Audit of the FedTraveler Travel 

Service 

September 22, 2010

Report No. 483 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page ii 

M E M O R A N D U M 

September 22, 2010 

To: Kenneth Johnson, Associate Executive Director, 

 Office of Financial Management (OFM) 

Sharon Sheehan, Associate Executive Director, Office of 

 Administrative Services (OAS) 

From: H. David Kotz, Inspector General, Office of Inspector General 

 (Signed HDKotz) 

Subject: Audit of the FedTraveler Travel Service, Report No. 483 

This memorandum transmits the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) final report detailing the results of our audit 

on the FedTraveler Travel Service. This audit was conducted as part of our 

continuous effort to assess the management of the Commission’s programs and 

operations and as a part of our annual audit plan. 

The final report contains 20 recommendations, which if implemented should 

improve the Commission’s programs and operations. Your written response to 

the draft report is included in its entirety in Appendix V. The OFM concurred with 

the 18 recommendations addressed to its office and OAS concurred with the 2 

recommendations addressed to its office. 

Within the next 45 days, please provide the OIG with a written corrective action 

plan that is designed to address the agreed-upon recommendations. The 

corrective action plan should include information such as the responsible 

official/point of contact, time frames for completing the required actions, 

milestones identifying how you will address the recommendations cited in this 

report. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page iii 

Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to 

contact me. We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation that you and your staff 

extended to our staff during this audit. 

Attachment 

cc: Kayla J. Gillan, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Chairman 

Jeffery Heslop, Chief Operating Officer, Office of the Chief 

 Operating Officer 

Diego Ruiz, Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director 

Zayra Okrak, Assistant Director, Finance and Accounting Office, Office of 

 Financial Management 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service

Executive Summary 

Background. E-Gov Travel Service (ETS), one of the five General Service 

Administration (GSA) managed E-Government (E-Gov) initiatives, was launched 

in response to the President’s Management Agenda’s mission to improve the 

internal efficiency and effectiveness of the federal government. 

The Federal Travel Regulation, 41 C.F.R. § 301-73.101 mandated that federal 

agencies fully deploy an ETS by September 30, 2006. Therefore, on March 31, 

2005, after extensive evaluation of the three available ETS vendors, the 

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) issued a task order 

to HP Enterprise Services LLC to procure its FedTraveler travel system 

(FedTraveler). FedTraveler is a comprehensive, end-to-end service to plan, 

book, track, approve, and request reimbursement for travel services for 

managing federal employees’ official travel. Although mandated to be deployed 

by September 2006, FedTraveler was not fully deployed at the SEC until June 

2008. Many federal agencies, in addition to the SEC, use FedTraveler. 

The SEC Office of Inspector General (OIG) has received complaints about 

FedTraveler since its implementation, including concerns about the imposition of 

numerous administrative charges for a variety of unexplained reasons. 

Objectives. The overall objective of the audit of FedTraveler was to assess the 

adequacy of the service provided by FedTraveler and identify areas of 

improvement to reduce or eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse. Specific audit 

objectives included: 

• Surveying SEC employees to determine the level of actual concern on the 

part of SEC employees with FedTraveler. 

• Determining the source of administrative fees charged by FedTraveler and 

assessing the bases for the fees and whether the SEC and its employees 

are being unnecessarily overcharged by FedTraveler. 

• Determining whether FedTraveler has effective controls over hotel 

accommodations and requires compliance with applicable rules and 

regulations and avoidance of waste, fraud, and abuse. 

• Determining if there are areas where the SEC can reduce unnecessary 

costs. 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page iv 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page v 

Results. The OIG conducted this audit partially because of the numerous 

complaints we received about FedTraveler from SEC employees since its 

implementation. In a survey we launched to aid in the audit, we found that SEC 

employees are significantly dissatisfied with FedTraveler. The largest 

percentage of respondents to a survey question about costs responded that they 

“strongly disagreed” that the FedTraveler system had lowered costs, even though 

one of the stated goals of the E-Gov initiative was “to significantly reduce the cost 

of federal travel management and to achieve dramatic cost savings.” SEC 

employees who completed the survey also generally responded that they do not 

believe that the hotel booking process has been simplified, with one traveler 

commenting, “Booking a hotel is one of the most frustrating aspects of 

FedTraveler.” Further, respondents felt the FedTraveler system did not reduce 

the amount of time required to make travel arrangements (the largest percentage 

of respondents (19.1 percent), “strongly disagreed” that the amount of time has 

been reduced), even though another stated objective was to simplify the travel 

process. In addition, a majority of survey respondents did not believe the 

FedTraveler system was user friendly, although their satisfaction level had 

increased over the past year, and they reported being satisfied with Fed Traveler 

support services within the Commission. 

An area of the FedTraveler system that has been particularly troubling to SEC 

travelers (according to both the complaints we received and the survey results) is 

the “excessive” FedTraveler transaction fees. Our audit confirmed that the 

transaction fee structure is confusing and often excessive. We found that there 

are actually three layers of transaction fees associated with FedTraveler: (1) an 

initial charge when transportation is ticketed; (2) additional and often multiple 

charges assessed when CI Travel, FedTraveler’s off-site travel management 

center, provides assistance to the traveler; and (3) a report voucher fee that is 

not charged until a traveler’s expense report has been finalized and approved for 

payout. We found there is no proper explanation of these transaction fees 

provided to SEC travelers. 

We also reviewed sample itineraries and found specific and numerous instances 

of excessive fees. Fees for some trips totaled over $100 and, in several cases, 

travelers were charged transaction fees that represented a large percentage of 

the total cost of their trips (e.g., one traveler was charged over $43 in transaction 

fees for a trip costing less than $125). In all, we found that FedTraveler charged 

SEC employees or contractors nearly $190,000 in transaction fees for travel over 

a seven-month period. 

Our audit further found that the fees being charged by FedTraveler for trips in our 

sample were not in accordance with the fee schedule contained in the 

FedTraveler task order signed by the SEC in March 2005, and that there was 

significant confusion about what fees should be properly charged. In fact, during 

the course of the audit we received conflicting opinions from the Contracting 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page vi 

Officer and Contracting Officer Technical Representative as to whether the 

SEC’s task order or the GSA master contract pricing details applied to the 

FedTraveler contract. We concluded that this confusion over the FedTraveler’s 

fee structure raises significant concerns about the level of SEC monitoring of the 

FedTraveler contract. 

 

Our audit also identified several ways in which the SEC can reduce 

transportation expenses by, among other things, educating travelers on utilizing 

the allowable exceptions to the use of contract fares, and we made suggestions 

to reduce the significant funds currently being expended for customer support, 

which includes five full-time on-site contractor representatives at an annual cost 

of over $1 million (excluding transaction costs). We found that requests for 

actual expenses for lodging need to be more closely scrutinized and increased 

controls are necessary for travel involving the use of a privately-owned vehicle. 

We further found that a noteworthy number of travelers are not receiving their 

reimbursements within a timely manner causing them to pay travel expenses out 

of their own pocket. Finally, the audit determined that FedTraveler is not 

providing the SEC with the reporting capabilities it promised and, as a result, 

OFM is unable to thoroughly analyze the cost effectiveness of the system and 

any anticipated changes. 

Summary of Recommendations. Specifically, the OIG recommends that the 

Office of Financial Management: 

(1) Establish a working group to independently analyze the survey 

results, comments, and suggestions made in response to the 

survey and make recommended improvements to the Associate 

Executive Director for Financial Management to help mitigate 

deficiencies with the system and ease the frustration of 

Commission employees. 

(2) Develop regular means of communication (i.e., website updates, 

newsletters or similar media) with Commission staff regarding 

common FedTraveler issues and solutions regarding booking 

airline and hotel accommodations, transaction fees, electronic 

preparation of travel authorizations and expense reports, etc. as 

well as any changes to existing travel policy.

(3) Consult with FedTraveler and CI Travel to publish a guide for 

employees that clearly explains the transaction fee structure, including the 

amount, timing and frequency of fee charges. 

(4) Educate Commission staff on alternatives to contacting CI Travel to 

minimize non-self service transaction fees that result in high transaction 

costs for the SEC. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page vii 

(5) Work with FedTraveler to require that travelers are notified when nonself service transaction fees are charged by CI Travel, including providing 

a justification for the charge and information regarding the travel itinerary 

to which the charge relates. Alternatively, the Office of Financial 

Management should consider centrally billing all transaction fees to 

remove the burden of reconciliation from Commission staff. 

(6) Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of implementing a 

financial system change to capture transaction fee costs in a distinct 

Budget Object Class (BOC) code, which will provide greater transparency 

for travelers on expense reports and potentially provide useful cost 

information for budget planning purposes. 

(7) Issue guidance to travelers regarding available exceptions to using the 

contract fare and tips on reliable outside sources for confirming that no 

contract flights exist prior to requesting a non-contract flight. 

(8) Remind travelers of the exceptions in the Federal Travel Regulation for 

claiming actual necessary expenses and require that travelers provide 

clear justifications in their travel authorizations when claiming actual 

necessary expenses, including the applicable Federal Travel Regulation 

exception. 

(9) Determine how the requirement in the SEC Travel Policy requiring 

travelers to call three hotels prior to requesting actual necessary expenses 

can be enforced or provide travelers and approving officials with 

alternative guidance on what they should do to locate Federal Travel 

Regulation compliant lodging and how their efforts should be documented. 

(10) Require approving officials to review and approve requests for actual 

expenses for lodging prior to such requests being routed to the Office of 

Financial Management. This will help ensure that travelers have 

exercised due diligence in their efforts to identify appropriate lodging and 

place responsibility on the approving official to ensure that justifications 

are appropriate. 

(11) Work with FedTraveler to implement additional system controls to 

ensure that travel by privately owned vehicles is in accordance with the 

Federal Travel Regulation, including routing such travel through the Office 

of Financial Management. 

(12) Request that FedTraveler institute a system control that notifies 

travelers when their expense reports have not been submitted within the 

time period permitted by the Federal Travel Regulation and SEC Travel 

Policy. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page viii 

(13) Request that FedTraveler provide the needed reporting capability to 

enable OFM to effectively monitor the receipt and processing of expense 

reports in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation. 

(14) Publish on its travel website best practices with regard to preparation 

of expense reports so travelers can avoid the most common mistakes that 

result in returned expense reports in FedTraveler. 

(15) Determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of implementing a 

split disbursement method for payment of travel expenses. 

(16) Identify and request from FedTraveler ad-hoc reporting capabilities 

that are needed to successfully perform their travel responsibilities and 

analyze the cost effectiveness of implementing such changes. 

(17) Examine the activity level of the current customer service 

representatives to determine if the current number of representatives is 

appropriate. 

(18) Establish agency-specific performance measures or other means to 

monitor the service provided by the customer service representatives. 

We also recommended that the Office of Administrative Services: 

(1) Request a legal opinion from the Office of General Counsel regarding 

the amount and frequency of fees charged by FedTraveler to ensure that 

the charges are appropriate and in accordance with the General Service 

Administration’s Master Contract and the Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s task order. 

(2) Request access from GSA to the master contract via GSA’s digital 

contract library and also provide access to the Contract Officer Technical 

Representative to assist in contract monitoring. OAS should also take 

appropriate measures to ensure that it is being properly notified by GSA of 

all changes to the master contract. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page ix 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................

Background and Objectives 

Background ................................................................................................

Objectives ...................................................................................................

Findings and Recommendations 

Finding 1: The OIG FedTraveler Survey Results Show a Large 

Percentage of SEC Travelers Remain Dissatisfied with FedTraveler and 

Several Important Objectives of the E-Gov Travel Initiative Have Not Bee

Accomplished ..............................................................................................

Recommendation 1 ................................................................

Recommendation 2 ................................................................

Finding 2: Excessive FedTraveler Transaction Fees Resulted in High 

Costs for the Commission ...........................................................................

Recommendation 3 ................................................................

Recommendation 4 ................................................................

Recommendation 5 ................................................................

Recommendation 6 ................................................................

Recommendation 7 ................................................................

Recommendation 8 ................................................................

Finding 3: Opportunities Exist for Cost Savings Related to Transportation

Expenses ....................................................................................................

Recommendation 9 ................................................................

Finding 4: Requests for Actual Expenses for Lodging Should be More 

Closely Scrutinized ......................................................................................

Recommendation 10 ..............................................................

Recommendation 11 ..............................................................

Recommendation 12 ..............................................................

Finding 5: Increased Controls are Needed in FedTraveler for POV Travel

Recommendation 13 ..............................................................

Finding 6: Expense Report Processing Can Be Improved .........................

Recommendation 14 ..............................................................

Recommendation 15 ..............................................................

Recommendation 16 ..............................................................

Recommendation 17 ..............................................................

....... iii 

..... viii 

....... 1 

....... 2 

n 

....... 3 

..... 14 

..... 14 

..... 15 

..... 19 

..... 19 

..... 20 

..... 20 

..... 20 

..... 21 

..... 21 

..... 23 

..... 24 

..... 26 

..... 26 

..... 27 

 ..... 27 

..... 28 

..... 29 

..... 31 

..... 31 

..... 31 

..... 32 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page x 

Finding 7: Limited FedTraveler Reporting Capabilities Affect OFM’s Ability 

to Manage Travel ..........................................................................................

....

....

....

....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 32 

. 33 

. 34 

. 35 

. 35 

Recommendation 18 ............................................................

Finding 8: OFM Should Examine Ways to Reduce FedTraveler On-Site 

Customer Support Costs ...........................................................................

Recommendation 19 ............................................................

Recommendation 20 ............................................................

Appendices 

Appendix I: Acronyms. ........................................................

......

......

......

......

s ...

..........................

.........................

.........................

.........................

.........................

.........................

. 36 

. 37 

. 38 

. 39 

. 43 

. 51 

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology ..............................

Appendix III: Criteria .........................................................

Appendix IV: List of Recommendations ...........................

Appendix V: Management Comments .............................

Appendix VI: OIG Response to Management’s Comment

Tables 

Table1: Q.5 The FedTraveler System Has Lowered Travel Costs for the 

SEC ...........................................................................................................

System Has Simplified Hotel Booking 

.....................................................................

System Has Reduced the Amount of Time 

ements .......................................................

edTraveler System to be User Friendly .......

ith the FedTraveler System has 

e Past Year ..................................................

ssistance You Received from Contacting 

.....................................................................

ssistance You Received from Office of 

, Regarding Your Questions or Problems 

.....................................................................

 Satisfaction with the Service you 

gement Center (Currently CI Travel) in 

ervations .....................................................

ares to GSA Contract Fares .......................

thorization Window .....................................

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

... 4 

... 5 

... 7 

... 8 

... 9 

. 11 

. 11 

. 11 

. 23 

. 28 

Table 2: Q.11 The FedTraveler 

Process For SEC Employees ...

Table 3: Q.12 The FedTraveler 

Required to Make Travel Arrang

Table 4: Q.6 I have found the F

Table 5: Q.26 My Satisfaction w

Significantly Improved during th

Table 6: Q.22 Please Rate the A

FedTraveler ..............................

Table 7: Q.23 Please Rate the A

Financial Management Officials

Concerning FedTraveler ..........

Table 8: Q.25 Please Rate your

Received from the Travel Mana

Making or Changing Travel Res

Table 9: Comparison of Orbitz F

Figures 

Figure 1: FedTraveler Travel Au
Background and Objectives

Background 

E-Gov Travel Service (ETS), one of the five General Service Administration (GSA) 

managed E-Gov initiatives, was launched in response to the President’s Management 

Agenda’s mission to improve the internal efficiency and effectiveness of the federal 

government. In November 2003, GSA with the collaboration of over 23 federal 

agencies, awarded Firm Fixed Price, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) 

contracts to three ETS vendors: CW Government Travel, Inc. of San Antonio, Texas; 

Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS) of Fairfax, Virginia (hereinafter referred to 

as HP Enterprise Services, LLC); and Northrop Grumman Mission Systems of Fairfax, 

Virginia.1 Each contract has a possible period of performance up to ten years for the 

provision of web-based, end-to-end travel management services to the federal 

government.2

 

The Federal Travel Regulation, 41 C.F.R. (FTR) § 301-73.101 mandated that federal 

agencies fully deploy an ETS by September 30, 2006. Therefore, on March 31, 2005, 

after extensive evaluation of the three available ETS vendors, the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission) issued a task order to HP Enterprise 

Services, LLC to procure its FedTraveler travel system (FedTraveler). The SEC’s 

evaluation process consisted of (1) analyzing the ETS vendors’ product application 

features (e.g., training, application appearance, internal and external security, etc.) 

based on product demonstrations; (2) reviewing user feedback from testing performed 

at eight regional offices and (3) reviewing responses from the three ETS vendors to 

SEC questions related to items such as help desk support. The process also included 

reviewing vendor pricing. 

Although mandated to be implemented by September 2006, FedTraveler was not fully 

deployed at the SEC until June 2008. In order to minimize program disruptions to SEC 

staff and address system integration issues between FedTraveler and the agency’s 

financial accounting system, the Office of Financial Management (OFM) requested two 

extensions from GSA to delay FedTraveler’s implementation. The Office of 

Administrative Services (OAS) is responsible for administering the FedTraveler contract, 

while OFM is responsible for daily contract oversight and is the official source for travel 

guidance and regulations for domestic travel within the SEC. 

FedTraveler is a comprehensive, end-to-end service to plan, book, track, approve, and 

request reimbursement for travel services for managing federal employees’ official 

travel. Many federal agencies, in addition to the SEC, use FedTraveler, including the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, National Science 

1

 See http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/105399, “E-Gov Travel Service,” pg 1. 2

 See http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/fas/Overview_of_the_ETS_Master_Contracts_30-Sep-2009.pdf, “Overview of the 

E-Gov Travel Service Master Contracts”, pg 1.

 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 1 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 2 

Foundation, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. For the first six 

months of Fiscal Year 2010, the SEC approved 5,682 travel authorizations, and 

completed 4,344 expense reports (including 515 local expense reports) using 

FedTraveler. 

The SEC Office of Inspector General (OIG) has received complaints about FedTraveler, 

including concerns about the imposition of numerous administrative charges for a 

variety of unexplained reasons. These complaints have included an allegation that 

“FedTraveler has consistently and repeatedly overcharged the Commission and its 

employees for travel.” One complainant further described the FedTraveler system as “a 

perfect example of government waste and abuse” and several employees have stated 

that FedTraveler has turned out to be much more expensive and less user friendly than 

the previous travel system the SEC had in place. 

Objectives 

The overall objective of the audit of FedTraveler was to assess the adequacy of the 

service provided by FedTraveler and identify areas of improvement to reduce or 

eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Specific audit objectives included: 

(1) Surveying SEC employees to determine the level of actual concern on the part of 

SEC employees with FedTraveler; 

(2) Determining the source of administrative fees charged by FedTraveler and 

assessing the bases for the fees and whether the SEC and its employees are 

being unnecessarily overcharged by FedTraveler; 

(3) Determining whether FedTraveler has effective controls over hotel 

accommodations and requires compliance with applicable rules and regulations 

and avoidance of waste, fraud, and abuse; and 

(4) Determining if there are areas where the SEC can reduce unnecessary costs. 
Findings and Recommendations 

Finding 1: The OIG FedTraveler Survey Results Show 

a Large Percentage of SEC Travelers Remain 

Dissatisfied with FedTraveler and Several Important 

Objectives of the E-Gov Travel Initiative Have Not 

Been Accomplished 

Although Commission staff reported growing satisfaction and 

excellent customer support related to FedTraveler, SEC travelers 

still have significant concerns with the system and many objectives 

of ETS have not been achieved, two years after its implementation. 

In response to numerous concerns expressed by Commission staff to the OIG, we 

launched an electronic survey to elicit feedback from recent travelers and alternate 

preparers to determine the level of actual concern regarding various operational aspects 

of FedTraveler. The survey was also designed to determine whether the goals of the 

ETS initiative were being fulfilled at the SEC. Prior to launching the survey, we also 

obtained feedback and suggestions from OFM in order to identify everyday issues that 

are being reported to its office regarding FedTraveler. 

All Commission employees who conducted official travel from October 1, 2009 to April 

30, 2010 received the survey, in addition to staff members designated as alternate 

preparers. To ensure that our survey results were limited to Commission employees 

with actual experience using FedTraveler, a question at the beginning of the survey 

asked respondents whether they had used the system to prepare their travel 

arrangements. If an individual responded “no,” they were routed to the end of the 

survey without being required to answer any further questions. 

The survey was distributed via e-mail to 1,873 Commission employees on June 21, 

2010, and was closed on July 9, 2010. During this period, a total of 938 employees 

began the survey and 871 employees (92.9 percent) “completed” the survey.3

The survey was comprised of 35 questions, including 21 questions where respondents 

were encouraged to provide feedback in a “comments” section, and open-ended 

questions that allowed respondents to provide suggestions on how to improve certain 

FedTraveler functions. A summary of notable survey results is provided in this section. 

3 For the purposes of our survey, “completed” means that the recipient clicked on the “done” button at the end of the 

questionnaire; all of the questions may or may not have been answered.

 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 3 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 4 

Respondents Do Not Believe FedTraveler Has Lowered Travel Costs 

One of the stated goals of the ETS initiative was to significantly reduce the cost of 

federal travel management and to achieve dramatic cost savings. In complaints sent to 

the OIG, Commission staff expressed concern that the SEC’s use of FedTraveler as its 

electronic travel system has not only failed to lower costs, but has led to an increase in 

costs to the SEC due to high transaction fees and increased transportation costs. One 

complainant wrote that “the SEC is wasting huge resources with FedTraveler.” A 

separate complaint expressed the belief that perceived overcharging by FedTraveler “is 

done intentionally.” 

To obtain feedback from SEC travelers on whether they believed the use of FedTraveler 

was cost effective, we asked respondents whether they agreed with the statement, “The 

FedTraveler system has lowered travel costs for the SEC.” The results to survey 

question five are provided in Table 1 below. 

 Table 1: Q. 5 – The FedTraveler System Has Lowered Travel Costs 

 for the SEC. Number of Responses: 846 

Strongly 

Agree 

Agree Somewhat 

Agree 

Somewhat 

Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

Cannot 

Answer 

0.8% 3.4% 5.6% 9.3% 12.5% 13.1% 55.2% 

 Source: OIG Generated 

The largest percentage of respondents (13.1 percent) strongly disagreed that costs 

have been lowered under FedTraveler, while the smallest percentage of employees (0.8 

percent) strongly agreed that costs have been lowered. The majority of respondents 

(55.2 percent) indicated that they did not have sufficient knowledge to answer this 

question. When calculating the results using the responses of only those who felt they 

could properly respond, a large majority of respondents (78 percent), did not agree that 

costs have been lowered, compared to 22 percent of respondents who believed that 

costs have been lowered under FedTraveler. The survey results raise serious 

questions about the cost-effectiveness of the system and whether there have been 

dramatic cost savings, as promised. 

A total of 149 of 846 respondents commented on this question. Many respondents 

admitted that they did not have actual information to determine whether travel costs 

have been lowered overall, but stated that in their opinion the excessive fees and high 

cost of transportation associated with FedTraveler has likely resulted in higher costs to 

the Commission. A sample of the feedback the OIG received in response to survey 

question five is provided below: 

• “I think that FedTraveler vastly overcharges the Commission or the Government 

for services performed. In one instance of recent travel, the charge for 

FedTraveler services was $30 on an Amtrak Ticket of $60. That is a 50 [percent] 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 5 

Commission and is absolutely exhorbitant [sic]. It is reminiscent of the $100 toilet 

seats the Air Force used to have to pay for plane parts.” 

• “Hotel costs are higher [and] airline flights are extremely high because we can go 

through only certain carriers. For example, recently I was a given a quote for a 

flight of $1,300 when I could have booked it online for less than $300.” 

• “I don't know about the overall costs by comparison to the old system. I do know 

that we are constantly getting small charges tacked on to our expense reports 

without any explanation of what the charges are for or even what trip they relate 

to.” 

• “Under the old system we were charged a 1 time flat fee per trip to contact CI 

Travel as often as changes were needed. FedTraveler charges a fee for the 

authorization, another fee for the expense report & a fee EVERYTIME we contact 

CI Travel regarding changes to the flight or issues with the flight.” 

The concerns expressed by SEC employees regarding high travel costs related to 

FedTraveler fees, and airline and hotel costs, have been analyzed at length during the 

course of this audit. Findings 2, 3, 4, and 8 provide further discussion of these areas 

and include recommendations on ways travel costs for the Commission can be lowered. 

Respondents Do Not Believe the Hotel Booking Process Has Been 

Simplified Under FedTraveler 

As part of the solicitation process for ETS, GSA listed several requirements for an ETravel vendor’s online booking engine. These requirements included clearly listing all 

available government rate hotels in a real time environment. During a telephone 

interview with one complainant, this Commission employee explained the difficulties and 

irregularities related to making hotel reservations through the online booking engine. 

The employee explained that the system often fails to display all available government 

rate hotels in a destination city, and that they have called several hotels and found the 

hotels actually had government rate rooms available, contrary to what the online 

booking engine showed. 

To gather feedback from Commission staff regarding the FedTraveler hotel booking 

process, we asked respondents whether they agreed with the statement, “The 

FedTraveler system has simplified the hotel booking process for SEC employees.” The 

survey results are provided in Table 2 below. 

 Table 2: Q. 11 – The FedTraveler System Has Simplified the Hotel 

 Booking Process For SEC Employees. Number of Responses: 840

Strongly 

Agree 

Agree Somewhat 

Agree 

Somewhat 

Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

Cannot 

Answer 

2.0% 13.8% 13.9% 13.9% 13.6% 16.4% 26.3% 

 Source: OIG Generated 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 6 

The largest percentage of respondents (16.4 percent) strongly disagreed that the hotel 

booking process had been simplified, while the smallest percentage of respondents (2.9 

percent) strongly agreed. When including the responses of only those employees who 

felt they could properly respond, a large majority (60 percent) disagreed that the hotel 

booking process had been simplified. The results suggest that most Commission staff 

are dissatisfied with the hotel booking process and that another important objective of 

the ETS initiative may not have been achieved. 

A total of 195 of 840 respondents commented on this survey question. Many 

respondents expressed a high level of dissatisfaction with the hotel booking process, 

and some indicated that the hotel booking process using the online booking engine was 

so poor that they are forced to regularly book their hotel accommodations outside of the 

system. A sample of the comments the OIG received to the survey are provided below: 

• “Sometimes the hotels will show not available, but when you call, they are 

available for the government rate. Examiners need hotels close to the registrants 

and sometimes they are hard to locate through the system.” 

