B-167183, DEC. 19, 1969
Highlights
HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED COST BY DIRECT ROUTE AND NOT TO EXCEED TOTAL ACTUAL COST. WHICHEVER IS LOWER. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE $21 WAS DEDUCTED FROM MONIES OTHERWISE DUE MRS. THE FACTS IN THAT CASE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF JULY 23. STATES THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FACTS IN MR. THE TOTAL COST OF THE TRIP BY EXCURSION FARE USED WAS LESS THAN THE ECONOMY CLASS FARE BETWEEN THE TWO OFFICIAL POINTS. SINCE THE COST WAS LESS THAN THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE INCURRED ($198) FOR DIRECT OFFICIAL TRAVEL. THE SAME PRINCIPLE IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. WHEN A TRAVELER TRAVELS BY A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT BY CIRCUITOUS ROUTE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE COST BY THE DIRECT ROUTE AND NOT TO EXCEED THE TOTAL ACTUAL COST.
B-167183, DEC. 19, 1969
TRAVEL EXPENSES--AIR TRAVEL--EXCURSION RATES--CIRCUITOUS ROUTES- PERSONAL CONVENIENCE EMPLOYEE ISSUED EXCURSION TICKET FOR TRAVEL WASHINGTON-ATLANTA-NEW ORLEANS-WASHINGTON FOR TEMPORARY DUTY IN ATLANTA, GA; CIRCUITOUS ROUTE BEING FOR PERSONAL CONVENIENCE, MAY BE REIMBURSED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST OF AUTHORIZED CLASS FARE BY DIRECT ROUTE TO ATLANTA AND EXCURSION FARE BY DIRECT ROUTE SINCE, WHEN EMPLOYEE TRAVELS BY CIRCUITOUS ROUTE, HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT IN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED COST BY DIRECT ROUTE AND NOT TO EXCEED TOTAL ACTUAL COST, WHICHEVER IS LOWER, AND GOVERNMENT NEED NOT CLAIM PRO RATA SHARE OF SAVINGS IN TRANSPORTATION COST RESULTING SOLELY FROM SOME PERSONAL TRAVEL PERFORMED IN ADDITION TO OFFICIAL TRAVEL REQUIRED.
TO MR. CHARLES E. EBY, JR.:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 23, 1969, WITH ENCLOSURES, REFERENCE HSMHA-OFM, REQUESTING THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION B 167183 DATED JULY 23, 1969, WHEREIN WE STATED THAT THE RECLAIM VOUCHER IN THE AMOUNT OF $21 OF MRS. LILLIAN J. LOWE, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE $21 WAS DEDUCTED FROM MONIES OTHERWISE DUE MRS. LOWE.
THE FACTS IN THAT CASE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF JULY 23, 1969, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. THE CORRESPONDENCE WITH YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 23, 1969, STATES THAT THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FACTS IN MR. LOWE'S CASE AND B-165854 OF FEBRUARY 4, 1969, WHICH WE CITED IN OUR DECISION OF JULY 23, 1969, AS AUTHORITY TO MAKE PAYMENT TO MRS. LOWE. IN B-165854, THE TOTAL COST OF THE TRIP BY EXCURSION FARE USED WAS LESS THAN THE ECONOMY CLASS FARE BETWEEN THE TWO OFFICIAL POINTS; HOWEVER, OUR OFFICE DID NOT LIMIT REIMBURSEMENT TO THE EXCURSION FARE ($149) BETWEEN DUTY POINTS, RATHER WE AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF THE EXCURSION FARE ($166) FOR THE TRAVEL AS PERFORMED, INCLUDING THE PERSONAL TRAVEL, SINCE THE COST WAS LESS THAN THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE INCURRED ($198) FOR DIRECT OFFICIAL TRAVEL. THE SAME PRINCIPLE IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. WHEN A TRAVELER TRAVELS BY A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT BY CIRCUITOUS ROUTE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE COST BY THE DIRECT ROUTE AND NOT TO EXCEED THE TOTAL ACTUAL COST, WHICHEVER IS LOWER. CONCERNING THE PRORATING OF ANY SAVINGS THAT MAY OCCUR BECAUSE OF THE ROUTE TAKEN FOR PERSONAL REASONS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEED NOT CLAIM AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE A PRO RATA SHARE OF A SAVINGS IN TRANSPORTATION COST WHICH RESULTED SOLELY FROM THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE PERFORMED SOME PERSONAL TRAVEL IN ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL TRAVEL REQUIRED. IN SUCH CASES WE HAVE HELD THAT THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY ONLY THE ADDITIONAL COST WHICH WAS INCURRED BY REASON OF HIS PERSONAL TRAVEL. SEE 35 COMP. GEN. 609 (1956); 33 ID. 434 (1954). THE CORRESPONDENCE WITH YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 23, 1969, ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRST PORTION OF THE TRIP FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO ATLANTA WAS DIRECT TRAVEL AND THE EXCURSION FARE APPLIED TO THAT PORTION OF THE TRAVEL. HAVE INFORMALLY ASCERTAINED FROM THE DELTA AIRLINES THAT EXCURSION FARES ARE ONLY APPLICABLE TO ROUND-TRIP TRAVEL.
