Finance, Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
requests our opinion on whether it was proper for NRC to pay a
non-negotiable, non-separable facility rental fee for five NRC workshops
when the fee covered the cost of meals and refreshments served at the
workshops. Under the circumstances described below, we conclude that the
payment was not improper.

Background

The NRC sponsored five workshops for its employees between July and October
1997. The workshops were held at the William F. Bolger Center for Leadership
Development (Bolger) in Potomac, Maryland. The workshops were attended by
NRC employees exclusively and focused on internal NRC matters. The employees
were not in official travel status.

Regarding the first three workshops held in July, an NRC employee was tasked
with obtaining on very short notice (within two weeks) an off-site
conference facility convenient to headquarters at a cost less than $2,500 to
accommodate 20 to 25 individuals to pursue NRC strategic planning
initiatives. Due to the short timeframe, the employee only made inquiries to
Bolger, which had been used by NRC in prior years, and one other facility.
After receiving Bolger's proposal to charge a daily flat fee of $45.00 per
person, [1] the employee determined that it was comparable to, if not less
expensive than, the other facility and procured its use through his NRC
BankCard (Visa). Bolger's flat fee included the use of a conference room and
a breakout room, breaks (refreshments), lunch, equipment, and appropriate
supplies. [2] With the success of the first three workshops at Bolger, two
more workshops were scheduled at Bolger for August 15 and October 21, 1997
and procured in a similar manner. One NRC certifying officer certified the
payments to VISA for the first three workshops and another NRC certifying
officer certified the last two.

Some NRC officials questioned whether these payments were proper to the
extent of the cost of the food provided, and whether the workshop attendees
or the certifying officers should reimburse NRC for the questioned costs.
Although Bolger's flat rate was non-negotiable and non-separable, Bolger
responded to NRC's request to identify the portion of the daily fee
attributable to meals and refreshments. Bolger stated that of the $45.00
flat rate, $13.00 represents amounts attributable to meals and refreshments.
NRC identified 73 different employees attending one or more of the
workshops, resulting in a total of 89 instances in which employees received
meals and refreshments. NRC estimates the questioned costs to be $1,157. NRC
then requested our opinion on whether the payments were improper. [3]

Analysis

As a general rule, the government may not furnish meals or refreshments to
employees within their official duty station. 65 Comp. Gen. 508, 509 (1986).
This principle comes from the proposition that expenses for food and
refreshments are considered personal expenses that government employees are
expected to bear from their own salaries. Id.

Two provisions of the Government Employees Training Act (Training Act) are
often cited as authority for government agencies to provide meals or
refreshments to employees within their official duty station. The first, 5
U.S.C. sect. 4109, authorizes agencies to reimburse the necessary expenses
incurred by those who attend training programs at their duty stations.
Agency funds may be used to provide meals under section 4109 if necessary to
achieve the training program's objectives, 50 Comp. Gen. 610 (1971); 48
Comp. Gen. 185 (1968); B-247966, June 16, 1993. Agency funds also may be
used to pay for an employee's meals incident to training provided by other
than the government if the employee's attendance at the meals is necessary
to obtain the full benefit of the training, B-193955, Sept. 14, 1979. In
this case, NRC acknowledges that the five workshops do not comply with the
definition of "training" in the Training Act, 5 U.S.C. sect. 4101(4).

The second, 5 U.S.C. sect. 4110, allows an agency to pay for the expenses for
attendance at certain meetings or conferences, but does not apply to purely
internal business meetings or conferences sponsored by government agencies
involving day-to-day agency operations and concerns. 72 Comp. Gen. 178
(1993); 68 Comp. Gen. 606 (1989); 68 Comp. Gen. 604 (1989). "The legislative
history of [5 U.S.C. sect.4110] shows that it was intended to dispense with the
specific appropriation authorizations required by [5 U.S.C. sect. 5946] for the
payment of expenses of Federal officers and employees in attending meetings
of members of any society or association". 68 Comp. Gen. at 608; 68 Comp.
Gen. at 605-606. Consequently, there is a clear distinction between paying
for meals incidental to formal conferences or meetings, typically externally
organized or sponsored, involving topical matters of general interest to
governmental and nongovernmental participants, and internal business or
informational meetings primarily involving day-to-day agency operations of
government. 72 Comp. Gen. at 180.

The general prohibition against using appropriations for food for employees
within their official duty station is meant to prevent the expenditure of
government funds on items that are purely personal in nature. Here, the harm
that the general prohibition is meant to prevent, i.e., expenditure of
federal funds on personal items, is not present. NRC determined the Bolger
facility met its needs and there is nothing indicating that Bolger's fee
structure providing for food influenced NRC's determination. The facility
fee itself was a reasonable and necessary expense for which NRC funds were
available. The facility fee would have remained the same to the government
whether or not NRC accepted and the employees ate the food. Because the
meals were furnished at no additional cost to the government, there was no
divergence of funds for meals. No purpose would be served by applying the
general prohibition against using appropriations for food for employees
within their official duty station in a way that requires NRC to either (1)
reject the Bolger proposal, (2) reject the food at no savings to the
government, or (3) have employees "reimburse" the government even though it
incurred no additional cost for the food provided. Accordingly, under the
circumstances, we conclude that NRC may pay the all-inclusive facility
rental fee even though the fee resulted in food being served to NRC
employees at their official duty stations.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. Bolger inadvertently charged NRC $28.00 per person, a rate reserved for
U.S. Postal Service conferences, for the first workshop.

2. Prior to 1997, Bolger's daily flat fee did not include meals or
refreshments. Workshop participants paid for these costs.

3. Because of our conclusion that the payments were not improper, we do not
address NRC's questions about obtaining reimbursement for past improper
payments, relief for two certifying officers under 31 U.S.C. sect. 3528, and
appropriate NRC actions in future situations.