• “It is very difficult to find hotels in FedTraveler. I always book hotels offline.” 

• “Last time I tried to book a hotel through Fed Traveler, the recommended hotel 

was in a different city entirely from my destination.” 

• “I have found that hotels I would like to stay at do not come up when I do a hotel 

search. But have been able to talk to the company directly, and there are 

government rates available.” 

• “Booking a hotel is one of the most frustrating aspects of FedTraveler. It is very 

cumbersome to page through multiple hotel listings especially if you have a 

specific hotel in mind. Why you cannot simply input the hotel information in or 

simply add a hotel confirmation number is ridiculous.” 

Additionally, the OIG’s concerns regarding the SEC’s internal controls over traveler’s 

claims for actual lodging expenses are discussed in Finding 4, along with 

recommendations to ensure travelers comply with applicable FTR requirements to 

maximize cost savings for the Commission. 

Respondents Do Not Believe FedTraveler Has Reduced the Time 

Required to Make Travel Arrangements 

Another stated objective of the ETS initiative was to simplify the travel process. As part 

of a simplified process, it is a reasonable expectation that using the new system would 

reduce the amount of time spent making travel arrangements. However, in complaints 

sent to the OIG, several Commission employees stated that the system is extremely 

time consuming to use. One employee stated that “rather than [doing] my job, I have 

spent the better part of five hours trying to book a trip for this week that should take five 

minutes to book.” Another complainant stated that “the FedTraveler system is a 

disaster, taking hours of employee time to resolve problems with reimbursement and 

travel.” 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 7 

To determine whether Commission staff believe that the time required to make their 

individual travel arrangements has been reduced, we asked respondents whether they 

agreed with the statement, “The FedTraveler system has reduced the amount of time 

required to make travel arrangements.” The survey results are provided in Table 3 

below. 

 Table 3: Q. 12 – The FedTraveler System Has Reduced the Amount 

 of Time Required to Make Travel Arrangements. Number of 

 Responses: 839

Strongly 

Agree 

Agree Somewhat 

Agree 

Somewhat 

Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

Cannot 

Answer 

2.4% 16.3% 16.3% 10.1% 13.8% 19.1% 21.9% 

 Source: OIG Generated 

The largest percentage of respondents (19.1 percent) strongly disagreed that the 

FedTraveler system has reduced the amount of time it takes to make travel 

arrangements, while the smallest percentage of respondents (2.4 percent) strongly 

agreed. When including the responses of only those employees who felt they could 

properly respond, a majority of employees (55 percent) disagreed that the time required 

to make travel arrangements has been reduced. The results suggest that most 

employees believe that the FedTraveler system has not resulted in a reduction in time 

spent making travel arrangements, contrary to the expected benefits of the ETS 

initiative. 

A total of 139 of 839 respondents commented about this survey question. Many 

respondents expressed frustration due to the time required to properly navigate through 

all aspects of the system, because many travelers are now required to enter their travel 

information into the FedTraveler system themselves, rather than the administrative staff. 

A sample of comments to the survey the OIG received is provided below: 

• “It takes FOREVER. Now I spend hours making travel arrangements when 

administrative support personnel used to do it -- it has become inordinately more 

time consuming than it ever was before.” 

• “What used to take 5 minutes now often takes days to process. And, even then, 

the results are inaccurate. In many cases, flights booked through FedTraveler, if 

not ‘purchased’ within a certain time (with some airlines) or booked too early 

(with others) are cancelled by the airline without warning. This requires more 

desperate phone calls to CI Travel to fix.” 

• “I've spent HOURS making reservations; used to take minutes with a quick 

internet search and a call to Omega.” 

• “We now have to be our own travel agent and clerk in addition to doing our job.” 

• “Reduced? This must be the joke question. This system has put the burden on 

the attorney and taken it away from the administrative staff. 

(So, maybe it's reduced the administrative staff's time, but, it has increased the 

attorney's time.)” 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 8 

• “There are always problems and delays throughout the process.” 

Respondents Find the FedTraveler System Is Not User Friendly 

An additional goal related to the simplification of the travel process was to provide a 

user friendly customer-centric system. In GSA’s ETS solicitation, vendors were 

mandated to provide an integrated, web-based travel management environment that is 

customer-centric. In several complaints sent to the OIG, Commission staff asserted that 

the system was not user friendly. Complainants referred to the system as “horrendous” 

and “confusing,” and further indicated it “lacks flexibility.” 

To gather feedback from Commission staff regarding whether FedTraveler is user 

friendly, we asked respondents whether they agreed with the statement “I have found 

the FedTraveler system to be user friendly.” The results are included in Table 4 below. 

 Table 4: Q. 6 – I Have Found the FedTraveler System To Be User 

 Friendly. Number of Responses: 853 

Strongly 

Agree 

Agree Somewhat 

Agree 

Somewhat

Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

Cannot 

Answer 

1.6% 15.7% 25.3% 17.7% 16.5% 19.9% 3.2% 

 Source: OIG Generated 

The largest percentage of respondents (25.3 percent) somewhat agreed that the system 

is user friendly, while the smallest percentage of respondents (1.6 percent) strongly 

agreed. However, when including the responses of only those employees who felt they 

could properly respond, the majority (56 percent) of staff did not believe that the system 

to be user friendly. The results suggest that most employees find the system is not user 

friendly, contrary to the stated objective of the ETS initiative. 

A total of 194 of 853 respondents commented about this question. Many respondents 

indicated that the system lacked intuitiveness and they would prefer a system similar to 

a public travel service website such as “Orbitz.” A sample of their comments is provided 

below: 

• “Only if you use it on a regular basis, and you are knowledgeable in travel, you 

are geographically inclined, resourceful, know the FTR rules and regs and all the 

in's and out's and keen and patient will you succeed in using this system.” 

• “FedTraveler is one of the most user-unfriendly programs I've ever used.” 

• “Unless you are a daily user it is difficult to gain sufficient knowledge of the layout 

of the website. Clearly lacks an intuitive framework.” 

• “It is virtually impossible to understand some of the codes and means by which 

materials are submitted. The documentation that has to be scanned, faxed and 

submitted is duplicative and time-consuming.” 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 9 

• “It is better than it used to be, but there still is no way to know exactly what is in 

each category, and the navigation ’system’ is weird, not intuitive, and ends up 

just being a guessing game to some extent.” 

• “It is difficult to book -- and especially to rebook -- travel or to find convenient 

hotel locations or even sometimes the best air fares. The rules are 

[incomprehensible] unless well-studied, but, unfortunately, we don't get paid to be 

FedTraveler agents.” 

As a result of the significant number of comments from Commission staff regarding the 

time required to make travel arrangements in FedTraveler and difficulties using the 

system, the OIG made recommendations regarding OFM communicating more regularly 

with Commission staff about FedTraveler issues and solutions and mitigating 

deficiencies to ease the frustration of Commission staff. 

Respondents Report Their Satisfaction Level with the FedTraveler 

System Has Improved Over the Last Year 

The FedTraveler system was fully implemented at the SEC in June 2008, approximately 

two years before the release of the OIG FedTraveler survey. Some of the complaints 

the OIG received were made soon after the Commission converted to the electronic 

travel system. Thus, it is possible that some of the frustration expressed by 

Commission staff is directly related to the implementation period of the new system, 

which can be common to a wide variety of software or other system conversions. In a 

follow-up interview, one complainant expressed the belief that the FedTraveler system 

had “slightly improved” since the date of their original complaint. 

To determine whether satisfaction has improved since the period directly after 

implementation, we asked staff whether they agreed with the statement, “My 

satisfaction with the FedTraveler system has significantly improved during the past 

year.” The results are provided in Table 5 below. 

 Table 5: Q. 26 – My Satisfaction With the FedTraveler System Has 

 Significantly Improved During the Past Year. Number of 

 Responses: 839

Strongly 

Agree 

Agree Somewhat 

Agree 

Somewhat 

Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

Cannot 

Answer 

3.7% 15.1% 28.0% 9.2% 12.9% 8.6% 22.5% 

 Source: OIG Generated 

The results suggest that satisfaction with FedTraveler is growing, as 46.8 percent of 

respondents indicated that their satisfaction with the FedTraveler system has at least 

somewhat improved during the past year, while 30.7 percent of respondents answered 

their satisfaction has not improved. Using only the results of respondents who felt they 

could answer properly, a majority (60 percent) reported that their satisfaction level had 

increased. The results suggest that satisfaction with FedTraveler has increased as 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 10 

employees become more familiar with the system and receive additional training. It is 

reasonable to believe that at least some of the frustration regarding FedTraveler was 

due to the recent implementation and the difficulties encountered when converting from 

a manual to an electronic system. 

A total of 74 of 839 respondents commented on this question. A sample of their 

comments is provided below: 

• “As employees within the SEC have become more familiar with the system, there 

has been improvement.” 

• “I used to hate it. Now I am happier.” 

• “Still some glitch [sic] happening here and there but, overall, the system has 

greatly improved.” 

• “I work with [the system] so frequently that I can more accurately anticipate and 

avoid the issues and pitfalls that newer users may encounter.” 

• “The more one uses the system, the easier it gets.” 

• “If the survey shows FedTraveler is improving, then starting over with another 

provider may risk incurring a whole new round of start up problems and 

inconveniences.” 

• “The process certainly seems more seamless than it did when it was first rolled 

out to the SEC employees.” 

Respondents Report a High Level of Satisfaction with FedTraveler 

Support Services, Including Within the Commission 

Another stated goal of the ETS initiative was to improve customer service to the federal 

traveler. Commission employees rely on three separate groups for support. 

FedTraveler provides five on-site customer service representatives, and a 

subcontractor, CI Travel, provides off-site travel management assistance. Within the 

agency, OFM provides assistance relating to travel authorization approvals, expense 

report approvals, and other travel policy related questions. 

To determine the overall satisfaction level relating to the support received from these 

three groups, we asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with the separate groups 

in three different questions. The results are provided below. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 11 

Table 6: Q. 22 – Please Rate the Assistance You Received From 

Contacting FedTraveler CAS Representatives at (202) 551-5990 

Regarding Your Questions Or Problems Concerning FedTraveler.

Number of Responses: 843

Very 

Satisfied 

Satisfied Somewhat 

Satisfied 

Somewhat 

Dissatisfied 

Dissatisfied Very 

Dissatisfied 

Cannot 

Answer 

17.0% 20.4% 11.7% 4.6% 2.-5% 1.9% 41.9% 

 Source: OIG Generated 

Table 7: Q. 23 – Please Rate the Assistance You Received From Office 

of Financial Management Officials, Regarding Your Questions or 

Problems Concerning FedTraveler. Number of Responses: 840

Very 

Satisfied 

Satisfied Somewhat 

Satisfied 

Somewhat 

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Very 

Dissatisfied 

Cannot 

Answer 

13.8% 16.0% 11.0% 4.3% 2.7% 2.5% 49.8% 

 Source: OIG Generated 

Table 8: Q. 25 – Please Rate Your Satisfaction With the Service You 

Received From the Travel Management Center (Currently CI Travel) In 

Making Or Changing Travel Reservations. Number of Responses: 840

Very 

Satisfied 

Satisfied Somewhat 

Satisfied 

Somewhat 

Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Very 

Dissatisfied 

Cannot 

Answer 

9.2% 25.1% 13.8% 5.5% 3.8% 3.7% 38.9% 

 Source: OIG Generated

The results suggest that Commission employees are receiving good support relating to 

FedTraveler. When including the responses of only those employees who felt they 

could properly respond to the question, FedTraveler customer support representatives 

received an 85 percent satisfaction rating, members of OFM received an 81 percent 

satisfaction rating, and CI Travel received a 79 percent satisfaction rating. 

Respondents provided a total of 408 comments to questions 22, 23, and 25. A sample 

of their responses is provided below: 

• “The FedTraveler CAS representatives are very helpful. I am grateful that they 

are so responsive.” 

• I cannot say enough great things about Program Specialist, OFM Financial 

Operations Branch and Program Analyst, OFM Financial Analysis Section. 

• Program Specialist, Financial Operations Branch, is very helpful and took extra 

time in a classroom situation to teach me individually. 

• “I missed my flight. I called CI Travel and they quickly and easily changed to the 

next available flight, and it was a less expensive flight, too! They were very 

calming under a very stressful situation and handled things very quickly and 

professionally.” 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 12 

Respondents Provided Significant Written Feedback to Open-Ended 

Questions Regarding Needed Improvements to the Operational 

Aspects of the FedTraveler System 

The OIG FedTraveler survey contained eight open-ended questions in which 

Commission staff were encouraged to provide suggestions to improve different 

elements of the system. A sample of the questions that were asked and the 

respondents’ answers to the questions are provided in this section. 

Question 30 asked respondents to provide suggestions for areas where enhanced 

internal controls are needed to ensure compliance with the Federal Travel Regulations. 

A total of 82 respondents commented on this question. A sample of these suggestions 

is provided below: 

• “The manager requiring the travel should be the one approving the travel 

authorization. Not currently happening.” 

• “Linking FTR [regulations] to travel choices in the system as a learning tool. Few 

if any travelers have the time or inclination to review the regulations. The SEC 

Travel Policy booklet is a good start.” 

