TITLE: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Plains Regional Office, Incentive, B-288536, November 19, 2001
BNUMBER: B-288536
DATE: November 19, 2001
**********************************************************************
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Plains Regional Office, Incentive, B-288536,
November 19, 2001
Decision
Matter of: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Plains Regional Office,
Incentive Awards Ceremony
File: B-288536
Date: November 19, 2001
DIGEST
Bureau of Indian Affairs may use its general operating appropriation to
pay reasonable expenses, including the cost of refreshments in the form of
a buffet luncheon, associated with annual Incentive Awards Ceremony under
the Government Employees' Incentive Awards Act.
DECISION
This decision responds to a request from Cora L. Jones, Director of the
Great Plains Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, concerning the
availability of appropriated funds for a buffet‑style luncheon
provided employees attending an awards ceremony. For the reasons set
forth below, we conclude that appropriations are available for this
purpose.
BACKGROUND
On December 14, 2000, the Great Plains Regional Office, Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), an agency of the Department of the Interior, held an
Employee's Incentive Awards Ceremony in recognition of the achievements of
its personnel during the year. As part of the ceremony, the Office
provided a buffet‑style luncheon at a cost of $554.40. The Office
used a government charge card to pay for the food, charging the amount to
its appropriations.
The Agency Charge Card Program Coordinator noted the charge and referred
the matter to the agency's Inspector General. The Inspector General
concluded that the Bureau could not pay the charge because the buffet was
more of a dinner meal, rather than light refreshments. The Bureau's
Regional Director disagreed, contending that the expenditure was proper
and that the meal, as part of an award ceremony, was in the best interest
of the government.
DISCUSSION
As a general rule, agencies may not feed their employees at taxpayer
expense. The reason is simple and straightforward--*[f]eeding oneself is
a personal expense.* 65 Comp. Gen. 738, 739 (1986). Therefore, unless
statutory authority exists or the expenditure falls under one of the
recognized exceptions, appropriations are not available to provide food to
employees at their permanent duty station. Id. The Government Employees
Incentive Awards Act (GEIAA), 5 U.S.C. S: 4501 (1994 and Supp. IV 1998),
authorizes the use of appropriated funds to provide food at an awards
ceremony.
Under the GEIAA, an agency head may pay a cash award or grant time off to
an employee who "by his suggestion, invention, superior accomplishment, or
other personal effort contributes to the efficiency, economy, or other
improvement of government operations or achieves a significant reduction
in paperwork," or "performs a special act or service in the public
interest in connection with or related to his official employment." 5
U.S.C. S: 4503. Agency officials have broad authority both to administer
the incentive awards program and to determine the appropriate level of
recognition for those employees who receive such awards. Hayes v. United
States, 20 Cl.Ct. 150 (1990). The Act authorizes an agency to use its
operating appropriations to cover the "necessary expense for the honorary
recognition of" the employee or employees receiving the awards. 5 U.S.C.
S: 4503.
An awards ceremony is a proper if not an integral element of an awards
program. 65 Comp. Gen. 738, 740. An awards ceremony providing public
recognition clearly differs from the agency's day-to-day conduct of
official business. Id. Given the *ceremonial* purpose served by such
events, refreshments, which would be inappropriate in other contexts, are
appropriate so long as the agency determines that the refreshments will
materially enhance the effectiveness of the ceremony. Id. Accordingly,
we have held that an agency may use appropriated funds to pay for
refreshments in this context as a *necessary expense for the honorary
recognition of* employees in accordance with GEIAA. Id.
This is not to say that agencies have unlimited discretion in the use of
appropriated funds to pay for refreshments at an awards ceremony.
Expenditures by the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (II), B‑247563, B-247563.4, Dec. 11, 1996.
We have not, however, constrained agency discretion by offering a
hard-and-fast definition of what refreshments an agency may consider
*necessary expenses* as that phrase is used in GEIAA, and will not do so
here either. Instead, we have looked at this issue in the context of all
the facts and circumstances. Under this approach, the food served at the
ceremony and its cost are not the sole considerations. The nature of the
event, and what's appropriate in those circumstances, may also be as
important a consideration as what food is served and how much it cost.
Consider, for example, our approach in the following decisions. In 1969,
NASA charged its Research and Program Management appropriation $60,000 to
pay for a banquet at which President Nixon awarded Medals of Freedom to
the Apollo 11 astronauts. B-167835, Nov. 18, 1969. In deferring to
NASA's discretion to use appropriated funds for an awards ceremony of this
magnitude, we observed that GEIAA *does not establish a dollar
limitation.* Id. In our 1986 decision, discussed above, we commented on
the relative nature of what refreshments would constitute necessary
expenses under GEIAA. In that decision, we did not object to the Social
Security Administration's use of appropriated funds to pay for a buffet
luncheon as part of the agency's annual awards ceremony, so long as the
agency determined that the buffet luncheon *would materially enhance the
effectiveness of its awards ceremony.* 65 Comp. Gen. at 740.
We applied the same approach in a 1995 decision involving the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS). There, the Commander, DRMS
had authorized awards to each DRMS employee in recognition of each
employee's contribution to new agency business-like practices. The
Commander authorized the head of each DRMS office to make the awards at
luncheons not to exceed $20 per person. Recognizing that the employee
coverage of the DRMS ceremonies was *broader than we have typically
encountered in our prior decisions,* we said, nonetheless, that *unless
arbitrary and capricious, differences in degree do not invalidate the
decisions made.* B-270327, March 12, 1997.
Here, the Great Plains Regional Office incentive awards buffet included
roast turkey with dressing and vegetables and salad, at a cost of $6.25
per person. The food was offered as part of the Office's annual awards
ceremony where the Office made awards to employees for *excellence of
service*, superior service, meritorious service, public service, employee
of the year and other special awards. The Director, in making the awards,
applauded her staff for their perseverance when confronted with the
challenges of *an unusual year*, noting an agency apology to Indian people
for *past errors*, a review of the agency by the National Academy of
Public Administration, and systems changes, reorganization, and regulation
changes. In this context, she determined that the food *was in the best
interest of the government and coincided with the awards ceremony.*
We find, in these circumstances, that the Director reasonably exercised
the discretion accorded her by GEIAA, and do not object to the $554.40
expenditure for the buffet luncheon.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel