United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Subcommittee on Energy

and Water Development, Committee on

Appropriations, House of

Representatives

April 1999 DOE MANAGEMENT

Opportunities for

Saving Millions in

Contractor Travel

Costs

GAO/RCED-99-107

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-282146 

April 1, 1999

The Honorable Ron Packard

Chairman

The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Energy and

 Water Development

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Department of Energy (DOE) incurs hundreds of millions of dollars in

travel costs each year. About 80 percent of these costs are incurred by the

contractors managing and/or operating the Department’s various facilities.

DOE has been concerned about travel costs and in 1995 implemented a

5-year, $175 million travel cost-reduction initiative to reduce travel costs

by $35 million per year, of which $30 million would come from

contractors. Because of your concern about the Department’s contractor

travel costs, you requested that we examine certain issues related to these

costs and DOE’s cost-reduction efforts. As discussed with your office, we

agreed to (1) provide information on the travel costs incurred by DOE

contractors and their primary destinations during fiscal years 1996 through

1998, (2) identify the purpose of this travel, and (3) assess the success that

DOE has had in reducing contractor travel costs and identify additional

actions available to reduce these costs further. In addition, we agreed to

examine the travel and other costs associated with contractor employees

on assignment to Washington, D.C.

Results in Brief Travel costs incurred by DOE contractors were reduced from $261 million

in fiscal year 1995 to $223 million in fiscal year 1996. Since then, travel

costs have increased—to $249 million by fiscal year 1998—even though

funding to the contractors during this period had been decreasing. About

96 percent of the contractors’ travel was to domestic locations, the most

frequent of these being Washington, D.C. and the sites of DOE’s major

laboratories and test facilities: Albuquerque, New Mexico; Oakland/San

Francisco, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Los Alamos, New Mexico.

The most frequent foreign destinations were Russia, the United Kingdom,

Germany, France, and Japan.

The purpose of most travel—about 70 percent—was reported as being for

business reasons, that is, travel for purposes related to the mission of the

Page 1 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

facilities. This category included trips to attend meetings or perform

research. In a few instances, we identified trips that were miscategorized

or were of questionable value to DOE. For example, business trips included

travel to obtain advanced degrees. The second most frequently cited travel

purpose was for attending conferences. According to DOE’s Inspector

General, the large number of conference attendees is a concern. For

example, the Inspector General identified hundreds of DOE contractor staff

attending a 1997 conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, resulting in

travel costs of about $1 million.

DOE’s success in reducing contractor travel costs has been limited.

Although contractor travel costs have increased since fiscal year 1996,

they have remained below the fiscal year 1995 level—the level that DOE

established as a baseline for calculating contractor travel cost savings.

However, only in fiscal year 1996 did DOE attain the expected $30 million

savings in contractor travel by achieving a $38 million reduction in that

year. Contractors did not continue to achieve such savings because DOE

did not enforce its cost reduction targets and some contractors did not

have an overall strategy or plan to achieve lower travel costs. Greater

emphasis on travel management—controlling the amount of travel—and

travel cost control—minimizing airfare costs and other travel costs—could

result in additional travel cost savings.

DOE spends millions of dollars on travel and other costs for contractor

employees on temporary or permanent assignment to Washington, D.C. A

1997 DOE Inspector General report identified over 800 contractor

employees from field locations working in Washington and costing DOE

over $76 million annually, which includes significant living allowances.

DOE has recognized problems with controlling this practice. The

Department has reduced the number of contractor employees in

Washington and is planning on further reductions. However, concerns

exist over the additional compensation that contractors are providing for

employees on long-term temporary assignments to cover the tax liabilities

on their living allowances.

We are making recommendations to the Secretary of Energy designed to

reduce contractor travel costs and to clarify DOE’s policy on allowable

travel costs.

Background To carry out its missions, DOE relies on contractors for the management,

operation, maintenance, and support of its facilities. DOE headquarters and

Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

its field offices oversee 34 major contractors at DOE sites throughout the

country. The activities that these contractors conduct serve a variety of

DOE missions, such as managing environmental cleanup, including the safe

treatment, storage, and final disposal of radioactive wastes; developing

energy technologies for transportation systems, efficient building systems,

and utilities; and maintaining the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S.

nuclear weapons stockpile.

In support of these activities, contractors’ staff travel domestically and

internationally to collaborate with officials in DOE programs, other federal

programs, industry, academia, and foreign countries. All of these trips add

up to hundreds of millions of dollars spent on airfare, hotels, meals, and

other direct travel expenses. DOE contracts spell out the allowable costs

that contractors can charge for travel expenses. Although these contracts

vary, the five contractors that we reviewed are generally allowed to

provide for employees the actual and reasonable costs for lodging and

transportation and a maximum daily amount for meals. Air travel is to be

via coach or the lowest discount fare available. However, airfare discounts

available to federal government employees are generally not available to

contractors.

Concerned with the cost of travel in its programs, DOE included travel cost

reductions in its 1995 Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative. This

initiative aimed to reduce Department-wide funding by $1.7 billion over a

5-year period beginning in fiscal year 1996. The initiative targeted a

$175-million cost saving for travel over the same period. This saving would

be achieved by maintaining travel costs at a level $35 million below the

fiscal year 1995 level. DOE’s fiscal year 1995 travel cost was $307 million, of

which $261 million was for contractor travel and $46 million was for

federal travel.1 DOE anticipated a $30 million saving each year from

contractor travel and a $5 million annual saving from federal travel.

According to DOE officials in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, these

reduction levels represented amounts that the Department believed to be

reasonable and achievable savings goals.

Contractor Travel

Costs Are Increasing

Travel costs incurred by DOE contractors were reduced in fiscal year 1996,

but since then these costs have been increasing. Thirty-four DOE

contractors reported that during the fiscal year 1996-98 period, they spent

over $700 million on direct travel costs. Annual contractor travel costs

1

The original fiscal year 1995 baseline totaled $324 million, of which $54 million was federal travel and

$270 million was contractor travel. However, DOE has created a new baseline for fiscal year 1995

travel costs to improve consistency with travel costs reported in later years.

Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

were reduced to about $223 million in fiscal year 1996 but increased to

about $241 million in fiscal year 1997 and to about $249 million in fiscal

year 1998. More than half of the reported travel was incurred by five

contractors at DOE’s Oak Ridge, Sandia, Los Alamos, and Livermore

facilities.2

 The details on the cost of travel and the number of trips

reported by each of the 34 contractors are contained in appendix I.

The increase in DOE contractor travel costs since fiscal year 1996 is more

dramatic when contrasted with other variables, such as the contractors’

overall funding and staffing. For example, at the same time that travel

costs were increasing, funding for contractors was decreasing.

Specifically, travel costs increased 12 percent from fiscal year 1996 to

fiscal year 1998, while overall funding to contractors decreased by about

1 percent. As a result, travel costs took a larger portion of the contractors’

funding. For each $1,000 of contractor funding, the average amount

needed for travel rose from $16.24 in fiscal year 1996 to $18.32 in fiscal

year 1998.3

 Similarly, while the number of trips taken remained fairly

stable for this period, the number of contractor staff at the facilities

decreased about 10 percent, increasing the average number of trips per

person. Figure 1 illustrates the trends in travel costs, funding, staffing, and

the number of trips over the past 3 fiscal years.

2

Lockheed Martin Corporation has two subsidiaries at Oak Ridge—Lockheed Martin Energy Systems,

Inc., which manages activities at DOE’s Y-12 Plant, and Lockheed Martin Energy Research

Corporation, which manages the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

3

Some contractors spent as little as $1.87 for travel per $1,000 of funding, while others spent as much

as $33.73 per $1,000 of funding. (See app. II.)

Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

Figure 1: Percent Change in Trips,

Costs, Funding, and Staffing Levels for

DOE Contractors From Fiscal Year

1996 to Fiscal 1998

Legend

FY = fiscal

The primary domestic and foreign destinations of DOE contractors were

Washington, D.C., and Russia, respectively. Most of the travel conducted

by contractors—96 percent—was to domestic locations. Trips to

Washington, D.C., accounted for about 11 percent of all domestic trips.

For fiscal year 1998 alone, 34 DOE contractor sites reported making over

20,000 trips to Washington, D.C., costing at least $20 million.4

 More than

percent of these trips were taken by five contractors. For example, Sandia

National Laboratory reported taking over 4,500 trips to Washington, D.C.,

in fiscal year 1998 or the equivalent of about 87 trips each week.

Albuquerque, New Mexico, which is the destination for such sites as

Sandia and the DOE Albuquerque Operations Office, was the second most

frequent domestic destination, accounting for 8 percent of the domestic

4

Total costs for travel to Washington, D.C., are understated, since not all contractors reported costs by

location, and two—Sandia National Laboratories and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory—were

able to identify only airfare costs.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

trips taken. The remaining top destinations were Oakland/San Francisco,

California; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Los Alamos, New Mexico.

For foreign travel—accounting for 4 percent of the travel—contractors

most frequently listed Russia as the top destination. For fiscal year 1996 to

fiscal year 1998, DOE contractors took 3,829 trips to Russia, or about

15 percent of all foreign trips. The second most frequent foreign

destination was the United Kingdom, which accounted for 6 percent of all

foreign trips. The remaining top foreign destinations were Germany,

France, and Japan.

Costs are increasing for both domestic and foreign travel, but the greatest

percent increase is occurring in foreign travel. Although foreign travel

represents only 4 percent of the trips, it represents 11 percent of the travel

cost. From fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1998, foreign travel costs

increased by about 53 percent. More frequent trips to Russia have

significantly contributed to this increase. The number of trips to Russia

increased 107 percent from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1998, and the

cost of these trips has more than tripled. Costs increased from about

$2.2 million in fiscal year 1996 to about $6.7 million in fiscal year 1998.

According to contractor officials, one reason for the increase in foreign

travel, particularly to Russia, was that there is a greater emphasis on

nuclear nonproliferation work abroad.

Most Travel Is Related

to Facilities’ Missions

DOE contractors reported that most travel to domestic and foreign

locations was for business purposes, that is, travel for purposes related to

the mission of the facilities. This category accounted for about 70 percent

of all travel for fiscal years 1996 through 1998. The next most frequent

travel category was for attending conferences. The remaining trips were

for training, recruitment, and other purposes. Figure 2 provides

information on the major travel categories reported by DOE contractor

sites.

Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

Figure 2: Major Purposes for DOE

Contractor Travel, Fiscal Years

1996-98

The largest category—business—covered a wide variety of activities. Our

review of travel documentation showed that employees take trips to meet

with DOE officials, perform field tests, conduct various reviews and

inspections related to warhead components, or perform other activities

directly related to accomplishing the contractor’s mission. Some trips

categorized as business had dual purposes, such as to attend a conference

and to conduct meetings with industry.

Although it was generally difficult to determine the reasonableness of such

trips, we identified some business trips that were not directly related to or

needed for accomplishing the facility’s mission. For example, Los Alamos

National Laboratory funded a number of trips for its employees to obtain a

master of business administration degree, many of which were categorized

as business trips. In fiscal year 1998, 24 laboratory employees were

enrolled in courses held at the University of New Mexico’s main campus in

Albuquerque—about 100 miles from Los Alamos. These employees made

at least 380 trips to attend class. Various expenses were incurred,

including the cost of overnight hotel stays, rental cars, and meals. For

example, one laboratory employee made 38 trips to Albuquerque in fiscal

year 1998, spending about $5,321. We brought this practice to the attention

of DOE officials, who subsequently determined that the cost of travel and

per diem while attending these classes is not justified. These officials have

Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

determined that in the future, such costs for travel and per diem will not

be allowable under the contract.

