United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision 

Matter of: U.S. Army Garrison Ansbach—Use of Appropriated Funds to Purchase 

Food for Participants in Antiterrorism Exercises 

File: B-317423 

Date: March 9, 2009 

DIGEST

The U.S. Army Garrison Ansbach conducts yearly antiterrorism training exercises for 

federal civilian employees, military members, and nonfederal participants such as 

contractors and host nation first responders. In general, appropriated funds are not 

available to purchase food for the participants, unless specific authority exists or 

unless the agency can demonstrate that such expenditures are an essential, 

constituent part of accomplishing an authorized agency function. Here, food may be 

a proper training expense for federal civilian employees and military members under 

5 U.S.C. § 4109 and 10 U.S.C. § 3103 where the food is necessary for the civilian 

employees and military members to obtain the full benefit of the training exercise. 

Additionally, appropriated funds may be used to purchase food for nonfederal 

participants such as contractors and host nation first responders where their 

attendance is essential to the training of the civilian employees and military members 

and the provision of food is necessary to ensure the realism of a simulated emergency 

training exercise. 

DECISION 

An accountable officer at the U.S. Army Garrison Ansbach (Ansbach) requests an 

advance decision under 31 U.S.C. § 3529(a) regarding the use of appropriated funds 

to purchase food for federal civilian employees, military members, and nonfederal 

participants such as contractors and host nation first responders at annual 

antiterrorism training exercises conducted by Ansbach. Letter from Theresa Murray, 

Accountable Officer, U.S. Army Garrison Ansbach, to Office of General Counsel, 

Subject: Request for Legal Opinion/Decision on Use of Appropriated Funds to 

Purchase Food Items for Participants of Anti-Terrorism Exercises, Sept. 28, 2007 
(Request Letter).1

 As explained below, Ansbach may use appropriated funds to 

purchase food for federal civilian employees and military members if Ansbach 

determines that the food is necessary for the civilian employees and military 

members to obtain the full benefit of the training exercise. Ansbach also may use 

appropriated funds to purchase food for nonfederal participants such as contractors 

and host nation first responders where Ansbach determines their attendance is 

essential to the training of the civilian employees and military members and the 

provision of food is necessary to ensure the realism of a simulated emergency 

training exercise. 

Our practice when rendering decisions is to obtain the views of the relevant agency 

to establish a factual record on the subject matter of the request. GAO, Procedures 

and Practices for Legal Decisions and Opinions, GAO-06-1064SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 2006), available at www.gao.gov/legal/resources.html. Consistent with our 

practice, we sought additional information regarding Ansbach’s antiterrorism training 

exercises, which the accountable officer provided to us. E-mail from Theresa 

Murray, Accountable Officer, U.S. Army Garrison Ansbach, to Felicia Lopez, Staff 

Attorney, GAO, Jan. 21, 2009 (E-mail Response). 

BACKGROUND 

Pursuant to Department of Defense2

 and Department of the Army3 requirements, 

Ansbach plans and conducts antiterrorism training exercises. Ansbach executes one 

realistic antiterrorism exercise annually, which is intended to help identify and 

reduce antiterrorism vulnerabilities and to test and define antiterrorism response 

plans and procedures. Request Letter. The antiterrorism training exercises generally 

last from 1 to 4 days, and participants include federal civilian employees, military 

members, contractors such as contract installation guards, and host nation first 

responders such as the police, fire department, local Red Cross, and city officials. Id. 

The role of the host nation participants is to provide a real world response with 

personnel and equipment deployed and used just as the host nation would in a real 

terrorist incident. E-mail Response. Ansbach does not exercise control over the host 

nation participants, and they are free to act on their own and to leave at any time. Id. 

In practice, however, host nation participants do not leave because it would affect the 

realism of the training exercise. Id. 

 

1

 The Request Letter was originally sent to a Pentagon address and was not forwarded 

to GAO until October 2008. 

2

 Department of Defense Directive 2000.12, DoD Antiterrorism (AT) Program

(Aug. 18, 2003), available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/dir.html (last 

visited Jan. 31, 2009). 

3

 Department of the Army Regulation 525-13, Antiterrorism (Sept. 11, 2008). 

Page 2 B-317423 
DISCUSSION 

Purchase of Food for Federal Personnel

In general, appropriated funds are not available to provide food to government 

employees at their official duty stations. B-270199, Aug. 6, 1996. Feeding oneself is a 

personal expense that a government employee is expected to bear from his or her 

salary. Id. We have generally recognized, however, that food may be provided for 

employees as a necessary expense under the Government Employees Training Act, 

which provides that the head of an agency may pay the necessary expenses of 

training, including the necessary cost of “other services or facilities directly related to 

the training of the employee,” 5 U.S.C. § 4109(a)(2)(F). B-270199, Aug. 6, 1996.

Uniformed members of the U.S. Army are similarly covered under the Secretary of 

the Army’s responsibility and authority to conduct training. 10 U.S.C. § 3013(b)(5). 

Use of appropriations to provide food to civilian employees and military members 

requires a determination that the provision of food is necessary in order for the 

employees and military members to obtain the full benefit of the training. B-247966, 

June 16, 1993. 

Here, the purpose of the training is to simulate realistic antiterrorism scenarios, and, 

for that reason, civilian employees and military members, who will train for 

prolonged periods of time, are expected to simulate what could actually occur in an 

antiterrorism response. Request Letter. Simulated exercises, especially those 

simulating emergency situations, may require nonstop participation through 

mealtimes. Therefore, we would not object to the Ansbach commander’s 

determination that the provision of food to civilian employees and military members 

is necessary for them to obtain the full benefit of the training. An antiterrorism 

response, indeed, could very well require nonstop participation in order to protect 

life and property, and it is certainly within the commander’s discretion to insist that 

readiness training simulate what could actually occur in an antiterrorism response. 

 

Also, there may be a training benefit to having designated participants actually 

practice the act of providing food to other participants. We have not objected to the 

purchase of food for employees working in unanticipated emergency situations 

involving danger to human life or destruction of federal property. B-272985, Dec. 30, 

1996. Although this is a very narrow exception requiring extreme life-threatening 

emergencies, we can understand that an antiterrorism training exercise might mimic 

such an emergency and thus, we would not object if the Ansbach commander also 

determined that training participants to provide food during an emergency was itself 

a valuable component of the overall training. 

Purchase of Food for Nonfederal Personnel

Neither the Government Employees Training Act nor 10 U.S.C. § 3103(b)(5) applies to 

nonfederal personnel. In examining the provision of food to nonfederal participants 

such as contractors and host nation first responders, we must consider whether the 

purchase of food is essential to the agency accomplishing its authorized training 

Page 3 B-317423 
function. B-310023, Apr. 17, 2008. We examine the facts on a case-by-case basis, 

making our determination in light of circumstances presented. Id. For example, in 

B-310023 we concluded that providing light refreshments to nonfederal attendees of 

the Forest Service’s National Trails Day events did not contribute materially to the 

accomplishment of an agency function. The Forest Service stated that the purpose of 

the Trails Day event was to make people aware of recreational activities in their area 

and to get them involved in trails and recreation areas with a focus on enjoying the 

health benefits of being active. The Forest Service did not demonstrate how 

providing refreshments to attendees contributed to that purpose. Conversely, in B304718, Nov. 9, 2005, we concluded that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) 

could use its appropriations to provide refreshments to nonemployee veterans and 

their families who participate in focus groups. VBA is required by statute to measure 

and evaluate the effectiveness of its programs, including the delivery of services to 

veterans and their families. VBA explained that the expenditure of funds for light 

refreshments and meals served as an effective incentive to obtain information and, 

given the target population and their availability, providing refreshments was 

necessary to obtain focus group participation. Accordingly, we did not object to 

VBA’s determination since the expenditures “contribute[d] materially to the effective 

accomplishment of that function.” Id. at 5. 

We concluded that appropriations were not available for coffee breaks for nonfederal 

participants in a Coast Guard simulated emergency training exercise. B-247966, June 

16, 1993. This decision rested on the lack of express statutory authority for such a 

purchase but did not discuss whether coffee breaks for the nonfederal participants 

could be viewed as an official expense, necessary to the agency accomplishing its 

authorized function. For the reasons discussed below, we will no longer follow the 

reasoning in our 1993 decision to the extent it conflicts with this decision. 

In a post-9/11 and Hurricane Katrina world, we are aware of the importance of federal 

and local cooperation in responding to emergency situations. Likewise, U.S. Army 

and host nation cooperation is critical in an antiterrorism response. We, therefore, 

will not object to Ansbach providing food to nonfederal personnel, so long as the 

Ansbach commander determines that their participation in the training is essential to 

accomplishing the required training and to simulating realistic antiterrorism 

scenarios. For example, we would not object if the commander determined that the 

provision of food to nonfederal participants allowed federal and nonfederal 

personnel to train to work in a coordinated fashion without separating for food 

breaks, as, most likely, they would in an actual antiterrorism response. We also 

would not object if the commander determined that the provision of food to 

nonfederal participants allowed the scenario to continue in an uninterrupted fashion, 

as, most likely, it would in an actual antiterrorism response. Additionally, in order to 

enhance the simulated nature of the exercise, the commander would want the food to 

resemble those types of meals and snacks which one would expect to be provided 

during an actual antiterrorism response. However, if training is of a limited duration 

or does not involve simulated exercises, nonfederal participants may not be essential 

and, thus, the use of appropriations to purchase food for nonfederal participants 

would not be authorized. Where, however, the training of federal civilian employees 

Page 4 B-317423 
and military members and the realism of the simulated exercise depend on the 

attendance of nonfederal participants such as contractors and host nation first 

responders, Ansbach may use appropriations to purchase food for nonfederal 

personnel in the same manner as for federal personnel. 

In her request for a decision, the accountable officer noted that it was an 

“embarrassment” for Ansbach not to provide food to the host nation first responders. 

Request Letter. This reason is not sufficient justification for using appropriated funds 

to purchase food for nonfederal personnel. The Ansbach commander should 

purchase food for nonfederal, as well as federal, participants only where the 

commander makes the requisite determinations discussed in this decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The U.S. Army Garrison Ansbach may use appropriated funds to purchase food for 

federal civilian employees and military members where the Ansbach commander 

determines the food is necessary for the civilian employees and military members to 

obtain the full benefit of the antiterrorism training exercise. Additionally, Ansbach 

may use appropriated funds to purchase food for nonfederal participants such as 

contractors and host nation first responders where the Ansbach commander 

determines that their attendance is essential to the training of the civilian employees 

and military members and to ensure the realism of a simulated emergency training 

exercise. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

Page 5 B-317423