Challenging the new auditor
November 28, 2014 11:13 AM Subscribe
Looking for MeFites with knowledge of the (FAR) federal acquisition regulations. After 18 years of invoicing the goverment for travel as a contractor and now subcontractor, a new auditor is saying I cannot charge for flights that do not orginate and end at a home airport. No one has ever said this before. Can someone tell me where this is referenced in the 1000+ pages of the FAR.
The contractor may adopt their own, more restrictive, travel policy. So it doesn't matter much that the FAR or Federal Travel Regulation might permit something if the contractor doesn't want to permit it.
Is the scenario that you are going from home airport A to temporary duty station B, then temporary duty station C, and then back home C, and they want you to fly A-B-A-C-A even though this increases costs for the government for no reasonable purpose? That might not be allowed as it increases cost.
If instead, you are flying to C for non-government business or personal convenience, you probably can't force the prime contractor to allow it. Even though the Federal Travel Regulation would allow you to go that way if you pay for any added costs (Federal Travel Regulation §301-10.8 What is my liability if, for personal convenience, I travel by an indirect route or interrupt travel by a direct route?).
posted by grouse at 11:45 AM on November 28, 2014
Is the scenario that you are going from home airport A to temporary duty station B, then temporary duty station C, and then back home C, and they want you to fly A-B-A-C-A even though this increases costs for the government for no reasonable purpose? That might not be allowed as it increases cost.
If instead, you are flying to C for non-government business or personal convenience, you probably can't force the prime contractor to allow it. Even though the Federal Travel Regulation would allow you to go that way if you pay for any added costs (Federal Travel Regulation §301-10.8 What is my liability if, for personal convenience, I travel by an indirect route or interrupt travel by a direct route?).
posted by grouse at 11:45 AM on November 28, 2014
I am an attorney, but I am not your attorney. This is not legal advice.
This may have something to do with the U.S. Flag Carrier requirement for air travel. FAR 47.4.
The rules for that are pretty complex, but they specifically contemplate travel that "is not part of [a] trip to or from the United States" and even relaxes the U.S. Flag Carrier requirement in that case.
Are you sure it's just about the departure and return airports? You may want to ask the auditor for clarification.
posted by jedicus at 11:46 AM on November 28, 2014
This may have something to do with the U.S. Flag Carrier requirement for air travel. FAR 47.4.
The rules for that are pretty complex, but they specifically contemplate travel that "is not part of [a] trip to or from the United States" and even relaxes the U.S. Flag Carrier requirement in that case.
Are you sure it's just about the departure and return airports? You may want to ask the auditor for clarification.
posted by jedicus at 11:46 AM on November 28, 2014
Not a FAR or JFTR expert, but I travel for the government frequently.
I'm not sure what you mean by originate and end at a home airport. Grouse is right that for intermediate duty stations, you could make a case for convenience to the government. Typically, if you do anything weird you have to get it authorized in advance. Do you not have travel orders as a contractor? I've been military and now DoD civilian, and we always have travel authorizations beforehand.
Grouse is also right that if you go A-B-C-A, where C is not part of your official travel, they may only pay for the A-B leg, even though it seems fair to pay 2x(A-B). Technically, you don't have a ticket from B-A to get reimbursed for. That's the chance you take when you don't get it approved in advance.
If the auditor is trying to say they can't pay for non-round-trips, A-B with no return to A, then that would be a new one on me.
Is the auditor saying "you can't do this" or "I recommend you don't do this [because it's a paperwork hassle or something, in my experience]"? In the first case, most auditors will use the form "Contrary to [cite], you did this." If not, it's opinion. YMMV.
posted by ctmf at 12:02 PM on November 28, 2014
I'm not sure what you mean by originate and end at a home airport. Grouse is right that for intermediate duty stations, you could make a case for convenience to the government. Typically, if you do anything weird you have to get it authorized in advance. Do you not have travel orders as a contractor? I've been military and now DoD civilian, and we always have travel authorizations beforehand.
Grouse is also right that if you go A-B-C-A, where C is not part of your official travel, they may only pay for the A-B leg, even though it seems fair to pay 2x(A-B). Technically, you don't have a ticket from B-A to get reimbursed for. That's the chance you take when you don't get it approved in advance.