• “As stated many times throughout this survey, I feel to better enhance FT and 

help us ensure compliance with FTR rules, instructions more specific to our 

agency need to be listed on FT. The SEC policies comply with FTR rules, but 

many FTR rules state ‘see [your] agency's rules and regulations’. Also, a listing 

of our agency specific FT practices should be listed, such as when to amend a 

doc and when to change the expense in the voucher, etc. This is not a FTR rule 

nor is it a general FedTraveler help topic.” 

Question 31 asked respondents to provide suggestions for overall improvement of the 

system. There were 158 respondents who provided feedback. A sample of their 

comments is provided below: 

• “Would much prefer that payment for air travel and hotel be paid directly by 

agency, rather than billed to me and then reimbursed.” 

• “It would be helpful to be able to upload PDF copies of receipts directly into the 

system instead of relying on fax machines. Our fax machines are not of high 

enough quality so I have to send in PDFs anyway.” 

• “It seems like we put the resources burden on the traveler along with the financial 

burden on the traveler. And...we are still probably paying a heck of a lot to 

support and keep this system up and running. So, all of that should be revisited.” 

• “More frequent training sessions for the travelers to help them in preparing their 

travel requests and expense reports. Annual and extensive training sessions for 

preparers and alternate preparers so that they are in a better position to assist 

fellow employees and supervisors with their travel plans.” 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 13 

• “Hold advanced training for alternative preparers. Take what you've learned, and 

teach them better how to deal with problems.” 

Question 35 allowed respondents to voluntarily provide their contact information if they 

wished to provide further comments directly to the OIG. There were 55 responses to 

this question. We selected a sample of these respondents and contacted them via 

telephone and e-mail. A summary of the feedback obtained is provided below: 

• The majority of employee frustration with FedTraveler is due to the inexperience 

of the large majority of users. Administrative personnel are better suited to work 

with the FedTraveler system because they have more experience. 

• It is difficult to get an expense voucher amended to include any extra fees that 

are incurred before, during, or after the trip. Extra fees are often paid by the 

traveler and never reimbursed. 

• The system often forces a traveler to fly into an airport less convenient and at 

more expense than flying into a nearby airport and renting a car. 

• It would be helpful to have easy access to a travel manual that outlines how to 

handle specific travel occurrences and how to avoid common problems that 

employees encounter. 

In addition to the telephone interviews, one Commission employee provided a 

memorandum documenting various negative experiences encountered with FedTraveler 

system. The memorandum detailed many issues specifically related to international 

travel. A summary of this information is provided below: 

• Reservations have been cancelled without notice because of a delay in the travel 

authorization approval process. 

• Airline tickets were not properly issued, leaving the traveler stranded at the 

airport. This required four telephone calls to CI Travel, which resulted in a total 

of $130.52 in transaction fees. 

• The system did not properly record rental car reservations, which required more 

telephone calls to CI Travel and the associated transaction fees. 

• There have been significant delays of up to six months for foreign travel 

reimbursement. 

• It is believed that there are much less expensive international flight options 

outside of the FedTraveler system. 

Conclusion 

While the survey results show that Commission staff are receiving good customer 

support and are becoming more satisfied with the system, significant areas of concern 

still need to be addressed. The OIG determined that OFM should establish a working 

group to independently analyze the survey results, comments, and suggestions made in 

response to the OIG survey and recommend improvements to the Associate Executive 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 14 

Director for Financial Management, to help mitigate deficiencies with the system and 

ease the frustration of Commission employees. 

Further, OFM should identify areas where performance metrics should be developed to 

properly monitor and address areas of concern. For example, Commission staff 

complained of delays in being credited for cancelled airline tickets, a process which is 

initiated by CI Travel. We found that CI Travel is not contractually required to process 

cancelled airline tickets within any specific time period. This is an example of an area 

where performance monitoring may be necessary. 

Additionally, solutions and updates regarding common employee areas of concern 

should be regularly communicated to Commission staff. Employee frustration may be 

reduced if SEC administrative bulletins about FedTraveler are periodically issued and 

updates to SEC Travel Policy are regularly available. 

Recommendation 1: 

The Office of Financial Management should establish a working group to 

independently analyze the survey results, comments, and suggestions made in 

response to the Office of Inspector General survey and make recommended 

improvements to the Associate Executive Director for Financial Management to 

help mitigate deficiencies with the system and ease the frustration of 

Commission employees. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 

Recommendation 2: 

The Office of Financial Management should develop regular means of 

communication (i.e., website updates, newsletters or similar media) with 

Commission staff regarding common FedTraveler issues and solutions regarding 

booking airline and hotel accommodations, transaction fees, electronic 

preparation of travel authorizations and expense reports, etc. as well as any 

changes to existing travel policy. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 15 

 

Finding 2: Excessive FedTraveler Transaction Fees 

Resulted in High Costs for the Commission

FedTraveler transaction fees are not clearly explained to 

travelers, can be excessive, and are not properly monitored 

by Commission contracting authorities. 

Overview 

According to numerous complaints sent to the OIG, significant confusion exists 

regarding FedTraveler transaction fees. In an incident data report obtained from 

FedTraveler representatives, a significant portion of calls made to the on-site 

FedTraveler customer service representatives were directly related to transaction fee 

questions and complaints. In addition, a May 2010 FedTraveler performance 

assessment prepared by the OFM for GSA was critical of fee charges within 

FedTraveler, stating that “the system does not make clear at all to users what fees are 

charged and why...this is constantly causing problems for users.” 

Many SEC employees expressed confusion and frustration relating to transaction fees, 

in response to the OIG’s survey. More specifically, in response to an OIG survey 

question asking whether travelers have encountered any issues with FedTraveler’s 

administrative charges or fees that they felt were duplicate, erroneous or inaccurate, 

265 respondents provided an affirmative response. One respondent commented that 

“we don't know what the fees should be, and it's hard to know where they are on the 

expense reports.” Another stated, “I believe staff are overcharged. When I have 

inquired at my local office, I was told SEC was aware of [the] problem and [there is] 

nothing they could do about it.” 

In an attempt to fully understand the FedTraveler system fee structure, we reviewed the 

SEC task order and the GSA master contract, and consulted extensively with 

representatives from FedTraveler, OAS, OFM, and GSA. Although we were able to 

verify the general fee structure of the FedTraveler system, we found that a significant 

and alarming amount of confusion exists not only among employees, but with members 

of the Commission staff responsible for contract administration. We also found that 

there is insufficient monitoring of FedTraveler fees and modifications to the GSA master 

contract that significantly affects travel costs at the SEC. 

Transaction Fee Structure (Option Period 2). Based upon our review, we found that 

there are three layers of transaction fees associated with FedTraveler. Initially, a 

traveler is charged a fee when transportation is ticketed in the system.4

 The most 

common charge is $10.03, which is for self-service airfare or rail transportation with or 

without lodging. A charge of $7.24 is assessed for reservations of lodging and/or rental 

4

 For hotel/rental car only, the fee is charged on the check-in/pick-up date. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 16 

 

car only. If CI Travel, FedTraveler’s off-site travel management center is utilized, the 

transaction becomes non-self service and a charge of $32.83 (domestic) or $35.59 

(international) is assessed. A second layer of non-self service charges is assessed if CI 

Travel is utilized after the initial ticketing, such as for changing a flight. Consequently, 

the non-self service charge may be assessed each time CI Travel provides assistance, 

which can result in multiple charges per day. The final charge assessed is a $10.72 

report voucher fee. This fee has generated significant confusion because it is not 

charged until a traveler’s expense report is finalized and approved by OFM for payout. 

Depending on the lapse in time between a traveler filing an expense report and 

obtaining approval, there may be a significant period of time between the travel date 

and the assessment of this fee. Travelers have reported confusion related to this fee 

because it suddenly appears on their individually billed credit cards, and many travelers 

have expressed concern they are not being reimbursed for this fee. However, this fee is 

automatically populated into all expense reports, so travelers are reimbursed for this 

amount at the same time that it is charged to their credit card. 

We found that the FedTraveler system does not contain a proper explanation of these 

transaction fees. There is a brief explanation of the fee structure on the FedTraveler 

website’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section;5

 however the language is 

unclear, containing mostly technical terms. Matching fees to the proper travel 

occurrences for individual reconciliation is also extremely difficult, especially for frequent 

travelers who generate many transaction fees during the same time period. 

Excessive Fees. During our review of the transaction fees, we generated a sample of 

63 travel itineraries to examine the amount, timing, and frequency of transaction fee 

charges. We found that travelers were often charged several non-self service fees for a 

single trip. As a result, fees for some trips totaled more than $100, including one trip 

where fees totaled $109.21 and another trip where fees totaled $100.13. In addition, 

there were three instances where trips resulted in total transaction fees of $76.38, and 

one instance where a traveler was charged $86.41. We also found situations where 

transaction fees represented a large percentage of the overall cost of a trip. For 

example, a traveler was charged $43.55 in transaction fees for a trip that cost $124.75, 

resulting in a 35 percent increase in cost. In a separate example, transaction fees 

represented over 12 percent of the total cost of trip when a total of $70.54 was charged 

for a trip that cost $566.70. For local travel reimbursement, the ratio of fees to total cost 

was even higher. For example, a traveler was charged $5.23 to recover a $9 taxi fare, 

which represented a 58 percent charge. 

 

In the period from October 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010, a total of $187,939.52 in 

transaction fees was charged by FedTraveler for non-local travel, resulting in an 

average cost of over $36 per traveler. This high average is due primarily to charges CI 

Travel assessed travelers for assistance in what it calls “non-self service” transactions. 

We asked FedTraveler representatives to clarify when fees for non-self service 

5

 See http://www.fedtraveler.com, “FAQs and Support”, Question 14: When are service fees charged? Also, see 

related question: How do I know what transaction fees will be charged?
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 17 

 

transactions from CI Travel were appropriate, and they stated that the fee should only 

be assessed when a traveler calls for assistance with ticketing, or when a ticket must be 

reissued. However, Commission staff complained of frequent charges for non-self 

service transaction fees from CI Travel that were not related to ticketing. 

To determine if CI Travel charges were directly related to ticketing issues, we generated 

a sample of non-self service fees and asked FedTraveler to review CI Travel’s call logs 

and provide the justification for each charge.6

 We found that contrary to the 

representations made by FedTraveler, it appeared that every time CI Travel was 

contacted, regardless of the issue, a non-self service fee would be generated, often 

amounting to several charges in one day. For example, we found charges relating not 

only to airline ticketing changes, but also for when hotel reservations were changed, 

when a traveler had an issue with the processing of an individually billed credit card, 

and for airline seat changes. We also found that anytime an Amtrak ticket was 

purchased, SEC travelers were required to call CI Travel and thus incurred a non-self 

service fee. This was also required anytime mixed mode travel was booked, meaning 

one portion of a trip was by air, and another was by rail. 

We consulted with the GSA Contracting Officer (CO) to obtain further clarification 

regarding non-self service fees and provided examples of when these types of fees are 

being assessed. The GSA CO provided the OIG a response indicating that the fees 

were appropriate and properly charged by CI Travel. Despite GSA’s response, we 

found that the limitless ability of CI Traveler to charge non-self service fees related to 

the FedTraveler system is contrary to the information obtained from FedTraveler 

representatives during our review. This method is also contrary to the manner in which 

non-self service transaction fees were charged by Omega Travel, the former system 

utilized by the SEC. Under Omega, non-self service fees were limited only to instances 

when a traveler was assisted during the ticketing process or when a ticket was reissued. 

We believe the SEC should further explore whether the frequent non-self service 

charges are proper under the FedTraveler GSA Master Contract and the SEC task 

order since these fees account for a significant part of the Commission’s travel costs. 

Additionally, travelers are not informed of these charges and are often surprised to find 

several charges listed on their individually billed government travel card. Further, some 

travelers stated in response to the OIG’s survey that they are paying for some fees out 

of their own pocket. In conclusion, without proper monitoring of these non-self service 

fees, it is impossible to fully capture the full costs of the FedTraveler system that are 

passed on to the SEC. 

Contract Oversight. We also found that the fee amounts being charged by 

FedTraveler for trips in our sample were not in accordance with the fee schedule 

contained in the FedTraveler task order signed by the SEC on March 31, 2005. 

6

 The non-self service fees examined pertained to 26 trips.
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 18 

The SEC’s task order SECHQ1-05-F-0062 provided for slight pricing changes in three 

separate option periods. The contract is currently in option period two (in conjunction 

with the GSA master contract periods of performance). The option was exercised by 

the SEC and went into effect on November 12, 2008, and is scheduled to expire on 

November 11, 2010. The task order consisted of transaction fee prices in the amount of 

$8.18 for self service air or rail transportation, and $30.98 (domestic) and $33.74 

(international) for non-self service transaction fees, for option period 2. We found that 

FedTraveler charged $10.03, $32.83, and $35.59 for the same services during this 

period. Upon examination of OAS’ contract files; there was no evidence of any task 

order modifications relating to these fees. 

We consulted with the SEC CO and were informed that the SEC’s task order should be 

binding. The CO stated that she had not been granted access to the GSA master 

contract, but that task orders supersede GSA master contracts for pricing details. The 

CO also stated that she had not been notified or provided any modifications of the GSA 

master contract relating to the fees in question. 

We also consulted with the SEC Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) 

for FedTraveler. The COTR disputed the CO’s position that the task order took 

precedence over the GSA master contract price and stated that the GSA master 

contract controlled pricing, and that several modifications had been made by GSA and 

FedTraveler, resulting in higher transaction fees. The COTR explained that she would 

have to physically go to GSA to be able to view the master contract files, but that she 

had obtained copies of the modifications relating to fee increases. 