Attending conferences accounts for the second most frequent travel

category. For the 3-year period from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year

1998, DOE contractors reported making 56,205 trips to conferences—about

15 percent of the categorized trips—costing about $59 million. However,

this figure may be understated, since we found that for at least one

contractor, some conference trips were categorized as business trips. The

DOE Inspector General has raised concerns about the large number of

attendees at individual conferences. In a December 1998 report, the DOE

Inspector General concluded that some conferences were attended by

many DOE contractor participants.5

 The report cited a May 1997 particle

accelerator conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, that was attended

by 520 DOE contractor employees (as well as 5 DOE employees), resulting in

travel costs of about $1 million. In another case, 176 DOE and DOE

contractor participants attended a January 1996 human genome

conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The Inspector General also reported

that, contrary to government policy, DOE had no internal procedures to

minimize the number of conference attendees. In response to the

Inspector General’s report, DOE issued requirements and responsibilities

for conference management on March 22, 1999. Among other things, the

requirements are intended to better ensure that the number of DOE and

contractor employees attending conferences is minimized.

Success in Reducing

Travel Costs Limited

DOE is aware of the high costs being incurred for travel and has developed

cost-reduction goals to help limit these costs. A substantial amount of

these reductions was projected to be obtained from the contractors.

However, DOE has had limited success. Although DOE surpassed its goal in

fiscal year 1996, it did not reach its annual goals in subsequent years

because it did not achieve the travel cost savings that it anticipated from

its contractors. To increase cost reductions in contractor travel, DOE and

the contractors will have to take additional actions. These could include

reducing the number of trips taken by contractor employees, obtaining

lower airfares for contractors, and adopting best contractor practices for

other allowable costs.

5

Inspection of the Department of Energy’s Conference Policies and Practices, DOE/IG-0433 (Dec. 1998).

Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

Cost-Reduction Efforts for

Contractor Travel Not

Fully Successful

DOE and the contractors have taken actions to reduce travel costs. In

implementing its travel cost-savings initiative, DOE first set an overall

cost-savings target and then allowed its contractors to establish their own

cost-savings measures. According to DOE officials, the Department

basically established an overall target—a reduction of about $35 million

below the travel costs for fiscal year 1995—and conveyed to each

contractors specific targets necessary to achieve the total reduction.

However, DOE did not establish measures to enforce these targets, nor was

it prescriptive as to how these cost reductions were to be achieved.

DOE contractors reported to us that they initiated a number of efforts to

reduce travel costs. These activities included greater use of

videoconferencing to reduce the number of trips and efforts to reduce the

costs of airline tickets. For example, some contractors made block

purchases of discount airline tickets, increased the use of Saturday night

stays for travelers when feasible, and negotiated discounts on airfares.

Furthermore, the contractors consolidated travel services and negotiated

discounts on hotel rooms. However, while all five contractors that we

visited were undertaking some efforts to reduce travel costs, none could

provide us with an overall strategy or plan to achieve the initiative’s travel

cost-savings targets. Instead, the level and type of effort taken varied by

contractor. For example, one contractor reported that as travel costs

neared the target, contractor officials directed programs to limit their

travel so that their target would not be exceeded. Officials for another

contractor told us that they basically do not follow the targets.

The contractors have not done their part to meet the target of a $30 million

annual reduction in their travel costs. They met the first year’s

reduction—achieving a $39 million, or 15-percent, reduction. Since then,

however, contractor travel costs have risen each year, and by fiscal year

1998, travel costs were only $16 million—6 percent—below the levels for

fiscal year 1995. However, DOE is on track to meet its overall cost-savings

goals only because DOE’s federal travel costs have been reduced

significantly beyond the expected $5 million annually. Federal travel costs

have been reduced each year, and for fiscal year 1998 represent a

$15 million, or 32-percent, reduction from the level for fiscal year 1995.

Figure 3 shows the amount of travel cost savings in both DOE federal and

contractor travel, as compared with the expected savings targets.

Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

Figure 3: DOE Contractor and Federal Travel Cost Savings in Fiscal Years 1996-98

Dollars in millions

Legend

FY = fiscal year

Additional Actions Could

Further Reduce Travel

Costs

DOE contractors need to contribute a larger share of travel cost savings in

order for DOE to meet its overall travel cost-reduction targets over the next

2 years. Cost savings opportunities could result from improvements in

travel management—the overall management of travel and trips

taken—and travel cost control—the reduction of costs incurred when on

travel. Although some cost-reduction actions are occurring by contractors

in these areas, additional efforts are needed to reduce the number of trips

and expand best practices for controlling travel costs.

Reduce the Number of

Contractor Trips

The quickest and potentially easiest way to reduce travel costs is to reduce

the number of trips taken. During fiscal years 1996-98, even though the

number of contractor staff has dropped and some contractors reported

that they increased the use of video and teleconferencing, the number of

trips taken by DOE contractors had not been reduced. The number of trips

was approximately the same for each of the 3 years—about

200,000—according to the data that we obtained from contractors that

were able to provide the number of trips for that period. Furthermore,

some individuals take many trips. Some contractor employees have taken

Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

up to 52 trips in a single year, have been on travel status for over 200 days

in a year, and incurred travel costs as high as $96,000.

To reduce the number of trips requires effective overall travel

management. Yet, there are few contractor management controls over the

number of trips taken, which may be reflected in the contractors’ overall

lack of success in reducing the number of trips. None of the facilities that

we visited had established managerial controls over the extent of travel or

set cost targets. In most instances, travel expenses were absorbed into a

large program budget, limited only by each specific program’s availability

of funds. Although some managers whom we talked with said that they do

review proposed travel to ensure that it has a programmatic purpose or

limit attendance at conferences, they generally rely on their staffs to take

trips only when necessary. In fact, the program managers responsible for

approving travel told us that they were unaware of DOE’s cost-reduction

targets and therefore did not make specific efforts to reduce travel to meet

them.