IT IS ALSO STATED THAT MRS. LOWE EXCHANGED A GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION REQUEST WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR ECONOMY CLASS FARE FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO ATLANTA, GEORGIA, AND RETURN. HOWEVER, THE AIRLINE TO WHICH THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST WAS PRESENTED NEVER ISSUED A TICKET FOR THE REQUESTED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. INSTEAD, THE CARRIER ISSUED MRS. LOWE AN EXCURSION TICKET FOR TRAVEL WASHINGTON ATLANTA-NEW ORLEANS-WASHINGTON AND ALLOWED CASH VALUE OF $80 ECONOMY CLASS FARE ROUND TRIP BETWEEN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND ATLANTA, GEORGIA. MRS. LOWE DID NOT MAKE THE NOTATION ON HER COPY OF THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST AND, AS A RESULT, THE CARRIER WAS PAID AT THE ECONOMY CLASS RATE ($80).
TITLE 5, SECTION 2040.15, OF GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE MANUAL FOR GUIDANCE OF FEDERAL AGENCIES PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
"THE FURNISHING OF SERVICES OTHER THAN AUTHORIZED. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CHARGES IN EXCESS OF THOSE APPLICABLE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND/OR ACCOMMODATIONS OF THE TYPE, CLASS, OR CHARACTER SPECIFIED IN THE REQUEST. ACCORDINGLY, IF TRANSPORTATION AND/OR ACCOMMODATIONS COSTING MORE THAN THOSE OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED ON THE REQUEST ARE FURNISHED, THE ADDITIONAL COST MUST BE COLLECTED IN CASH FROM THE TRAVELER AT THE TIME TRANSPORTATION AND/OR ACCOMMODATIONS ARE OBTAINED AND NOT BILLED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. WHEN A TRANSPORTATION REQUEST IS EXCHANGED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND/OR ACCOMMODATIONS OF A TYPE DIFFERENT FROM OR A VALUE LESSER THAN THAT ORIGINALLY SPECIFIED IN THE REQUEST, THE TRAVELER MUST BE REQUIRED TO RECORD IN THE SPACE PROVIDED ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM THE ACTUAL SERVICES FURNISHED AND SIGN THE STATEMENT. THE NOTATION BY THE TRAVELER ON THE REVERSE OF THE REQUEST WILL SERVE TO RESTRICT THE CARRIER BILLING TO AN AMOUNT CONSISTENT WITH THE CHANGED SERVICES OR LESSER COST FACTORS AND AVOID SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.'
WHERE DIFFERENT ACCOMMODATIONS THAN CALLED FOR BY THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST ARE FURNISHED, AND THE ANNOTATION THEREOF BY THE TRAVELER ON THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR THEREON, THE TRAVELER OBVIOUSLY HAS BEEN DERELICT IN NOT MAKING SUCH NOTATION DESPITE HER CERTIFICATE ON THE FACE OF THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST THAT SHE HAS "RECEIVED THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OR TICKETS REQUESTED EXCEPT AS STATED ON REVERSE SIDE.' THE CARRIER HAS ALSO BEEN DERELICT IN NOT REQUIRING IT TO BE MADE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE ABOVE-CITED REGULATION WAS TO PROVIDE THAT WHERE TRANSPORTATION AND ACCOMMODATIONS COSTING MORE THAN THOSE OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED ON THE REQUEST THE ADDITIONAL COST MUST BE COLLECTED FROM THE TRAVELER AND NOT BILLED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. THIS WILL AVOID SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENTS BY THE GOVERNMENT. IF THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST DOES NOT SHOW ACCOMMODATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE REQUESTED WERE FURNISHED BUT SUCH INFORMATION OTHERWISE COMES TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THIS OMISSION SHOULD BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE TRAVELER AS WELL AS THE CARRIER ADVISING THEM THAT THEY SHOULD CONFORM TO THE LEGEND ON THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF MRS. LOWE THE CARRIER WAS PAID THE ECONOMY CLASS FARE OF $80 TO WHICH SHE WAS ENTITLED AND NO ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING WE MUST SUSTAIN THE ACTION TAKEN IN OUR DECISION B-167183 OF JULY 23, 1969.