As a result of the conflicting opinions from the CO and COTR, the OIG requested a 

formal opinion from OAS concerning the FedTraveler transaction fees. Without 

consulting with the Office of General Counsel (OGC), OAS issued an opinion in an email on July 7, 2010, stating that the task order should take precedence regarding 

transaction fee pricing, and the CO directed the COTR to begin calculating the possible 

amount of overpayment to FedTraveler. The opinion stated that a master contract only 

establishes the parameters of the requirements to be purchased, but task orders 

establish the specifics and bind agencies and contractors to the details agreed upon in 

the task order. 

OAS’ opinion referenced a GSA document called the “E-Travel Service Ordering 

Guide.” We reviewed this document and in one section found that the document 

actually contained language contrary to the opinion the OAS CO provided to the OIG. 

The referenced cite clearly stated that price increases or decreases at the master 

contract level will be automatically applied to agency specific task orders, regardless of 

agency approval. Consequently, this indicates that the master contract prices take 

precedence over the task order. 

We also obtained access to the GSA master contract through a GSA electronic library 

and found that the master contract contained similar language as the GSA Ordering 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 19 

Guide; however, the language specified that only “price decreases” are automatically 

applied to agencies. The master contract also indicated that the transaction fees in 

question were not allowed to be negotiated at the task order level. In an e-mail on July 

9, 2010, the CO reversed her initial opinion and stated that this contract structure is not 

typical, and that due to this language, a fee schedule should not have been included in 

the original task order that was signed in 2005. 

Therefore, based on the OIG’s review of the GSA Ordering Guide and the master 

contract, we determined that the master contract would likely take precedence over the 

task order. However, because this issue was never referred to the OGC, we believe it 

would be prudent for the OFM, in conjunction with OAS, to obtain OGC’s opinion 

regarding the relationship between the master contract and task order, and whether 

fees are being charged in the proper amounts and frequency. 

Conclusion 

The SEC’s confusion over the FedTraveler fees structure raises significant concerns 

about the monitoring of the FedTraveler contract. Neither the CO nor the COTR had 

electronic access to the master contract, seriously reducing their ability to effectively 

administer this contract. 

In addition, serious questions exist concerning the frequency and amount of 

FedTraveler transaction fees. This information has a direct effect on the SEC’s travel 

costs and is necessary to fully capture all costs associated with the FedTraveler system 

in order to maintain proper budgetary planning and cost comparisons when future 

option periods or other travel contracts are being considered. 

Recommendation 3: 

The Office of Financial Management should consult with FedTraveler and CI 

Travel to publish a guide for employees that clearly explains the transaction fee 

structure, including the amount, timing and frequency of fee charges. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 

Recommendation 4: 

The Office of Financial Management should educate Commission staff on 

alternatives to contacting CI Travel to minimize non-self service transaction fees 

that result in high transaction costs for the Commission. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 20 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 

Recommendation 5: 

The Office of Financial Management (OFM) should work with FedTraveler to 

require that travelers are notified when non-self service transaction fees are 

charged by CI Travel, including providing a justification for the charge and 

information regarding the travel itinerary to which the charge relates. 

Alternatively, OFM should consider centrally billing all transaction fees to remove 

the burden of reconciliation from Commission staff. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 

Recommendation 6: 

The Office of Financial Management should determine the feasibility and cost 

effectiveness of implementing a financial system change to capture transaction 

fee costs in a distinct Budget Object Class (BOC) code, which will provide 

greater transparency for travelers on expense reports and potentially provide 

useful cost information for budget planning purposes. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 

Recommendation 7: 

The Office of Administrative Services should request a legal opinion from the 

Office of General Counsel regarding the amount and frequency of fees charged 

by FedTraveler to ensure that the charges are appropriate and in accordance 

with the General Service Administration’s Master Contract and the Commission’s 

task order. 

Management Comments. OAS concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comment. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OAS concurred with this recommendation. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 21 

 

Recommendation 8: 

The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) should request access from the 

General Services Administration (GSA) to the master contract via GSA’s digital 

contract library and also provide access to the Contract Officer Technical 

Representative to assist in contract monitoring. OAS should also take 

appropriate measures to ensure that it is being properly notified by GSA of all 

changes to the master contract. 

Management Comments. OAS concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OAS concurred with this recommendation. 

Finding 3: Opportunities Exist for Cost Savings 

Related to Transportation Expenses 

The SEC can reduce transportation expenses by encouraging 

travelers to book early and allowing travelers, when practical, to 

utilize a non-contract fare within the provisions of the FTR. 

For Fiscal Year 2009, the SEC spent approximately $3.4 million for transportation 

expenses, including airfare. The FTR, which governs federal employee travel, requires 

travelers, with certain exceptions, to use a GSA contract fare for air travel.7

 According 

to FedTraveler representatives, the airline transportation choices available through 

FedTraveler’s online booking engine are based on the GSA Airline City-Pair Program. 

Under this program, GSA awards competitive contracts for air transportation services 

between specified destinations, called city-pairs, based on the best overall value to the 

government. For many city-pairs, two contract fares are available. A highly discounted 

unrestricted fare (YCA), and a capacity controlled fare (_CA) which has an even deeper 

discount. The _CA fares have a limited number of seats, but no other restrictions. Also, 

the _CA seat availability on particular flights varies carrier-by-carrier and market-bymarket. 

The _CA airfares allow an agency to save the most money possible, while still enjoying 

the same service available with the YCA fares. The price differential between the YCA 

and _CA fares varies market by market, but can be significant. For example, the _CA 

fare from Ronald Reagan National Airport to Fort. Lauderdale, Florida is $149 (one 

way), while the YCA fare is $329 (one way), more than double. Use of the _CA fares is 

encouraged by the FTR (Note 3 to FTR § 301-10.107). 

7 FTR § 301-10.106
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 22 

The benefits of contract fares include: 

• Fare price on one-way routes permitting agencies to plan multiple destinations; 

• No advance purchase required; 

• No minimum or maximum length stay required; 

• Fully refundable tickets; 

• Last seat availability; and 

• No blackout periods 

To maximize possible savings for the SEC, OFM should encourage travelers to book 

their flights early and consider the following: If travel plans are uncertain (e.g., lastminute ticket changes are likely), compare the differential between the YCA and _CA 

fares with the cost of any transaction fee to make ticketing changes. If the differential is 

small, it may be more cost effective to book an YCA fare from the start. If the 

differential is large, it may be more beneficial to book a _CA fare and make changes, if 

necessary. 

In addition, OFM should educate travelers on the best ways to identify and select airline 

transportation to ensure maximum savings for the Commission. We found that in 

response to an OIG FedTraveler survey question asking whether FedTraveler has 

lowered travel costs for the SEC, several travelers commented that they can find 

cheaper fares on non-contract flights on the web, or by using alternative airlines. One 

traveler commented that “...airline flights are extremely high because we can go 

through only certain carriers. For example, I was given a quote for a flight of $1,300 

when I could have booked it online for less than $300.” Another traveler wrote that “my 

initial trip to Miami was 1200 [round-trip] - after I questioned –it was 500ish.” 

Additionally, through discussions with OFM and a review of traveler comments, we 

found that FedTraveler does not always list all available contract fares. One traveler 

commented, “I have found lower government airfares and called FedTraveler to get 

them after being reserved at a fare that was obviously too high.” Another traveler stated 

that “there have been contract flights that do not appear in FedTraveler that I have 

found conducting outside searches.” OFM informed us that due to this issue they often 

utilize the website http://www.fedtravel.com to make sure no contract flights are 

available prior to approving travelers’ request for non-contract flights. 

We also compared the GSA city-pair fares with fares available on Orbitz for round-trip 

flights between Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago, and found 

that non-restricted fares on Orbitz were less than the GSA city-pair fares, while 

refundable rates on Orbitz were higher than the lowest GSA contract flight available, but 

lower than many of the higher contract fares available, as shown below in Table 9:
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 23 

Table 9: Comparison of Orbitz Fares to GSA Contract Fares 

 Round-Trip Airfare Orbitz (NonRefundable) Orbitz 

(Refundable)

GSA Contract Flight 

(Refundable) 

Washington D.C. area 

to Los Angeles 

$279 $921 $280-$1,334* 

Washington D.C. area 

to Miami 

$204 $641 

(BWI only) 

$312-$1,056* 

Washington D.C. area 

to Chicago 

$177 $471 $190-$990* 

* Range is based on alternative airports in the LA, Miami, and Chicago area. 

Source: OIG Generated 

We found that while the FTR generally requires travelers to use a GSA contract fare for 

air travel, an agency may authorize the use of a fare other than a contract city-pair in 

certain circumstances, including when: (1) space on a scheduled contract flight is not 

available in time to accomplish the purpose of the travel; (2) use of contract service 

would require the traveler to incur unnecessary overnight lodging that would increase 

the total cost of the trip; or (3) if a non-contract carrier offers a lower fare to the general 

public that, if used, will result in a lower total trip cost to the government (the combined 

costs of transportation, lodging, meals, and related expense considered).8

 

FTR § 301-10.108 states that before purchasing a non-contract fare a traveler must 

show approval on his or her travel authorization to use a non-contract fare. Additionally, 

if the non-contract fare is non-refundable, restricted, or has specific eligibility 

requirements, the traveler must know or reasonably anticipate, based on their planned 

trip, that they will use the ticket, and the agency must determine that the proposed noncontract transportation is practical and cost effective for the government. 

Had SEC travelers been aware of these exceptions, they may have been able to utilize 

lower fares that they identified in their comments to the OIG survey as being unavailable 

to them. Accordingly, OFM should inform staff about the available exceptions to using 

contract fares and under what conditions they can use non-contract rates to save on 

transportation travel costs. OFM should also provide staff with tips on reliable outside 

sources for confirming that no contract flights exist outside of FedTraveler prior to 

requesting a non-contract flight. 

Recommendation 9: 

The Office of Financial Management should issue guidance to travelers 

regarding available exceptions to using the contract fare and tips on 

reliable outside sources for confirming that no contract flights exist prior to 

requesting a non-contract flight. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. 

See Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

 

8 FTR § 301-10.107
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 24 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this 

recommendation. 

Finding 4: Requests for Actual Expenses for 

Lodging Should Be More Closely Scrutinized 

Although FedTraveler has sufficient controls to prohibit travelers 

from exceeding the applicable per diem rate for a specified location, 

travelers are not always providing clear and complete justifications 

for actual expenses for lodging in accordance with the FTR and 

SEC Travel Policy. 

FTR § 301-11.300 permits travelers to be paid actual expenses when: 

(a) Lodging and/or meals are procured at a prearranged place such 

as a hotel where a meeting, conference or training session is held; 

(b) Costs have escalated because of special events (e.g., missile 

launching periods, sporting events, World’s Fair, conventions, 

natural disasters), lodging and meal expenses within prescribed 

allowances cannot be obtained nearby; and costs to commute 

to/from the nearby location consume most or all of the savings 

achieved from occupying less expensive lodging; 

(c) Because of mission requirements; or 

(d) Any other reason approved within your agency. 

FTR § 301-50.8(b)(2) states that when travelers are selecting lodging, the first 

consideration must be given to the lodging facilities under FedRooms. FedRooms is a 

GSA program that provides FTR compliant hotel rooms for federal government travelers 

while on official business. FedRooms rates may be at or below per diem rates and the 

hotels are fire safe/FEMA certified. Not all hotels that provide a government rate are 

included in the FedRooms program, and not all hotels that provide a government rate 

are FEMA certified. 

In accordance with the SEC’s Travel Policy, travelers must request actual expenses for 

lodging in advance of travel, include a justification on their travel authorization, and have 

it approved by OFM prior to departing for their trip. The SEC Travel Policy further 

states, “For example. If the hotel exceeds the maximum lodging rate, it is your 

responsibility to call at least three other hotels prior to requesting actual expense for 

lodging.” 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 25 

We found that FedTraveler has sufficient controls to prohibit travelers from exceeding 

the applicable per diem rate for a specified location. The FedTraveler system 

automatically populates a traveler’s travel authorization with the per diem rate for the 

destination city, unless the traveler selects one of the exceptions from the per diem pull 

down menu, such as “actual necessary 150 percent” or “actual necessary 300 percent.” 

If either of these selections are made, the traveler is permitted in the travel reservations 

page to uncheck the standard nightly lodging rate and enter the actual lodging rate. 

The maximum lodging rate on the reservations page is then recalculated at either 150 

percent or 300 percent, depending on the selection made. Once the traveler clicks on 

“complete authorization,” the traveler will be presented with a blank justification screen 

associated with the actual increase in the hotel per diem rate. This screen requires the 

traveler to enter a written justification for claiming actual necessary expenses for 

lodging. The traveler then clicks on “complete authorization,” and the travel 

authorization is electronically routed to OFM as the first level of approval in the approval 

chain, prior to being routed to an approving official (typically the traveler’s supervisor). 

We also found, however, that many of the justifications provided by travelers were 

vague and did not comply with the FTR and SEC Travel Policy. We obtained and 

analyzed Fiscal Year 2010 FedTraveler trip data (as of April 30, 2010) where travelers 

requested and were approved to incur actual expenses for lodging to determine whether 

sufficient justifications were provided by travelers in accordance with applicable 

requirements. We found that many of the travelers’ justifications were vague and did 

not cite the specific exception in the FTR allowing the traveler to claim actual expenses. 