Despite the contractors’ reliance on their employees to limit the number of

trips they take, individual travelers stated that they have little control over

their travel. They said that much of their travel is dictated by the needs of

the organizations providing the funding for their programs. Many staff

whom we talked with stated that they had to take trips, particularly to

Washington, D.C., that they felt were unnecessary. For example, one

senior official from Lawrence Livermore told us that despite alternative

options available, such as videoconferencing, he felt compelled to travel to

Washington, D.C., 15 times in the past year to attend program meetings or

risk a reduction in program funding. Another frequent traveler said that

DOE officials ask him to travel to attend meetings, in the event that

technical questions might be asked, and if no such questions are asked, he

returns home without accomplishing much. In most cases, travelers felt

that they had to attend these meetings because they view DOE as their

customer and the sponsoring program in Washington wanted their

attendance. Contractor staff added that DOE often requires them to travel

so that DOE staff do not have to travel, thus reducing DOE’s travel costs

while at the same time increasing contractors’ travel costs.

Reduce Airfare Costs In the area of cost control, the biggest single element of travel costs is

airfare. For example, about one-half of the travel cost incurred by the

contractor at Oak Ridge was for the purchase of airline tickets. In contrast,

airfare cost for DOE federal employee travel is much lower—about

35 percent of travel costs. A major reason for this difference is the airfare

Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

discounts that the federal government obtains for federal employees. The

General Services Administration negotiates and contracts for discount

airfares with airlines and generally obtains discounted, unrestricted fares.

These discounts, however, are not available to federal contractors, and the

cost difference can be substantial. For example, a typical coach-fare flight

from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. in September 1998 cost about

$200 for a federal employee but about $1,300, on average, for a Lawrence

Livermore employee.

Efforts to get lower airfare rates have met with limited success. In the

past, DOE contacted airlines and requested that they extend their federal

discounts to DOE contractors. However, only one airline responded to DOE’s

request, and its proposal proved unfeasible. Currently, the General

Services Administration is considering plans in 2000 to solicit proposals

from airline carriers for airfare rates for government contractors.

However, General Services Administration officials are not optimistic that,

if a solicitation for contractor airfares is made, the airlines will respond

favorably to it. We noted that contractors have had some success in this

area. They are negotiating discounts directly with the airlines and have

been successful in getting reductions from full-fare rates.

Nevertheless, contractors could take additional actions to reduce the

airfare costs they are incurring. The most significant action is obtaining

nonrefundable tickets. A nonrefundable ticket is a ticket for which the

purchase price will not be returned if the trip is canceled. However, the

ticket can be exchanged for another for a small additional charge.

Nonrefundable tickets are generally less expensive and although the

savings will depend on the individual circumstances—such as destination,

ticket availability, ticket class, and the number of days the ticket is

purchased in advance—they can be substantial. An internal audit report at

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found that the savings on

nonrefundable tickets were typically around 50 percent. Specific examples

that we identified had also shown significant savings. For example, at

Livermore one employee purchased a $1,602 refundable airline ticket to

attend a conference while another employee purchased a $414

nonrefundable ticket the next day to the same conference. In another

instance, an employee purchased a $473 refundable ticket, also to attend a

conference, while another employee purchased a nonrefundable ticket a

week later to go to the conference for $255.

However, the usage of nonrefundable tickets varied greatly among

contractors. For example, Livermore’s travel data showed that about

Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

75 percent of the tickets purchased by travelers were nonrefundable and

Sandia estimated that about 65 percent of its tickets were purchased on a

nonrefundable basis. However, the percentage for Los Alamos was

significantly lower. Los Alamos estimated that its nonrefundable ticket

usage at less than 5 percent. The contractors’ travel management staff said

that contractor employees are responsible for selecting the flights and

tickets that they want to use and that the contractor encourages, but does

not require, the use of nonrefundable tickets. They added that employees

often do not like to use nonrefundable tickets because their travel plans

frequently change or are canceled.

Reduce Other Allowable Costs Controlling other allowable travel costs that contractor employees incur

could further reduce travel expenses. Consistent with its contract with

DOE, each contractor has its own allowable rates or criteria for costs that

its employees incur for hotels, meals, rental cars, and other incidental

expenses. However, in certain instances, costs allowed by some

contractors are more generous than those allowed by others, as illustrated

below:

• The contractors at Oak Ridge and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

use federal per diem rates as a general standard for allowable hotel costs.

However, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos do not and, instead, allow

hotel rates that are deemed reasonable. These allowable rates can be

significantly higher than the federal lodging rates. We found instances

where Lawrence Livermore allowed hotel costs in Washington, D.C., that

were $284 per night; in Orlando, Florida, that were $218 per night; in

Monterey, California, that were $303 per night; and in Las Vegas, Nevada,

that were $176 per night. In each instance, the federal hotel rate, which

other contractors follow, would have been over 50 percent less.

• Both Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos allow actual daily meal costs of

up to $46 on any domestic trip. In contrast, the meal costs allowed by

other contractors were up to the rate under federal travel regulations ($30

to $42 per day, depending on location) or, in the case of Oak Ridge, up to

$35 per day. Although not all Livermore and Los Alamos employees use

the full $46 allowance, we did note instances where the full $46 meal

allowance was charged every day.

• One contractor established a policy that allows employees to stay in

higher-priced hotels when attending conferences but does not then allow

the travelers rental cars. However, we saw instances where other

contractors allowed their employees to stay in higher-priced hotels for

conferences and to obtain rental cars. We noted one instance in which two

employees from one contractor both went to the same conference in

Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

Atlanta, stayed in a hotel costing up to $158 per night, and obtained rental

cars.

While some of these cost savings, when taken individually, may not be

substantial, they could add up to considerable savings when taken

together. For example, a reduction of just $100 on the average trip to

Washington, D.C., would amount to total yearly savings of over $2 million.

Other, more fundamental changes in allowable costs could result in

greater travel savings. At least one contractor has established a policy for

other allowable costs that resulted in lower rates than the federal per

diem. The contractor at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory charged

DOE the lower of the actual travel costs incurred by its employees or the

federal per diem rate and shared with DOE any cost savings that the

contractor obtained below federal per diem rates. During fiscal year 1998,

the contractor continued to follow this policy even though this savings

incentive program was not included in its contract with DOE. However,

according to contractor officials, the fiscal year 1999 contract with DOE

again does not provide for this program and it is therefore not being

continued.

Millions Spent

Annually for

Contractor Employees

on Assignment to

Washington, D.C.

