Reclaim for Actual Subsistence Expenses

A request was made for reconsideration of the Claims Division settlement which allowed in part the claim of a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employee for additional lodging costs and taxi fares incurred while on a temporary duty assignment. The issue to be decided was the reasonableness of the lodging costs and taxicab fares. On the basis of oral notification of a pending trip, and prior to the issuance of travel orders, the employee made lodging and travel arrangements for himself and his wife through a travel agent. The employee made a nonrefundable prepayment to the travel agent for the lodging costs. The travel orders authorized actual expenses not to exceed $66 per day. The employee claimed $52 per day lodging expense for his stay. Other FAA employees on the same temporary duty assignment stayed at rooms reserved by the FAA. The other employees incurred lodging expenses of $24 per day, and their taxi fares were less since their lodgings were closer to the temporary duty site and to the airport. FAA reduced the employee's claim for reimbursement to that claimed by the other employees on the basis that the additional expenses were personal and the employee did not act in a prudent manner. The FAA made a determination of reasonableness based on the expenses incurred by the other employees on temporary duty at the same time at the same duty station. GAO saw nothing unreasonable about the FAA determination. The employee made his hotel reservations prior to official notification and prior to the issuance of travel orders. The FAA notification to the employees stated that the employees should make their own travel and lodging arrangements. However, the inclusion in the notification of the availability of rooms for FAA employees, together with the phone numbers to call for reservations, made it clear that the employees should call the hotels listed. The employee used a travel agent despite a general restriction against the use of travel agents to procure official Government travel. The employee claimed the maximum amount he was allowed of $66, and the fact that the amount claimed was the amount allowed did not automatically entitle the employee to reimbursement. Therefore, GAO found the employee not entitled to the additional travel reimbursement. Accordingly, the Claims Division settlement was sustained.