Additionally, there was no documentation to show that travelers were complying with the 

SEC Travel Policy to call at least three other hotels prior to requesting actual expense 

for lodging. For example, we found the following justifications for some trips: “hotel is 

above per diem,” “had to choose because the hotel was $45 more than per diem,” “had 

to bump up the per diem,” and “to cover any unforeseen hotel costs.” 

We also conducted a detailed review of five judgmentally selected trips where travelers 

provided vague justifications for claiming actual expenses for lodging to determine 

OFM’s rationale for approval. We found that OFM, after conducting its own research on 

available lodging through FedTraveler and websites such as http://www.fedtravel.com, 

added remarks to the travel authorizations citing the applicable section of the FTR 

permitting the exception. These remarks served to supplement the vague justifications 

provided by travelers. Additionally, we noted that travel authorizations do not contain 

sufficient information to enable OFM and approving officials to enforce the SEC Travel 

Policy requirement that a traveler call at least three other hotels prior to requesting 

actual expense for lodging in situations where lodging is not prearranged. Further, 

because there is no requirement that travelers book their lodging accommodations at 

the time they complete their travel authorization in FedTraveler, travelers could 

intentionally wait to book their lodging accommodations and then claim actual 

expenses, causing the Commission to incur unnecessary expenses for travel. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 26 

As a result, OFM should remind travelers and approving officials that lodging 

accommodations should be booked as soon as possible to minimize costs to the 

Commission and refer to the OIG any travelers who they believe are potentially abusing 

the system by routinely requesting actual lodging expenses in order to stay at particular 

hotels. OFM should also mandate that travelers provide sufficient justifications on their 

travel authorizations in accordance with the FTR and SEC Travel Policy and that they 

include the applicable section of the FTR in their justifications. OFM should also 

determine how the requirement to call three hotels can be enforced or OFM should 

provide travelers and approving officials with alternative guidance on what they should 

do to locate FTR-compliant lodging and provide directions on how their efforts should be 

documented. OFM should also require approving officials to review and approve 

requests for actual expenses for lodging prior to such requests being routed to OFM. 

This will help ensure that travelers have exercised due diligence in their efforts to 

identify appropriate lodging and place the responsibility on the approving officials to 

ensure that justifications are appropriate prior to the travel authorization being routed to 

OFM. 

Recommendation 10: 

The Office of Financial Management should remind travelers of the exceptions in 

the Federal Travel Regulation for claiming actual necessary expenses and 

require that travelers provide clear justifications in their travel authorizations 

when claiming actual necessary expenses, including the applicable Federal 

Travel Regulation exception. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 

Recommendation 11: 

The Office of Financial Management should determine how the requirement in 

the SEC Travel Policy that travelers call three hotels prior to requesting actual 

necessary expenses can be enforced or provide travelers and approving officials 

with alternative guidance on what they should do to locate Federal Travel 

Regulation compliant lodging and how their efforts should be documented. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 27 

Recommendation 12: 

The Office of Financial Management should require approving officials to review 

and approve requests for actual expenses for lodging prior to such requests 

being routed to the Office of Financial Management. This will help ensure that 

travelers have exercised due diligence in their efforts to identify appropriate 

lodging and place responsibility on the approving officials to ensure that 

justifications are appropriate. 

 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 

Finding 5: Increased Controls are Needed in 

FedTraveler for POV Travel 

FedTraveler does not require travelers to provide a written 

justification, or to obtain approval from OFM when a non-common 

carrier is used as the primary mode of transportation. 

FTR § 301-10.4 requires travelers to travel by the method most advantageous to the 

government, when cost and other factors are considered. Under 5 U.S.C. § 5733, travel 

must be by the most expeditious means of transportation practicable and 

commensurate with the nature and purpose of the traveler’s duties. FTR § 301-10.5 

states that travel by common carrier is presumed to be the most advantageous method 

of transportation and must be used when reasonably available. FTR § 301-10.6 further 

states that if a traveler does not travel by the method of transportation required by 

regulation or selected by the traveler’s agency, the additional expense is borne by the 

traveler. 

Based on a complaint OIG received, we found one traveler who received approval from 

his approving official to travel round-trip (approximately 1,280 miles) from Atlanta to 

Washington, D.C., using his privately owned vehicle (POV) as his primary mode of 

transportation. As a result, the traveler claimed $824 for mileage, while the cost for 

using a common carrier (i.e., contract flight) could have been as low as $198, which 

would have saved the Commission over $626. 

Based on a review of the audit controls in FedTraveler, we found that a traveler that 

elects to use a POV as the primary mode of transportation is required to select “POV” 

as the travel mode on the travel authorization drop down menu. The traveler must then 

select an automobile type (i.e., advantageous to the government, government car not 

convenient, government car refused, passenger, motorcycle, or private plane) from 

another drop down menu as illustrated in Figure 1. However, when a traveler selects 
“advantageous to the government,” FedTraveler does not prompt the traveler to enter a 

written justification demonstrating how POV travel is most advantageous to the 

government, over the common carrier transportation. Additionally, based on our review 

of the travel authorization for the aforementioned POV trip from Atlanta to Washington, 

D.C., the information pertaining to automobile type (e.g., most advantageous to the 

government) is not visible to the approving official. Therefore, approving officials are not 

provided sufficient information to ensure compliance with the FTR. Further, travel 

authorizations for travelers that use POVs as their primary mode of transportation are 

not routed through OFM, regardless of the dollar costs. We found that the Commission 

spent approximately $678,000 for POV mileage in Fiscal Year 2009. 

 

Figure 1: FedTraveler Travel Authorization Window 

Source: FedTraveler.com 

OFM should work with FedTraveler to implement additional system controls to ensure 

that travelers provide adequate justifications for POV travel in accordance with the FTR 

and ensure this information is viewable within FedTraveler to approving officials. In 

addition, OFM should consider requiring its office review all travel authorizations where 

POV travel is in exceeds a certain dollar value or mileage threshold. 

Recommendation 13: 

The Office of Financial Management (OFM), in consultation with the Office of 

Administrative Services, as applicable, should work with FedTraveler to 

implement additional system controls to ensure that travel by privately owned 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 28 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 29 

vehicles is in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation, including routing 

such travel through OFM. 

Management Comments. OAS and OFM concurred with the recommendation. 

See Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OAS and OFM concurred with this 

recommendation. 

Finding 6: Expense Report Processing Can Be 

Improved 

While the majority of travelers are satisfied with the processing of 

expense reports in FedTraveler, a noteworthy number of travelers 

are not receiving reimbursement within 30 calendar days after their 

expense reports have been properly submitted and approved. As 

a result, travelers are sometimes paying for travel expenses out of 

their own pocket. 

FTR § 301-52.7 states that travelers must submit their travel claims within 5 working 

days after they complete their trip or period of travel, or every 30 days if a traveler is in a 

continuous travel status. FTR § 301-52.17 states that an agency must reimburse a 

traveler within 30 calendar days after the traveler submits a proper travel claim to the 

agency’s designated approving office. The agency must also ensure that it uses a 

satisfactory recordkeeping system to track submission of travel claims. FTR § 301-

52.18 states that an agency must notify a traveler as soon as practicable after the 

submission of a travel claim of any error that would prevent it from making the payment 

within 30 calendar days after receiving the submission and also provide the reason why 

the travel claim is not proper. 

Results from the OIG FedTraveler survey show that 89 percent of respondents (721 

employees) believe they are receiving reimbursements for travel expenses within 30 

calendar days after their expense reports have been properly submitted and approved. 

However, a noteworthy number of respondents 10.8 percent (87 employees) stated they 

are not receiving reimbursements within the required 30 day time period, causing some 

people to have to pay for travel expenses out of their own pocket. 

Based on available data from OFM and review of travelers’ comments to the OIG 

survey, we found that the primary reasons for reimbursement delays include: 

 

(1) Travelers not submitting expense reports in a timely manner; 

(2) Approvers not approving their employees’ expense reports in a timely manner; 

and 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 30 

(3) Holding and/or rejection of expense reports by OFM because they are 

incomplete (e.g., missing receipts) or do not match the travel authorizations 

(e.g., an expense report prepared by a traveler does not match the dates of 

authorized travel on the travel authorization). 

We also found that the receipt imaging function within FedTraveler does not always 

operate properly and OFM many times cannot view travelers’ faxed receipts. 

Consequently, there are delays in processing expense reports, potentially causing 

travelers to pay for travel out of their own pocket. Also, OFM spends a considerable 

amount of resources researching and working with travelers to correct problems with 

incomplete or mismatched expense reports, including frequently having to ask travelers 

to amend their expense reports and original travel authorizations. 

In addition, we found that although the SEC is required by the FTR to have a 

satisfactory recordkeeping system to track expense report processing, OFM primarily 

relies upon manual processes due to FedTraveler’s reporting limitations. For example, 

OFM is not able to run a report from FedTraveler that shows when travel claims were 

received by OFM for approval and the number of days they have been outstanding (i.e., 

an aging report) in order to give priority to those claims that were received first in time or 

have been outstanding for a long period of time. OFM only receives an e-mail notifying 

it that a document is awaiting OFM’s approval. Additionally, OFM staff can only view 

through their FedTraveler desktop a list of expense reports awaiting approval and the 

dates of travel, but cannot readily see the date the expense report was received by 

OFM. They also cannot sort the expense reports according to the data received. As a 

result, they have implemented manual procedures to track the processing of expense 

reports. 

OFM also does not have the capability within FedTraveler to run a report showing when 

travelers have not submitted expense reports within the 5 or 30 day time period required 

by the FTR, or when travelers have completed their expense reports but there are 

delays in approval by their supervisors. As a result, OFM is not able to identify delays 

with submission of expense reports and has to rely on data from the accounting system, 

Momentum, to conduct a quarterly reconciliation of open travel obligations to ensure 

travelers submit their expense reports and funds are de-obligated in the SEC’s 

accounting system in a timely manner. An OFM official stated that FedTraveler had 

been notified of the issue, but OFM still does not have the reporting capability it needs. 

Based on a walkthrough and analysis of current available data from OFM, we 

determined that its current backlog for processing expense reports was about four 

calendar days. As of July 13, 2010, OFM was conducting initial reviews of expense 

reports it had received by July 9, 2010. 

To help ensure that travelers receive timely reimbursement for travel expenses and help 

mitigate issues with expense reporting processing, OFM should request that 

FedTraveler provide the necessary reporting capabilities to enhance expense report 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 31 

processing. OFM should also provide Commission staff with information on best 

practices to avoid common mistakes that result in rejected expense reports. Further, 

OFM should determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of implementing a split 

disbursement method for payment of travel expenses. Split disbursement is a function 

in which a payment is made to a traveler’s government travel card on behalf of the 

traveler and any remaining balance is reimbursed to the traveler. 

Recommendation 14: 

 

The Office of Financial Management, in consultation with the Office of 

Administrative Services, as applicable, should request that FedTraveler institute 

a system control that notifies travelers when their expense reports have not been 

submitted within the time period permitted by the Federal Travel Regulation and 

SEC Travel Policy. 

Management Comments. OAS and OFM concurred with the recommendation. 

See Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OAS and OFM concurred with this 

recommendation. 

Recommendation 15: 

The Office of Financial Management (OFM), in consultation with the Office of 

Information Technology and Office of Administrative Services, as applicable, 

should request that FedTraveler provide the needed reporting capability to 

enable OFM to effectively monitor the receipt and processing of expense reports 

in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation. 

Management Comments. OAS concurred and OFM concurred with the 

recommendation. See Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OAS and OFM concurred with this 

recommendation. 

Recommendation 16: 

The Office of Financial Management should publish on its travel website best 

practices with regard to preparation of expense reports so travelers can avoid the 

most common mistakes that result in returned expense reports in FedTraveler. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 32 

Recommendation 17: 

The Office of Financial Management should determine the feasibility and cost 

effectiveness of implementing a split disbursement method for payment of travel 

expenses. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 

Finding 7: Limited FedTraveler Reporting 

Capabilities Affect OFM’s Ability to Manage Travel 

While one of the primary reasons the SEC chose FedTraveler as its

ETS was for its ad-hoc reporting capabilities, FedTraveler is not 

providing OFM the reporting capabilities that it needs to 

successfully perform its travel responsibilities. 

HP Enterprise Services, LLC’s March 7, 2005 proposal provided in response to the 

SEC’s request for quotations for ETS services stated, “Through the use of 

FedTraveler.com’s Reporting Module, authorized SEC users will be able to access and 

retrieve data resident in FedTraveler.com’s Oracle database as well as generate 

standard and ad hoc reports to answer virtually any travel or financial query.” 

 

In March 2005, OFM put together a technical panel to evaluate bids submitted by the 

three available ETS vendors and cited EDS’ promised reporting capability as a key 

factor in its rationale for choosing EDS as its ETS provider. OFM stated that “reporting 

is an important SEC requirement and the current travel system does not adequately 

meet SEC’s needs. EDS demonstrated the ability to provide information that SEC 

currently lacks in its travel reporting.” OFM also stated that SEC travel will benefit from 

the extensive ad-hoc reporting, which is critical for managing travel budgets. 