DOE spends millions of dollars on the costs associated with management

and operating contractor employees assigned temporarily or permanently

to Washington, D.C. In fiscal year 1997, over 800 contractor employees

were assigned to Washington, costing $76 million for the employees’

salary, living allowance, relocation cost, and other related expenses. DOE’s

Office of Inspector General raised concerns about the Department’s

awareness of, and control over, these assignments, and DOE has taken

actions to reduce the number of employees on assignments and plans to

reduce it further. However, a concern remains about the payments that

contractors are making to employees on long-term temporary assignments

for their increased tax-related costs.

Contractor employees are often assigned to Washington on a

temporary—either short-term or long-term (more than 1 year)—or

permanent basis to provide technical expertise associated with the stated

mission of the employee’s home facility. DOE requires that contractor staff

assignments to Washington are not to be for providing administrative or

management support, or performing functions reserved for federal

employees. Currently, some contractor employees have been in

Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

Washington for over 5 years, and at least 14 contractor employees have

been there for over 10 years.

The costs of employees on assignments are paid by specific DOE programs

or, in some cases, are a general administrative expense paid by DOE under

the various contracts. The costs to DOE for a contractor employee assigned

to work in Washington can be significant, ranging from $5,000 per month

to $29,000 per month (or as much as $348,000 per year). The costs for

assignments include not only the employee’s salary and benefits and

applicable contractor charges but also expenses for moving the employee

to Washington and various living allowances provided for the employee

while on assignment. The living allowances are provided for employees to

offset the expenses that they incur during an assignment. Each contractor

has its own formula or methodology for determining this compensation,

but it is generally tied to per-diem rates for the Washington area. Under

these formulas, the compensation can total $50,000 annually or more.

Appendix III provides details on the additional compensation provided for

employees on assignment for the five contractors we visited.

Concerns about the cost and number of employees on assignment to

Washington have been raised by DOE’s Office of Inspector General. In

December 1997, the Inspector General reported that DOE was spending at

least $76 million annually for field contractor support in Washington, D.C.6

Furthermore, although the Department was required to maintain an

inventory of these employees, it was unaware of the magnitude of

contractor personnel in Washington. The Inspector General identified over

800 field contractor employees in Washington—almost twice the number

listed in the DOE inventory. Moreover, the Inspector General determined

that, contrary to DOE requirements, many contractor employees were

providing support and administrative services.

DOE has since taken actions to reduce the number of, and improve its

controls over, contractor personnel assigned to Washington. The

Department has established a policy limiting the use of field contractor

employees in Washington and has reduced the number of contractor

employees on assignment there. According to a January 1999 DOE report to

the House Committee on Appropriations,7

 the Department reduced the

number of employees on assignment to Washington by 235 as of

6

Audit of the Department of Energy’s Management of Field Contractor Employees Assigned to

Headquarters and Other Federal Agencies, DOE/IG-0414 (Dec. 1997).

7

Department of Energy: Use of Management & Operating Contractor Employees Supporting DOE in

Washington D.C., Use of Support Services Contractors (Jan. 1999).

Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

January 1998 through attrition, reductions, and reassignments, and by an

additional 59 as of January 1999. According to DOE, this brings the level of

contractor assignments down to 379.8 DOE expects to reduce the number of

contractor employees assigned to Washington by another 10 percent by

the end of fiscal year 1999. DOE is also drafting an order that revises the

requirements for the use and management of contractor employees.

Although DOE is addressing the issue of contractor employees in

Washington, D.C., and reducing their number, concerns still remain about

the amount of living allowance that employees are receiving during their

assignment. At four of the five facilities we visited, the contractors have a

two-tiered living allowance that pays a higher amount for employees on

temporary assignments of 1 year or longer. This is because the living

expenses provided for employees become taxable when the assignment is

longer than 1 year. Consequently, the contractors provide higher

additional compensation to offset the tax liability. For example, Los

Alamos provides its employees on assignments to Washington, D.C., for

longer than 1 year with (1) a basic living allowance of 80 percent of the

federal lodging rate for the Washington area and (2) an additional

40 percent of the basic allowance, for a total of about $4,200 per month in

fiscal year 1998. Only one contractor we visited—Battelle at DOE’s

Richland, Washington location—did not follow this practice. However,

Battelle officials said that they are currently requesting that DOE approve a

revised living allowance that would include a higher rate for employees on

assignments that last longer than 1 year.

The allowability of these additional payments, however, is unclear. A DOE

Notice provides requirements on headquarters’ use of contractor

employees. A specific objective of the notice is to establish limitations on

payments to employees whose assignments exceed 1 year. The notice

states that, for any assignment that exceeds 365 days, payments to the

affected employee for any additional tax burden caused by the long-term

assignment is unallowable in accordance with the Department’s

acquisition regulations. However, the cited acquisition regulations relate

to reimbursed relocation costs for permanent changes of duty—not

long-term assignments.

DOE’s Office of General Counsel recognizes that the Department does not

have a consistent and well-articulated position on allowing contractors to

8

This total does not include certain contractor employees who were included in the amounts identified

by the Inspector General. These employees are working for other federal agencies, assigned under

statutorily authorized intergovernmental personnel agreements, assigned to the Nuclear Emergency

Search Team, or working under the Yucca Mountain contract based in Washington, D.C.

Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

pay for employees’ additional taxes caused by long-term assignments.

According to an Office of General Counsel official, there are valid

arguments on both sides of the issue. Much depends on (1) the

interpretation of contract provisions, or the absence of such provisions,

that would make the payments allowable or unallowable and (2) whether,

after a certain period of time, a temporary assignment becomes

tantamount to a permanent relocation and therefore the relocation rules

should apply. According to the General Counsel official, the issue of

long-term assignments of contractor employees to headquarters has

top-level attention and concern within the Department and is being closely

monitored by DOE management.

Conclusions The lack of substantial travel cost reductions from contractors stems

largely from a lack of overall travel management by DOE and its

contractors. In this regard, DOE has set targets for its contractors to

achieve but has not enforced them or ensured that its overall contractor

travel cost-savings target was met. For its part, DOE contractors were

aware of the targets, but many contractors did not translate this into an

overall strategy or plan to achieve lower travel costs. Furthermore,

consistent practices for reducing costs have not been put into place. In our

view, it is difficult to justify why some contractors allow their staff to stay

in high priced hotels, purchase higher priced airline tickets, or charge

higher meal costs when others take stronger actions to minimize such

costs. Similarly, the payments that contractors are making to employees

on long-term temporary assignments for their tax-related costs are also

being implemented inconsistently, and the allowability of such costs has

not been resolved.

A number of relatively simple ways are available to achieve substantial

cost reductions. However, a commitment—by both DOE and the

contractors—will be required to reduce the number of trips, reduce the

cost of airfares, and reduce other allowable travel costs. This means that

DOE, as an organization, needs to make clear what cost reductions are

expected, contractors need to improve both their travel management and

travel cost control, and DOE program areas will have to lessen their travel

demands on contractor staff. Furthermore, achieving cost reductions will

require that DOE develop clear policies and guidance on the travel-related

costs it will deem allowable.

Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

Recommendations To reduce contractor travel costs, consistent with DOE’s cost-reduction

targets for travel, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy set travel

cost targets for each contractor and require that contractors not exceed

these targets. The target amounts should be conveyed to both the

contractors and DOE program areas for a combined commitment to ensure

that the cost reductions are achieved. Furthermore, to implement more

consistent travel cost reimbursement practices, the Secretary should

establish clear DOE policy on allowable costs—both travel costs and the

reimbursement of tax-related costs—and, when new contracts are let,

incorporate the policy into the contracts.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

DOE agreed that there are additional opportunities to achieve travel cost

savings and generally concurred with the report’s recommendations. With

regard to the first recommendation, DOE stated that it will establish travel

cost targets, in collaboration with program offices and contractors, to

ensure a combined commitment to cost reductions. Furthermore, DOE will

promote alternatives to travel and will heighten headquarters and field

managers’ awareness of the cost of contractor travel to headquarters.

However, DOE did not specifically agree to require that contractors not

exceed its travel cost targets. In our view, firm targets are necessary to

provide DOE with the control needed to ensure that travel costs are

effectively managed and that its savings objectives are achieved;

consequently, we continue to recommend that DOE require that its

contractors not exceed the targets that it establishes.

In commenting on the second recommendation—to establish clear DOE

policy on allowable travel costs—DOE said it will evaluate the merits of

establishing standard rates, such as federal per diem rates, for the

reimbursement of contractor travel. DOE also agreed to determine the

appropriate treatment of the tax consequences of extended temporary

assignments and promulgate departmental guidance, which will be

incorporated into new contracts. The complete text of DOE’s comments is

included as appendix IV.

Scope and

Methodology

To determine the amount of travel incurred by DOE contractors, the

primary destinations of this travel, and the travel purposes, we collected

data from the 34 management and operating contractors identified in DOE’s

Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative. We requested data on the

cost of travel and the number of trips taken in fiscal years 1996 to 1998, as

well as the most frequent travel destinations in each of those fiscal years.

Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

We also requested information on the purpose of travel, as well as each

contractors’ staffing and funding levels during fiscal years 1996 to 1998.

We did not independently verify the data that the contractors provided. We

also compared the data with other information available at the five sites

we visited—the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Y-12 Plant in Oak

Ridge, Tennessee; the Hanford Reservation in Richland, Washington; the

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California; the Los

Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico; and the Sandia

National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Such information

included contractors’ internal self-assessments of their data and travel

systems and internal audit reports. In general, we found that the data were

reliable for the purpose for which they were used.

At each of the facilities we visited, we reviewed pertinent contracts,

regulations, and guidance that detailed the controls over travel costs and

the allowability of such costs. We obtained and reviewed internal audit

reports on travel costs and the propriety of these costs. We also

judgmentally selected contractor employees’ travel vouchers for review to

determine if the costs for airfare, hotels, rental cars, and other expenses

were appropriate. We met with travel officials at each facility and

discussed with them the management of travel costs and the efforts being

taken to reduce these costs. Finally, we interviewed travelers, supervisors,

and managers to obtain their perspectives on the amount of and need for

the travel taken and on the methods for reducing these costs.

We obtained and reviewed documentation from DOE on its Strategic

Alignment and Downsizing Initiative and its plans for achieving the

initiative’s cost-savings goals. We discussed with officials from the Office

of the Chief Financial Officer and the Office of Management and

Administration the Department’s efforts to reduce contractor travel costs

and obtained their viewpoints on the contractors’ control of travel and

efforts to meet the current cost-reduction targets.

To examine the travel and other costs associated with contractor

employees in Washington, D.C., we obtained information at each facility

that we visited on the rationale and procedures for approving and

conducting off-site assignments and obtained listings of the individuals on

such assignments. We also obtained information on the additional

compensation provided for employees while on assignments.

Furthermore, we discussed contractor assignments to Washington, D.C.,

with DOE’s Office of General Counsel and with DOE officials in the Office of

Management and Administration who are responsible for maintaining the

Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
B-282146 

inventory of assignees and for developing management controls for

contractor assignments. We obtained and reviewed relevant DOE

documents and Inspector General audit reports that addressed the costs

and controls over contractor assignments.

We conducted our review from August 1998 through March 1999 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the

date of this letter. At that time, we will provide copies of this report to

Senator Ted Stevens, Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations;

Senator Robert C. Byrd, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on

Appropriations; the Honorable Bill Richardson, Secretary of Energy; and

the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget.

We will make copies available to others on request.

Please call me at (202) 512-8021 if you or your staff have any questions

about this report. Major contributors to this report include William F.

Fenzel, John R. Schulze, Christopher M. Pacheco, and Patricia J. Rennie.

Sincerely yours,

(Ms.) Gary L. Jones

Associate Director, Energy, Resources,

 and Science Issues

Page 20 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Page 21 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

DOE Contractor

Travel Costs and

Number of Trips

During Fiscal Years

1996-98

24

Appendix II 

DOE Contractor

Travel Costs Per

Thousand Dollars of

Funding, Fiscal Years

1996-98

26

Appendix III 

Living Allowances

Currently Provided by

Various DOE

Contractors for

Employees on

Assignment in

Washington, D.C.,

Area

30

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

Department of Energy

31

Figures Figure 1: Percent Change in Trips, Costs, Funding, and Staffing

Levels For DOE Contractors From Fiscal Year 1996 to Fiscal 1998

5

Page 22 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Contents

Figure 2: Major Purposes for DOE Contractor Travel, Fiscal Years

1996-98

7

Figure 3: DOE Contractor and Federal Travel Cost Savings in

Fiscal Years 1996-98

10

Abbreviations

DOE Department of Energy

Page 23 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Appendix I 

DOE Contractor Travel Costs and Number

of Trips During Fiscal Years 1996-98

FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Dollars in thousands

Contractor DOE site Total cost

Number of

trips Total cost

Number of

trips Total cost

Number of

trips

Iowa State University Ames Laboratory $857 1,194 $713 921 $694 757

The University of

Chicago

Argonne National

Laboratory 10,473 10,353 10,162 9,517 9,583 8,646

RMI Environmental

Services

Ashtabula

Environmental

Management Project 84 119 107 152 90 161

CBS Corporation Bettis Atomic Power

Laboratory 830 995 988 1,236 1,189 1,308

Brookhaven Science

Associates

Brookhaven National

Laboratory 5,102 7,464 4,879 6,576 5,239 6,045

Battelle Columbus

Environmental

Management Project 76 76 51 54 39 47

Universities Research

Association, Inc.

Fermi National

Accelerator

Laboratory 3,951 4,770 4,049 4,860 4,223 4,978

Fluor Daniel Fernald Fernald

Environmental

Management Project 1,878 Not available 1,633 Not available 1,811 Not available

Hanford

Environmental Health

Foundation

Hanford

186 168 136 123 110 121

Fluor Daniel Hanford,

Inc.

Hanford

4,754 4,450 2,723 2,612 2,868 2,543

Lockheed Martin

Idaho Technologies

Company

Idaho National

Environmental

Engineering

Laboratory 10,653 8,164 12,195 8,542 11,134 8,520

Allied Signal

Aerospace FM&T

Kansas City Plant

4,757 5,933 4,432 5,707 5,401 5,847

Lockheed Martin

Corporation

Knolls Atomic Power

Laboratory 1,139 1,988 1,449 2,450 1,561 2,699

University of California Lawrence Berkeley

National Laboratory 5,173 7,455 7,126 8,189 7,114 8,311

Univeristy of California Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory 30,634 24,678 33,793 24,565 36,812 26,791

University of California Los Alamos National

Laboratory 28,573 32,347 35,830 36,855 37,864 36,784

Babcock & Wilcox of

Ohio

Miamisburg

Environmental

Management Project 711 Not available 490 Not available 172 Not available

(continued)

Page 24 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Appendix I 

DOE Contractor Travel Costs and Number

of Trips During Fiscal Years 1996-98

FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998

Dollars in thousands

Contractor DOE site Total cost

Number of

trips Total cost

Number of

trips Total cost

Number of

trips

Midwest Research

Institute

National Renewable

Energy Laboratory 4,794 Not available 5,001 3,870 4,920 3,790

Wackenhut Services,

Inc.

Nevada Test Site

101 77 87 63 102 81

Bechtel Nevada Nevada Test Site 5,896 Not available 6,604 6,396 7,049 6,871

TRW Environmental

Safety Systems, Inc.

Nevada Test Site

1,884 Not available 4,485 936 4,217 755

Oak Ridge

Associated

Universities

Oak Ridge Institute

for Science and

Education 3,821 3,096 4,377 3,492 4,493 4,028

Lockheed Martin

Energy Research

Corporation

Oak Ridge National

Laboratory

12,710 12,674 13,737 12,371 14,194 12,445

Lockheed Martin

Energy Systems, Inc.

Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

8,916 10,608 9,093 9,064 8,307 6,945

Battelle Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory 12,965 9,942 14,246 10,326 15,681 12,387

Mason & Hanger

Corporation

Pantex Plant

5,059 4,359 4,659 3,809 4,399 3,291

Princeton University Princeton Plasma

Physics Laboratory 992 1,447 1,449 1,705 1,559 1,685

Kaiser Hill Rocky Flats

Environmental

Technology Site 1,911 1,220 1,965 1,218 1,586 910

Sandia Corporation Sandia National

Laboratories 39,364 37,324 40,633 35,111 41,574 35,634

Westinghouse

Savannah River

Company

Savannah River Site

9,547 6,022 8,669 5,157 9,673 5,686

Wackenhut Services,

Inc.

Savannah River Site

429 503 514 519 537 574

Stanford University Stanford Linear

Accelerator Center 2,307 Not available 2,201 1,573 2,029 1,655

Westinghouse Electric

Company

Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant 1,520 1,623 1,342 1,825 1,850 2,004

West Valley Nuclear

Services, Inc.

West Valley

Demonstration Project 526 602 696 709 937 913

Totals $222,571 199,651 $240,513 210,503 $249,010 213,213

Notes: Columns may not total due to rounding.

The table includes subcontractor travel reported to GAO.