If the auditor is trying to say they can't pay for non-round-trips, A-B with no return to A, then that would be a new one on me.
Is the auditor saying "you can't do this" or "I recommend you don't do this [because it's a paperwork hassle or something, in my experience]"? In the first case, most auditors will use the form "Contrary to [cite], you did this." If not, it's opinion. YMMV.
posted by ctmf at 12:02 PM on November 28, 2014
Maybe the auditor is saying you're required to account for everything from home to back home in the travel voucher and you're missing the part where the traveler went at own expense, leaving the paperwork incomplete.
I can see that scenario. Travel voucher for A-B-C-D-B. Auditor: How did/will the traveler get back to A? Is there a flight still to be taken hanging out there that we owe to be paid later? Not cool.
(although, even still, I've had to do that when traveling over the fiscal year boundary and we have to close out one set of funding and start a new one for the return trip.)
posted by ctmf at 12:10 PM on November 28, 2014
I can see that scenario. Travel voucher for A-B-C-D-B. Auditor: How did/will the traveler get back to A? Is there a flight still to be taken hanging out there that we owe to be paid later? Not cool.
(although, even still, I've had to do that when traveling over the fiscal year boundary and we have to close out one set of funding and start a new one for the return trip.)
posted by ctmf at 12:10 PM on November 28, 2014
Response by poster: I was told previously that if I was flying to the worksite from a place in the US other than my home airport, it was ok as long as I didn't charge them to get the place. For example I could bill them for San Francisco- Washington Dc-Hartford (my home airport. Now the new auditor is saying the FAR restricts them form paying anymore than the average cost of of a Hartford-Washington DC-Hartford round trip. Need a citation for that. I don't want to challenge them withot a citation. That's bad politics.
posted by Xurando at 12:31 PM on November 28, 2014
posted by Xurando at 12:31 PM on November 28, 2014
It would be helpful if you posted the specific circumstances that are being questioned, i.e., where the contractor is located, where the work was to be performed, and what the legs of the trip were. As alluded to above, this is really a JFTR issue, I think, and no so much FAR except insofar as your contract under the FAR is subject to the JFTR when it comes to travel.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 12:33 PM on November 28, 2014
posted by ereshkigal45 at 12:33 PM on November 28, 2014
Response by poster: I always working Washington DC.
posted by Xurando at 12:34 PM on November 28, 2014
posted by Xurando at 12:34 PM on November 28, 2014
Your post slipped. Off the top of my head, yeah, you can't get paid for more than what it would cost to fly from your home to the work site, unless you were in SF to work on that contract as well. Otherwise, you could fly to Hawaii for the holidays, then book travel from there to a contract work site, and then from the contract work site to your home in Hartford. Uncle Sam isn't going to pay for that Hawaii to work site leg. I'll see if I can find you a cite in the JFTR.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 12:35 PM on November 28, 2014
posted by ereshkigal45 at 12:35 PM on November 28, 2014
Best answer: Try this:
From the JFTR:
2115 UNUSUAL ROUTE JUSTIFICATION
Travel other than by a usually traveled route must be justified for any excess cost to be Gov’t funded.
2120 PERSONAL CONVENIENCE TRAVEL
A traveler may not be provided contract city pair airfares provided under GSA contract (App P) or any other airfares
intended for official Gov’t business for any portion of a route traveled for personal convenience.
https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/perdiem/JTR.pdf
posted by ereshkigal45 at 12:41 PM on November 28, 2014
From the JFTR:
2115 UNUSUAL ROUTE JUSTIFICATION
Travel other than by a usually traveled route must be justified for any excess cost to be Gov’t funded.
2120 PERSONAL CONVENIENCE TRAVEL
A traveler may not be provided contract city pair airfares provided under GSA contract (App P) or any other airfares
intended for official Gov’t business for any portion of a route traveled for personal convenience.
https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/Docs/perdiem/JTR.pdf
posted by ereshkigal45 at 12:41 PM on November 28, 2014
Response by poster: That looks like what they are saying. I guess I have to suck it up and be grateful it took them 18 years to see that.
posted by Xurando at 12:47 PM on November 28, 2014
posted by Xurando at 12:47 PM on November 28, 2014
« Older To have loved and lost... a coffee table. | Producing a two-person video/audio conversation on... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:21 AM on November 28, 2014