Based on discussions with OFM and our own experience in trying to obtain travel data 

to perform this review, we have concluded that FedTraveler does not provide the ad-hoc 

reporting capability it promised. FedTraveler provides standard reports (based on data 

from its travel authorization and vouchering system and online booking engine) and 

allows a user to manipulate the data by selecting certain data fields and performing 

limited sorting and filtering of the data. However, the reporting module does not allow 

for true ad-hoc reporting outside of minor customization of the standard available 

reports (e.g., completed expense reports by approval date, approved travel plans by 

approval date, etc.). Additionally, many times the standard reports are not accessible 

(i.e., they time out or the system crashes). In response to a May 2010 survey from GSA 

asking the SEC to provide feedback on key performance indicators for FedTraveler, 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 33 

OFM rated FedTraveler’s management reporting capability as a 1 (lowest) out of 10 

(highest).9

 The SEC also remarked that the reporting capabilities are extremely poor, 

not user friendly, and not accurate. 

Based on discussions with a FedTraveler representative, FedTraveler’s position is that 

other than the standard reports currently available, requests for ad-hoc reports for the 

SEC would be handled on a case-by-case basis and, if they are labor intensive, 

FedTraveler has the option to assess a bill. The FedTraveler representative also 

acknowledged that going forward FedTraveler is working to enhance its reporting 

capabilities. 

In addition to the reporting capabilities needed to ensure OFM is complying with the 

FTR with regard to expense report processing, OFM has identified the following ad-hoc 

reports that it needs the capability to run periodically to successfully perform its travel 

responsibilities. 

• Premium Travel Report - A report to show first and business class air 

travel by traveler, date, etc. 

• User ID Report - A report to show the user IDs assigned by FedTraveler to 

SEC users (e.g., secsmithj). 

• User Activation Report - A report to show who has and has not activated 

their FedTraveler accounts. 

• User Data Report - A report to show if travelers have completed their 

profiles in FedTraveler (e.g., filled in their date of birth to facilitate 

purchasing of airline tickets). 

• Travel Report by Traveler - A report that allows OFM to compile a list of 

trips by date for a specific traveler. 

• Travel Report by Location - A report that allows OFM to compile a list of 

travelers who have traveled to a specific location. 

• Reject Report - A report that shows all documents that have been rejected 

in the FedTraveler system and why. 

OFM should request that FedTraveler provide the capability to produce the 

aforementioned reports on a periodic basis and determine the associated costs, if any. 

Recommendation 18: 

The Office of Financial Management (OFM), in consultation with the Office of 

Information Technology and Office of Administrative Services, should identify and 

request from FedTraveler ad-hoc reporting capabilities that are needed to 

successfully perform OFM’s travel responsibilities and analyze the cost 

effectiveness of implementing such changes. 

 

9

 “HP/FedTraveler Performance Assessment”, dated May 2010, obtained from the General Services Administration.
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 34 

Management Actions. OAS and OFM concurred with the recommendation. 

See Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OAS and OFM concurred with this 

recommendation. 

Finding 8: OFM Should Examine Ways to Reduce 

FedTraveler On-Site Customer Support Costs 

One of the largest expenditures in implementing and maintaining 

the FedTraveler travel system is for customer support. As a result, 

OFM should closely examine this area to identify potential cost 

savings going forward. 

Based on a review of the SEC’s task order with HP Enterprise Services, LLC dated 

March 31, 2005, and related contract modifications as of April 6, 2010, the total 

FedTraveler contract is valued at approximately $3.2 million (excluding transaction 

fees). Of this amount, approximately $127,000 is for implementation services and the 

remaining $3.073 million is primarily for customer support (CAS representatives), 

training and travel. The SEC currently maintains five CAS representatives on-site to 

provide FedTraveler assistance at a current rate per CAS representative of $97.01 per 

hour, a total potential annual cost to the SEC of over $1 million. This amount excludes 

costs (transaction fees) associated with assistance provided by CI Travel, which are 

billed to the travelers directly or to the SEC’s centrally billed account. Based on 

discussions with OFM, the SEC had originally contracted for two CAS representatives, 

but due to the number of issues that travelers were having with FedTraveler, the SEC 

increased funding for customer service support. Additionally, an OFM representative 

stated that one of the CAS representatives now assists OFM with reconciliation of the 

SEC’s centrally billed account. 

We found that although OFM receives a monthly call log to show how many calls are 

received and the type of assistance CAS representatives are providing to travelers, 

OFM has not established any agency-specific performance metrics or standards to 

monitor CAS representative performance and/or determine if the SEC has an adequate 

number of CAS representative. Additionally, it may be inappropriate to allocate 

Commission funds to have a CAS representative performing reconciliation of the SEC’s 

centrally billed account since GSA’s ETS solicitation stated that “the ETS should provide 

for matching of centrally issued passenger tickets with the appropriate travel 

authorizations and/or vouchers.” Consequently, the SEC may be charged twice for 

these services. On a positive note, the OIG’s survey found that travelers are generally 

satisfied with the customer service provided by the CAS representatives. 

OFM should examine the nature and level of the activities of the current CAS 

representatives (i.e., average number of calls per CAS representative, etc.) to 
Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 35 

determine if the number of CAS representatives could be reduced, while still 

maintaining an acceptable level of customer service. OFM should also establish some 

agency-specific performance measures or other means by which it can monitor the 

timeliness and quality of the service provided by the CAS representatives. 

Recommendation 19: 

The Office of Financial Management should examine the activity level of the 

current customer service representative to determine if the current number of 

representatives is appropriate. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 

Recommendation 20: 

The Office of Financial Management should establish agency-specific 

performance measures or other means to monitor the service provided by the 

customer service representatives. 

Management Comments. OFM concurred with the recommendation. See 

Appendix V for management’s full comments. 

OIG Analysis. We are pleased that OFM concurred with this recommendation. 
Appendix I

Acronyms

BOC Budget Object Class 

_CA Capacity Controlled Fare 

CAS FedTraveler Customer Service Representative 

CO Contracting Officer 

COTR Contracting Officer Technical Representative 

E-Gov E-Government 

EDS Electronic Data Systems 

ETS Electronic Travel Service 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FTR Federal Travel Regulation 

GSA General Services Administration 

IDIQ Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity 

OAS Office of Administrative Services 

OFM Office of Financial Management 

OGC Office of General Counsel 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

POV Privately Owned Vehicle 

SEC or Commission U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 

YCA Highly Discounted Unrestricted Fare 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel Service September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 36 
Appendix II 

 Scope and Methodology 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We determined that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

on our audit objectives. 

Scope. We examined FedTraveler activities since the SEC’s implementation of the 

system in June 2008, including assessing the level of concern that travelers have with 

the system, assessing whether administrative fees being charged by FedTraveler are 

appropriate, determining whether FedTraveler has effective controls over hotel 

accommodations and identifying areas where the SEC can reduce travel costs. We 

conducted our fieldwork from May 2010 to August 2010. 

Methodology. In order to accomplish our audit objectives, we gained familiarity with 

applicable travel requirements in the Commission’s policies and procedures and the 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). We sent a survey to SEC staff who had traveled 

during the first part of Fiscal Year 2010 and alternate preparers to obtain feedback on 

their experiences with the system and to identify significant areas of concern. In 

addition, we conducted follow-up interviews and solicited input from Commission staff 

who asked to be contacted in response to the OIG’s survey. We also gathered data 

from FedTraveler pertaining to recent travel to examine whether appropriate transaction 

fees are being charged to travelers and to determine whether justifications for actual 

necessary expenses for lodging were in accordance with applicable requirements. In 

addition, we examined documentation from the Office of Acquisitions pertaining to the 

procurement of FedTraveler. We also conducted interviews and obtained travel related 

documentation from the Office of Financial Management, HP Enterprise Services, LLC, 

and GSA in order to facilitate completion of our review. 

Internal or Management Controls. We reviewed management controls as they 

pertained to the audit objectives, such as gaining an understanding of the Commission’s 

travel policies and procedures, as well as obtaining an understanding of applicable 

system controls in FedTraveler with regard to hotel accommodations and travel by other 

than common carrier to help ensure travelers are complying with the FTR and SEC 

requirements. 

Prior Audit Coverage. The OIG reviewed the Commission’s process for processing 

premium travel in a prior audit, No. 447, Audit of Premium Travel, (September 29, 

2008), and made several recommendations to enhance controls over travel upgrades.

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

Page 37 
Appendix III 

Criteria 

Federal Travel Regulation, 41 C.F.R. § 301-1.1, etc. The FTR implements statutory 

requirements and Executive branch policies for travel by federal civilian employees and 

others authorized to travel at government expense. 

Travel Policy for SEC Employees, January 6, 2010. The SEC internal travel policies 

and procedures that provide further clarification of requirements in the FTR. 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 38 
Appendix IV 

List of Recommendations 

Recommendation 1: 

The Office of Financial Management should establish a working group to independently 

analyze the survey results, comments, and suggestions made in response to the Office 

of Inspector General survey and make recommended improvements to the Associate 

Executive Director for Financial Management to help mitigate deficiencies with the 

system and ease the frustration of Commission employees. 

Recommendation 2: 

The Office of Financial Management should develop regular means of communication 

(i.e., website updates, newsletters or similar media) with Commission staff regarding 

common FedTraveler issues and solutions regarding booking airline and hotel 

accommodations, transaction fees, electronic preparation of travel authorizations and 

expense reports, etc. as well as any changes to existing travel policy. 

Recommendation 3: 

The Office of Financial Management should consult with FedTraveler and CI Travel to 

publish a guide for employees that clearly explains the transaction fee structure, 

including the amount, timing and frequency of fee charges. 

Recommendation 4: 

The Office of Financial Management should educate Commission staff on alternatives 

to contacting CI Travel to minimize non-self service transaction fees that result in high 

transaction costs for the Commission. 

Recommendation 5: 

The Office of Financial Management should work with FedTraveler to require that 

travelers are notified when non-self service transaction fees are charged by CI Travel, 

including providing a justification for the charge and information regarding the travel 

itinerary to which the charge relates. Alternatively, the Office of Financial Management 

should consider centrally billing all transaction fees to remove the burden of 

reconciliation from Commission staff. 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 39 
Appendix IV 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 40 

Recommendation 6: 

The Office of Financial Management should determine the feasibility and cost 

effectiveness of implementing a financial system change to capture transaction fee 

costs in a distinct Budget Object Class (BOC) code, which will provide greater 

transparency for travelers on expense reports and potentially provide useful cost 

information for budget planning purposes. 

Recommendation 7: 

The Office of Administrative Services should request a legal opinion from the Office of 

General Counsel regarding the amount and frequency of fees charged by FedTraveler 

to ensure that the charges are appropriate and in accordance with the General Service 

Administration’s Master Contract and the Commission’s task order. 

Recommendation 8: 

The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) should request access from the General 

Services Administration (GSA) to the master contract via GSA’s digital contract library 

and also provide access to the Contract Officer Technical Representative to assist in 

contract monitoring. OAS should also take appropriate measures to ensure that it is 

being properly notified by GSA of all changes to the master contract. 

 

Recommendation 9: 

The Office of Financial Management should issue guidance to travelers 

regarding available exceptions to using the contract fare and tips on reliable 

outside sources for confirming that no contract flights exist prior to requesting a 

non-contract flight.

Recommendation 10: 

The Office of Financial Management should remind travelers of the exceptions in the 

Federal Travel Regulation for claiming actual necessary expenses and require that 

travelers provide clear justifications in their travel authorizations when claiming actual 

necessary expenses, including the applicable Federal Travel Regulation exception. 
Appendix IV 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 41 

Recommendation 11: 

The Office of Financial Management should determine how the requirement in the SEC 

Travel Policy that travelers call three hotels prior to requesting actual necessary 

expenses can be enforced or provide travelers and approving officials with alternative 

guidance on what they should do to locate Federal Travel Regulation compliant lodging 

and how their efforts should be documented. 

Recommendation 12: 

The Office of Financial Management should require approving officials to review and 

approve requests for actual expenses for lodging prior to such requests being routed to 

the Office of Financial Management. This will help ensure that travelers have exercised 

due diligence in their efforts to identify appropriate lodging and place responsibility on 

the approving officials to ensure that justifications are appropriate. 

 

Recommendation 13: 

The Office of Financial Management (OFM), in consultation with the Office of 

Administrative Services, as applicable, should work with FedTraveler to implement 

additional system controls to ensure that travel by privately owned vehicles is in 

accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation, including routing such travel through 

OFM. 

Recommendation 14: 

The Office of Financial Management, in consultation with the Office of Administrative 

Services, as applicable, should request that FedTraveler institute a system control that 

notifies travelers when their expense reports have not been submitted within the time 

period permitted by the Federal Travel Regulation and SEC Travel Policy. 

Recommendation 15: 

The Office of Financial Management (OFM), in consultation with the Office of 

Information Technology and Office of Administrative Services, as applicable, should 

request that FedTraveler provide the needed reporting capability to enable OFM to 

effectively monitor the receipt and processing of expense reports in accordance with the 

Federal Travel Regulation. 
Appendix IV 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 42 

Recommendation 16: 

The Office of Financial Management should publish on its travel website best practices 

with regard to preparation of expense reports so travelers can avoid the most common 

mistakes that result in returned expense reports in FedTraveler. 

Recommendation 17: 

The Office of Financial Management should determine the feasibility and cost 

effectiveness of implementing a split disbursement method for payment of travel 

expenses. 

Recommendation 18: 

The Office of Financial Management (OFM), in consultation with the Office of 

Information Technology and Office of Administrative Services, should identify and 

request from FedTraveler ad-hoc reporting capabilities that are needed to successfully 

perform OFM’s travel responsibilities and analyze the cost effectiveness of 

implementing such changes. 

