Claim for Hazardous Duty Differential

B-197978: Jun 5, 1980

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

An Army employee claimed hazardous duty differential for exposure to allegedly toxic compounds in tobacco smoke. The Army disallowed the claim because the exposure to the hazard was not irregular or intermittent as required by the statute. GAO has held that the authority to determine whether a particular situation warrants payment of a hazardous duty differential is vested in the employing agency. It will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency officials unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the agency's decision was wrong or that it was arbitrary and capricious. Since the record did not indicate that the Army was either wrong or arbitrary and capricious, GAO sustained the prior disallowance.

Mar 22, 2018

Mar 20, 2018

Mar 19, 2018

  • Ampcus, Inc.
    We deny the protest.
  • AMAR Health IT, LLC
    We dismiss the protest because our Office does not have jurisdiction to entertain protests of task orders issued under civilian agency multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts that are valued at less than $10 million.
  • Centurum, Inc.--Costs
    We grant the request.

Mar 15, 2018

  • ORBIS Sibro, Inc.
    We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.

Mar 14, 2018

Mar 13, 2018

  • Interoperability Clearinghouse
    We dismiss the protest because the protester, a not-for-profit entity, is not an interested party to challenge this sole-source award to an Alaska Native Corporation under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program.

Looking for more? Browse all our products here