[Request for Reconsideration of Protest of Air Force Contract Award]
Highlights
A firm requested reconsideration of its dismissed protest of an Air Force contract award for test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment repair, calibration, and certification services. GAO had held that the protester was not sufficiently interested to protest the award. In its request for reconsideration, the protester contended that GAO: (1) ignored the contracting officer's discretion to waive its failure to submit pricing for the fourth option year as a minor irregularity; and (2) violated its protest regulations, since it decided to develop the protest rather than summarily dismiss it. GAO held that: (1) the contracting officer did not have discretion to waive the protester's pricing omission, since such pricing was a material requirement; (2) its decision to develop the protest did not render the protester an interested party; and (3) it properly dismissed the protest after determining that the protester was not sufficiently interested to protest the award. Accordingly, the original decision was affirmed.
B-216633, MAR 27, 1985
TRAVEL EXPENSES - USE OF PERSONAL FUNDS - REIMBURSEMENT DIGEST: THROUGH A BOARDING ERROR, AN EMPLOYEE USED HIS AIRLINE TICKET TO TRAVEL TO THE WRONG DESTINATION. AFTER HE DISCOVERED THE ERROR, THE EMPLOYEE SPENT $119 IN PERSONAL FUNDS TO SECURE A TICKET FOR THE PROPER DESTINATION. THE EMPLOYEE MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR THE COST OF THE AIRLINE TICKET, NOTWITHSTANDING THE $100 CASH LIMITATION STATED IN THE FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS, BECAUSE THE CASH PURCHASE WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE EMPLOYEE HAS SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION OF THE COST OF THE TRANSPORTATION.
JOHN T. DAVIS - TRAVEL EXPENSES - AIRLINE TICKET PURCHASED WITH PERSONAL FUNDS:
MR. JUTTA E. PARTYKA, AN AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, REQUESTS OUR DECISION ON THE CLAIM OF MR. JOHN T. DAVIS. MR. DAVIS REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF AN AIRLINE TICKET HE PURCHASED WITH PERSONAL FINDS. FOR THE REASONS STATED BELOW, WE HOLD THAT MR. DAVIS MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR THE COST OF THE TICKET.
BACKGROUND
MR. DAVIS, WHO IS OFFICIALLY STATIONED IN HOMEWOOD, ALABAMA, WAS DIRECTED TO TRAVEL TO A CONFERENCE IN SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, DURING THE PERIOD MARCH 5 TO MARCH 8, 1984. HIS RESERVATIONS WITH DELTA AIRLINES, ISSUED PURSUANT TO A GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION REQUEST (GTR), REQUIRED HIM TO TRAVEL FROM BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, AND THEN BOARD A CONNECTING FLIGHT TO SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS.
WHEN MR. DAVIS ARRIVED AT THE ST. LOUIS AIRPORT ON MARCH 5, 1984, DELTA AIRLINES DIRECTED HIM TO A GATE HAVING SIMULTANEOUS BOARDING OF THREE AIRPLANES. ONE AIRPLANE WAS BOUND FOR SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, AND ANOTHER FOR SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI. MR. DAVIS MISTAKENLY BOARDED THE FLIGHT FOR SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI. AFTER HE ARRIVED AT THE WRONG DESTINATION, MR. DAVIS SECURED RESERVATIONS ON A FLIGHT TO SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, PAYING THE $119 COACH FARE WITH PERSONAL FUNDS.
MR. DAVIS CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE $119 TICKET, AND FURNISHED A RECEIPT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE AGENCY QUESTIONS WHETHER THERE IS A LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYING MR. DAVIS' CLAIM.
DISCUSSION
ORDINARILY, AGENCIES MUST REQUIRE EMPLOYEES TO USE A GTR FOR COMMON CARRIER TRANSPORTATION COSTING OVER $100, IN WHICH CASE THE GOVERNMENT BUYS THE TICKET AND NO REIMBURSEMENT OR RECEIPT IS REQUIRED. SEE FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS, FPMR 101-7 (SEPTEMBER 1981) PARAS. 1-10.2 AND 1-11.3; AND 41 C.F.R. SEC. 101-41.203-2 (1983). HOWEVER, WE HAVE ALLOWED REIMBURSEMENT FOR A TICKET EXCEEDING THE $100 LIMITATION PURCHASED WITH PERSONAL FUNDS ABSENT A GTR, PROVIDED THE EMPLOYEE SUBMITS A RECEIPT, PASSENGER COUPON, OR OTHER EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED WAS ACTUALLY PAID. PATRICK G. ORBIN, B-215550, OCTOBER 23, 1984; AND ESTHER O. KALOA, B-198950, JULY 18, 1980. THUS, IN PATRICK G. ORBIN, CITED ABOVE, WE HELD THAT AN EMPLOYEE WHO TRAVELED TO THE WRONG DESTINATION THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR IN AIRLINE RESERVATIONS COULD BE REIMBURSED FOR THE $284 HE SPENT TO SECURE A TICKET FOR THE PROPER DESTINATION.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN MR. DAVIS' CASE JUSTIFY HIS FAILURE TO USE A GTR FOR TRAVEL FROM ST. LOUIS TO SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS. BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSED BOARDING SITUATION AT THE ST. LOUIS AIRPORT, MR. DAVIS USED THE GTR WHICH ORIGINALLY HAD BEEN ISSUED TO HIM TO TRAVEL TO THE WRONG DESTINATION. ONCE HE DISCOVERED THE ERROR, MR. DAVIS WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO REQUEST THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW GTR. HE HAD NO CHOICE AT THAT TIME BUT TO PURCHASE ANOTHER TICKET WITH HIS OWN FUNDS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT MR. DAVIS MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR THE FULL COST OF THE AIRLINE TICKET HE PURCHASED WITH PERSONAL FUNDS.
ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, MR. DAVIS' CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $119 MAY BE ALLOWED.