Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 May 26, 1999 GSBCA 14942-TRAV In the Matter of SAM WRIGHT, JR. Sam Wright, Jr., Sterling, VA, Claimant. Vincent J. Torcivia, Manager, Travel and Financial Systems Branch, Accounting Division, Eastern Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Jamaica, NY, appearing for Department of Transportation. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). From June 22 to July 10, 1998, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employee Sam Wright, Jr., attended a training course away from his permanent duty station. Mr. Wright submitted a voucher for reimbursement of travel expenses in connection with this trip. The agency refuses to process this voucher because the employee has not supplied receipts for the lodging costs he claims. Mr. Wright asks us to direct the FAA to reverse its decision because he is not required to submit these receipts. Mr. Wright's position is as follows: The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR 301-11.1, -11.3 (1998),[foot #] 1 provides that Government employees ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The "effective date" of the version of the FTR to which we cite was July 1, 1998. See 63 Fed. Reg. 15,949 (1998). ___ Mr. Wright was on temporary duty status on that date. The amendments to the regulation contain an effective date, but they do not explain the significance of that date. They do not say whether the changes were to apply to travel which was already underway on that date, such as Mr. Wright's. Nor do the amendments say whether the changes were to apply to travel which had been approved but not taken, or to travel which had been completed but for which reimbursement had not yet been sought (or made). For this case, the vagueness of the "effective date" is (continued...) ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- traveling on official business will be provided with an allowance to cover their expenses, and that allowance will either be on a per diem basis or to reimburse actual expenses. The FAA did not authorize reimbursement of actual expenses for the trip in question. Therefore, it must have authorized a per diem allowance. The FTR provides that if an employee is allowed reimbursement of actual expenses, he must provide receipts for lodging in order to be repaid for those charges. Id. 301-11.306. The regulation's definition of "per diem allowance" makes no reference to receipts, however. It says, "The per diem allowance . . . is a daily payment instead of reimbursement for actual expenses for lodging, meals, and related incidental expenses. . . . The per diem allowance covers all charges, including taxes and service charges where applicable for: (a) Lodging. . . . (b) Meals. . . . (c) Incidental expenses." Id. 300-3.1. Therefore, according to Mr. Wright, he should be paid a per diem allowance which covers lodging expenses whether he provides the FAA with receipts for lodging charges or not. The agency, rather than focusing on these provisions of the FTR, looks to 41 CFR 301-52.4, which states that an employee must include with his travel claim receipts for "[a]ny lodging expense, except when [he is] authorized a fixed reduced per diem allowance."[foot #] 2 Mr. Wright was authorized a full per diem allowance, not a fixed reduced allowance. Therefore, according to the FAA, the employee had to include receipts for the lodging expenses he incurred, and because he did not, the claim should not have been processed. The claimant misconstrues the law in a significant way. The agency's position is not entirely correct, either, though it comes close to the mark. Mr. Wright's reading of the FTR is incomplete. Although the regulation does contain the provisions he cites, other provisions included in it make clear that he must give the agency receipts ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 (...continued) not important, since the decision would be the same if we applied the previous version of the relevant provisions. Thus, we need not decide which version applies to the situation before us. Because the impact of changes in the regulation could be critical to other claims, however, we urge the General Services Administration (GSA), which is responsible for the FTR, to define more precisely in the future the circumstances to which revisions to the regulation apply. [foot #] 2 Section 301-52.4 is incomplete in describing the conditions in which an employee need not provide a receipt for a lodging expense. Section 301-52.5 states that a receipt is unnecessary whenever an agency determines that the expenditure in question is confidential. This additional exception is not relevant to Mr. Wright's claim. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- for his lodging costs in order to be reimbursed for those expenses. Section 301-11.5 of the FTR states that "per diem expenses [will] be reimbursed . . . [u]nder one of the following methods . . . : (a) Lodgings-plus per diem method; (b) Reduced per diem method; or (c) Actual expense method." 41 CFR 301-11.5. Because Mr. Wright's travel was not authorized under either the reduced per diem method or the actual expense method, it must have been authorized under the "lodgings-plus per diem method." The regulation defines "lodgings-plus per diem system" as "[t]he method of computing per diem allowances for official travel in which the per diem allowance for each travel day is established on the basis of the actual amount the traveler pays for lodging, plus an allowance for meals and incidental expenses . . . , the total of which does not exceed the applicable maximum per diem rate for the location concerned." Id. 300-3.1; see also id. 301-11.100 (reimbursement will be for "your actual lodging cost not to exceed the maximum lodging rate for the [temporary duty] location"). The FTR contains this question-and-answer which is relevant to the receipt requirement under all methods of reimbursement, including the lodgings-plus system: "Must I provide receipts to substantiate my claimed travel expenses? Yes, you must provide a lodging receipt." Id. 301-11.25. The FTR's choice of labels muddies the waters on the point at issue. In 1986, fundamental changes were made to the statute which governs payment to Government employees for expenses incurred while traveling on official business. In modifying the law, Congress authorized GSA to prescribe regulations under which a traveling employee would receive "any one of the following:" a per diem allowance, reimbursement for actual expenses, or a combination of the two. Pub. L. No. 99-234, 102(a), 99 Stat. 1756 (1986) (codified at 5 U.S.C. 5702(a)(1)). In passing this legislation, Congress understood that the agency would implement it by "install[ing] a lodgings-plus system for computing subsistence allowances." H.R. Rep. No. 99-602, at 4 (1986);[foot #] 3 see also 131 Cong. Rec. 38,346 (remarks of Rep. Collins, House floor manager), 38,492 (remarks of Sen. Stevens, Senate floor manager) (1985). Congress specifically indicated that "[t]he 'lodgings-plus' method . . . is an appropriate exercise of the authority to prescribe a system of payments which has the effect of combining a per diem allowance and reimbursement for actual expenses." H.R. Rep. No. 99-602, at 12. Since its first incarnation under the 1986 law, however, the FTR has called this method a "lodgings-plus per diem ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 3 Unusually, the bill was passed without an accompanying committee report in either House of Congress. The Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives issued a report after the bill was enacted, as "a source of background, summary, and explanation, and also [to provide] insights into the committee's understanding and expectations with respect to objectives and individual provisions." H.R. Rep. No. 99-602, at 3-4. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- system," which sounds like a kind of per diem allowance, rather than a combination of the two distinct forms of payment. See 51 Fed. Reg. 19,660 (1986). This use of the term "per diem" in conjunction with "lodgings-plus" makes for confusion between the definitions of "per diem allowance" and "lodgings-plus per diem system." Notwithstanding this problem, however, the FTR clearly requires receipts for reimbursement of expenses of lodging when travel is authorized, as Mr. Wright's was, under the lodgings- plus system. The FAA's error is in not processing the employee's travel voucher. The FTR states that if an employee does not provide a receipt or other documentation required to support an item within his claim, the agency may disallow payment of that item. 41 CFR 301-52.8, -71.205. If payment of any item is disallowed, however, the agency must "pay [the employee's] claim for those items which are not disallowed." Id. 301-52.9; see also id. 301-71.206. In accordance with these rules, the FAA should not have refused to process Mr. Wright's voucher. Instead, it should have processed the voucher, paid the items not in dispute, and disallowed any reimbursement for expenses of lodging. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge