Authorization for Payments to GSA

GAO was asked whether Congress limited the amount which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is authorized to pay to the General Services Administration (GSA) for standard level user charges (SLUC) levied for fiscal year 1981 and, if so, whether amounts paid GSA in excess of this amount may be recovered. The FBI interpreted the language of the Supplemental Appropriations and Rescission Act of 1981 as imposing a ceiling on the amount it is authorized to reimburse GSA for SLUC for fiscal year 1981. Subsequently, the FBI informed GSA of this and issued an adjustment voucher to GSA for charge-backs in the amount of money for which the FBI was billed by GSA in excess of the amount specified. Rather than making the adjustment, GSA informed the FBI that the agency was obliged to pay the SLUC. As a result of this rejection, the FBI sought the opinion of GAO on the matter. GAO believed that the language of the Appropriation Act constituted a legally binding limitation on the amount available to the FBI for SLUC payments. It is unclear whether Congress intended to force the FBI to cut back its SLUC requirements or merely to limit the amount paid for SLUC operations, but the present legislation imposes a dollar limit on the amount the FBI can spend for SLUC services. In the absence of a clearer expression of legislative intent on this matter, GAO would not interpret this limitation as requiring a reduction in the FBI level of operation. Therefore, GAO held that SLUC reimbursements to GSA could be made only up to the ceiling amount imposed by the proviso. Since there are no other funds available against which to charge the SLUC payments, the FBI was correct in its construction of the proviso and may not reimburse GSA any amount in excess of that specified for fiscal year 1981. Issuance of the adjustment voucher for charge-backs was appropriate under these circumstances, and GSA should adjust its charges to the FBI for SLUC for fiscal year 1981. Any payment by the FBI in excess of the specified amount would violate the Antideficiency Act.