Page 25 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Appendix II 

DOE Contractor Travel Costs Per Thousand

Dollars of Funding, Fiscal Years 1996-98

Contractor DOE Site

Iowa State University Ames Laboratory

The University of Chicago Argonne National Laboratory

RMI Environmental Services Ashtabula Environmental Management

Project

CBS Corporation Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory

Brookhaven Science Associates Brookhaven National Laboratory

Battelle Columbus Environmental Management

Project

Universities Research Association, Inc. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Fluor Daniel Fernald Fernald Environmental Management

Project

Hanford Environmental Health Foundation Hanford

Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc. Hanford

Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies

Company

Idaho National Environmental Engineering

Laboratory

Allied Signal Aerospace FM&T Kansas City Plant

Lockheed Martin Corporation Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory

University of California Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

University of California Los Alamos National Laboratory

Babcock & Wilcox of Ohio Miamisburg Environmental Management

Project

Midwest Research Institute National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Wackenhut Services, Inc. Nevada Test Site

Bechtel Nevada Nevada Test Site

TRW Environmental Safety Systems, Inc. Nevada Test Site

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Oak Ridge Institute for Science and

Education

Lockheed Martin Energy Research

Corporation

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Mason & Hanger Corporation Pantex Plant

Princeton University Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Kaiser Hill Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

Sandia Corporation Sandia National Laboratories

Westinghouse Savannah River Company Savannah River Site

Wackenhut Services, Inc. Savannah River Site

Stanford University Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Page 26 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Appendix II 

DOE Contractor Travel Costs Per Thousand

Dollars of Funding, Fiscal Years 1996-98

Funding in millions Travel Costs in thousands Travel cost per $1000 funding

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY96 FY97 FY98

$33 $29 $27 $857 $713 $694 $26.36 $24.25 $25.40

476 460 460 10,473 10,162 9,583 22.00 22.09 20.83

9 15 14 84 107 90 9.23 7.18 6.38

304 302 294 830 988 1,189 2.73 3.27 4.05

407 405 400 5,102 4,879 5,239 12.54 12.05 13.10

24 17 16 76 51 39 3.17 3.00 2.44

264 273 282 3,951 4,049 4,223 14.97 14.83 14.98

269 275 295 1,878 1,633 1,811 6.97 5.94 6.15

12 12 10 186 136 110 15.76 11.72 11.22

1,121 1,152 920 4,754 2,723 2,868 4.24 2.36 3.12

677 618 587 10,653 12,195 11,134 15.74 19.73 18.97

336 358 353 4,757 4,432 5,401 14.16 12.38 15.30

307 279 275 1,139 1,449 1,561 3.71 5.19 5.67

192 220 214 5,173 7,126 7,114 26.98 32.36 33.21

951 1,120 1,274 30,634 33,793 36,812 32.21 30.18 28.89

1,110 1,250 1,327 28,573 35,830 37,864 25.75 28.67 28.53

115 112 92 711 490 172 6.18 4.38 1.87

179 158 176 4,794 5,001 4,920 26.78 31.65 27.95

17 16 18 101 87 102 5.79 5.47 5.72

251 296 290 5,896 6,604 7,049 23.46 22.35 24.32

256 255 300 1,884 4,485 4,217 7.36 17.59 14.06

112 126 147 3,821 4,377 4,493 33.99 34.66 30.56

576 546 561 12,710 13,737 14,194 22.07 25.14 25.28

1,116 751 806 8,916 9,093 8,307 7.99 12.11 10.31

504 497 465 12,965 14,246 15,681 25.71 28.68 33.73

287 291 269 5,059 4,659 4,399 17.63 16.01 16.35

65 65 59 992 1,449 1,559 15.26 22.29 26.42

556 586 618 1,911 1,965 1,586 3.44 3.35 2.57

1,314 1,300 1,341 39,364 40,633 41,574 29.96 31.26 31.00

1,421 1,317 1,252 9,547 8,669 9,673 6.72 6.58 7.73

56 56 58 429 514 537 7.73 9.21 9.26

188 181 179 2,307 2,201 2,029 12.27 12.16 11.34

(continued)

Page 27 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Appendix II 

DOE Contractor Travel Costs Per Thousand

Dollars of Funding, Fiscal Years 1996-98

Contractor DOE Site

Westinghouse Electric Company Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

West Valley Nuclear Services, Inc. West Valley Demonstration Project

Totals

Average

Page 28 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Appendix II 

DOE Contractor Travel Costs Per Thousand

Dollars of Funding, Fiscal Years 1996-98

Funding in millions Travel Costs in thousands Travel cost per $1000 funding

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY96 FY97 FY98

76 93 88 1,520 1,342 1,850 19.92 14.37 21.09

123 120 126 526 696 937 4.28 5.80 7.44

$13,704 $13,550 $13,594 $222,571 $240,513 $249,010

16.24 17.75 18.32

Note: The table includes subcontractor travel reported to GAO.

Page 29 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Appendix III 

Living Allowances Currently Provided by

Various DOE Contractors for Employees on

Assignment in Washington, D.C., Area

Contractor DOE site

Assignments of 1 year or

less

Assignments greater than

1 year Permanent assignments

Lockheed Martin Energy

Systems, Inc.

Oak Ridge •55% of current federal

travel regulations per diem

rate 

•Additional 10% of base

pay field premium 

•Additional 10% of base

pay location allowance

•100% of current federal

travel regulations rate

•Additional 10% of base

pay field premium 

•Additional 10% of base

pay location allowance

•25% of base pay cost of

living differential 

Sandia Corporation Sandia National

Laboratories

•55% of current federal

travel regulations per diem

rate 

•10% of base pay

assignment allowance

•100% of current federal

travel regulations rate 

•10% of base pay

assignment allowance

•$1,000 miscellaneous

allowance

•15%-18% of base pay

living differential (declining

to zero after 5 years)

•$1,000 miscellaneous

allowance

University of 

California

Los Alamos

National Laboratory

•55% of current federal

travel regulations per diem

rate

•80% of current federal

housing allowance 

•40% “plus-up” of housing

allowance to cover

additional tax liabilities

•None

University of 

California

Lawrence

Livermore National

Laboratory

•55% of current federal

travel regulations rate for

stays of 1 to 6 months

•Actual and reasonable

costs for stays of 6 to 12

months 

•$1,000 miscellaneous

allowance

•Actual and reasonable

costs, plus an additional

allowance to cover

additional tax liabilities

•$1,000 miscellaneous

allowance

•$1,000 miscellaneous

allowance

Battelle Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory

•60%-85% of federal travel

regulations lodging rate

•60%-85% of federal travel

regulations lodging rate

•20% of base salary cost of

living adjustment (declining

to zero after 5 years)

Page 30 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 31 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 32 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Energy

(141222) Page 33 GAO/RCED-99-107 DOE Management
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100