Recommendation 19: 

The Office of Financial Management should examine the activity level of the current 

customer service representative to determine if the current number of representatives is 

appropriate. 

Recommendation 20: 

The Office of Financial Management should establish agency-specific performance 

measures or other means to monitor the service provided by the customer service 

representatives. 
Appendix V 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 43 

Management Comments 

MEMORANDUM

September 21, 2010

TO: Jacqueline M. Wilson

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

FROM: KennethJohnson

Chief Financial Offi

Office of Financial Manage ent

.

SUBJECT: OFM Response to Report No. 483, Audit ofFedTraveler .Travel Service

This memorandum provides the Office ofFinancial Management's (OFM) response to

OIG Report No. 483, Audit ofFedTraveler Travel Service, dated September 1, 2010.

OFM concurs with all recommendations. Recommendations #7 and 8 are made to the

Office ofAdministrative Services (OAS) and will be responded to in a separate

memorandum from that office.

OFM will take immediate action to develop a corrective action plan to address all

recommendations.

Below are OFM's comments for each report recommendation. If you have any questions

regarding our response, please contact Kay Levy ofmy staff at (202) 551-8732.
Appendix V 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 44 

OFM Response to Report No. 483 Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

The Office of Financial Management should establish a working group to

independently analyze the survey results. comments, and suggestions made in

response to the OIG survey and make recommended improvements to the Associate

Executive Director for Financial Management to help mitigate deficiencies with the

system and ease the frustration ofCommission employees.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with this recommendation. OFM will establish a

working group to conduct further analysis on the OIG survey. The work group will make

recommendationsto the ChiefFinancial Officer to improve customer satisfaction and

potentially bridge system deficiencies in the FedTraveler system.

Recommendation 2:

The Office ofFinancial Management shonld develop regular means of

communication (i.e. website updates, newsletters or similar media) with Commission

staff regarding common FedTraveler issues and solntions regarding booking airline

and hotel accommodations. transaction fees, electronic preparation of travel

authorizations and expense reports, etc. as well as any changes to existing travel

policy.

Recommendation 3:

The Office of Financial Management should consult with FedTraveler and CI

Travel to publish a guide for employees that clearly explains the transaction fee

structure, including the amount, timing and frequency offee charges.

Recommendation 9:

The Office ofFinancial Management should issue gnidance to travelers regarding

available exceptions to using the contract fare and tips on reliable outside sources

for confirming that no contract flights exist prior to requesting a non-contract

flight.

Recommendation 10:

The Office ofFinancial Management should remind travelers ofthe exceptions in

the Federal Travel Regnlation for claiming actual necessary expenses and require

that travelers provide clear justifications in their travel authorizations when

claiming actual necessary expenses. including the applicable Federal Travel

Regulation exception.
Appendix V 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 45 

Recommendation 16:

The Office ofFinancial Management should publish on its travel website best

practices with regard to preparation of expense reports so travelers can avoid the

most common mistakes that result in returned expense reports in FedTraveler.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with these recommendations. OFM conducts regular

training for Commission employees. In addition to this training, OFM will send out

regular Administrative Notices including "hot topics" on travel, policy changes, general

travel information and other FedTraveler related issues. OFM will continually update the

Travel page on the Insider, as well, to have a central repository ofSEC travel policy, fee

structure and other pertinent travel information.

Recommendation 4:

The Office ofFinancial Management should educate Commission staff on

alternatives to contacting CI Travel to minimize non-selfservice transaction fees

that result in high transaction costs for the SEC.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with this recommendation. Travel is mission critical for

SEC employees. In carrying out the work ofthe Commission, staffsometimes must

change travel times, destinations, and details without prior notice. It is often necessary to

use the CI Travel phone line to make changes to reservations. OFM will educate

Commission staff on alternative methods to book travel reservations, although certainly

staffstill will need to use the CI Travel phone line to make mission critical changes or

book foreign travel.

Recommendation 5:

The Office ofFinancial Management should work with FedTraveler to require that

traveiers are notified when non-selfservice transaction fees are charged by CI

Travel, including providing a justification for the charge and information regarding

the travel itinerary to which the charge relates. Alternatively, the Office of Financial

Management should consider centrally billing all transaction fees to remove the

burden ofreconciliation from Commission staff.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with this recommendation. Educating the Commission

staff on transaction fees, the circumstances under which they are charged, and the actions

that constitute a charge should be paramount in reconciling non-selfservice fees. In

addition, OFM will inquire with FedTraveler about adding this detailed information to

the non-selfservice transaction fees on credit card charges. However, based on previous

communications with FedTraveler, OFM does not believe the functionality exists at this

time, as we understand the travel charge card vendor does not have the capability to

include a transaction justification or itinerary details with each transaction fee.
Appendix V 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 46 

With respect to centrally billing transaction fees, FedTraveler does not have the

capability to charge travel costs to one credit card and transaction fees to an alternate

credit card. In addition, OFM does not have the labor resources to reconcile the centrally

billed account (for the travel charge card) should all non-selfservice fees be charged to it.

Recommendation 6:

The Office ofFinancial Management should determine the feasibility and cost

effectiveness ofimplementing a financial system change to capnire transaction fee

costs in a distinct Object Class (BOC) Code which will provide greater transparency

for travelers'on expense reports and potentially provide useful cost information for

budget planning purposes.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with this recommendation. OFM will work with the

Momentum financial system support team to define potential additional BOCs to capture

the transaction fee costs. OFM will also work with FedTraveler to determine what

functionality changes are needed in the FedTraveler system, as well as its interface with

the fmancial system, to accommodate these additional BOCs. Once OFM has captured

the potential cost ofthese changes, OFM will make a determination on the feasibility of

including these BOCs to capture transaction fees.

Recommendation 10:

The Office of Financial Management should remind travelers ofthe exceptions in

the Federal Travel Regulation for claiming actual necessary expenses and require

that travelers provide clear justifications in their travel authorizations when

claiming actual necessary expenses, including the applicable Federal Travel

Regulation exception.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with this recommendation. OFM conducts regular

training for Commission employees. In addition to this training, OFM will send out

regular Administrative Notices including "hot topics" on travel, policy changes, general

travel information and other FedTraveler related issues. OFM will continually update the

Travel page on the Insider, as well, to have a central repository ofSEC travel policy, fee

structure and other pertinent travel information.

Recommendation 11:

The Office of Financial Management should determine how the requirement in the

SEC Travel Policy requiring travelers to call three hotels prior to requesting actual

necessary expenses can be enforced or provide travelers and approving officials
Appendix V 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 47 

with alternative guidance on what they should do to locate Federal Travel

Regulation compliant lodging and how their efforts should be documented.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with this recommendation. OFM agrees that this

.requirement is not enforceable. OFM will remove this requirement from the travel policy.

Furthermore, OFM will include education on requesting actual necessary expenses for

travelers and search resources outside ofFedTraveJer in all training materials, as well as

the central repository on the Insider. Travelers will be required to exercise due diligence

in looking for a hotel room at the government rate but will not be required to prove they

called three alternative hotels. Within the FedTraveler system there is a "Justification"

response area where they will be required to attest that they have exercised due diligence

in looking for a hotel at the government rate.

Recommendation 12:

The Office ofFinancial Management should require approving officials to review

and approve requests for actual expenses for lodging prior to such requests being

routed to the Office of Financial Management. This will help ensure that travelers

have exercised due diligence in their efforts to identify appropriate lodging and

place responsibility on the approving official to ensure that justifications are

appropriate.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with this recommendation, and has already completed

remedial actions. The dynamic routing function within the FedTraveler system was

changed to route all requests for actual expenses for lodging to the intra-office approving

officials before routing to OFM.

Recommendation 13:

The Office ofFinancial Managem·ent, in consultation with the Office of

Administrative Services, as applicable, should work with FedTraveler to implement

additional system controls to ensure that travel by privately owned vehicles is in

accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation, including routing such travel

through the Office ofFinancial Management.

Recommendation 14:

The Office ofFinancial Management, in consultation with the Office of

Administrative Services, as applicable, should request that FedTraveler institute a

system control that notifies travelers when their expense reports have not been

submitted within the time period permitted by the Federal Travel Regulation and

SEC Travel Policy.
Appendix V 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 48 

Recommendation 15:

The Office ofFinancial Management, in consultation with the Office o!Information

Technology and Office ofAdministrative Services, as applicable, should request that

FedTraveler provide the needed reporting capability to enable them to effectively

monitor the receipt and processing !If expense reports in accordance with the

Federal Travel Regulation.

Recommendation 18:

The Office ofFinancial Management, in consultationwith the Office ofInformation

Technology and Office ofAdministrative Services, should identify and request from

FedTraveler ad-hoc reporting capabilities that are needed to successfully perform

their travel responsibilities and analyze the cost effectiveness ofimplementing such

changes.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with these recommendations, and will request these

system changes. However, OFM cannot guarantee that GSA will put in place additional

system controls ifit determinesthe current configuration is fully compliant with GSA

regulations. Any potential configuration change for FedTraveler must go through GSA

approved configuration management procedures. In order to make a change to the

configuration ofthe FedTravelersyStem, the requesting agency must submit a CR

(change request) for the additional functionality that they desire. This CR is reviewed by

the Configuration Control Board (made up ofrepresentatives from GSA, FedTraveler,

and other user agencies). A determination is made about the necessity ofthe CR and

whether other user agencies are willing to share in the cost burden. Should only the

requesting agency desire the functionality and it is not required for regulatory

compliance, the entire cost will be borne by that agency. OFM will make the CRs for the

recommended functionality changes, but given funding concerns, cannot state with

certainty that the new functionality would be cost-beneficial to the Commission in light

ofthe new Electronic Travel System that is scheduled to come online in FY2012.

Recommendation 17:

The Office ofFinancial Managementshould determine the feasibility and cost

effectiveness ofimplementing a split disbursement method for payment oftravel

expenses.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with this recommendation. OFM will work with the

Momentum financial system team and FedTraveler to determine the practicability and

cost effectiveness ofimplementing split disbursement.
Appendix V 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 49 

Recommendation 19:

The Office of Financia) Management should examine the activity level oUhe current

customer service representative to determine if the current number of

representatives is appropriate.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with this recommendation, and it is currently in practice.

The COTR for the FedTraveler task order conducts an annual evaluation ofthe activity

level ofthe CAS Reps (customer service representatives). OFM uses the evaluation in

requesting the proper amount offunding for the customer service CLIN from the

Information Officers Council (lOC).

Recommendation 20:

The Office of Financial Management should establish agency-specific performance

measures or other meaDS to monitor the service provided by the customer service

representatives.

OFM Response: OFM concurs with this recommendation. The COTR for the

FedTraveler contract will work with OIT and OAS on procurement ofcall monitoring

software that will provide information on a multitude ofcustomer service support

metrics. From these metries, performance goals can be set and continually monitored by

OFM.
Appendix V 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 50 

MEMORANDUM

September 16, 2010

TO: H. David Kotz

Inspector General

FROM: Sharon Sheehan .il ._~ Associate Executive'1!':C;;:--.,tlul.

Office ofAdministrative Services

SUBJECT: OAS Management Response to Draft Report No. 483, Audit ofthe

FedTraveler Travel Service

This memorandum is in response to the Office ofInspector General's Draft Report No.

483, Audit ofthe FedTraveler Travel Service. Thank you fur the opportunity to review

and 'respond to this report. We concur with the recommendations addressed to OAS and

have begun taking appropriate steps to implement them.

Recommendation 7:

OAS concurs. The Office ofAcquisitions (OA) will request the Office ofGeneral

Counsel (OGe) provide a legal opinion regarding the ainount and frequency offees

charged by FedTraveler and whether the charges and fees are appropriate and consistent

with the applicable GSA master contract and SECtask order.

Recommendation 8:

OAS concurs. The contracting officer recently gained access to the GSA master contract

and will monitor changes.

Recommendations 13, 14, 15, and 18:

OAS concurs. We view our role in implementing these recommendations as support to

OFM only ifthe action requires a modification to the SEC's task order.
Appendix VI 

Audit of FedTraveler Travel System September 22, 2010 

Report No. 483 

 Page 51 

OIG Response to Management’s Comments 

OFM concurred with all 18 recommendations addressed to their office and indicated 

that they would take action to implement all of the recommendations. In addition, OAS 

agreed with the two recommendations addressed to its office. 

We believe that OFM’s and OAS’ proposed actions are responsive to our findings and 

recommendations and we are pleased that they have already taken actions to 

implement some of the report’s recommendations. Once all of the recommendations 

are fully implemented, we believe that the improvements will help ease some of the 

frustration expressed by Commission staff regarding FedTraveler and result in 

significant improvement to the operations of the FedTraveler system at the SEC. 
Audit Requests and Ideas 

The Office of Inspector General welcomes your input. If you would like to 

request an audit in the future or have an audit idea, please contact us at: 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

Attn: Assistant Inspector General, Audits (Audit Request/Idea) 

100 F Street, N.E. 

Washington D.C. 20549-2736 

Tel. #: 202-551-6061 

Fax #: 202-772-9265 

Email: oig@sec.gov 

Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement at SEC, 

contact the Office of Inspector General at: 

Phone: 877.442.0854 

Web-Based Hotline Complaint Form: 

www.reportlineweb.com/sec_oig